By Alok Kumar
The bugle for the elections has been sounded with the announcement of the five-phase polls in April-May, thus heralding the greatest celebration of democracy anywhere in the world. The spin-masters in the political parties are working overtime to devise slogans that resonate with the electorate. The debunking of the “India Shining” slogan in the 2004 Lok Sabha Elections is a lesson that will hopefully not be forgotten in a hurry. The global financial meltdown and the consequential recession are not really helping matters. Reformist pretensions of containing fiscal deficits are being shed and the conventional wisdom of huge economic stimulus packages is back in fashion. With reports of 5 million workers rendered unemployed in the wake of the financial tsunami and gloomy GDP growth rates numbers forecast for the Q3 of 2008-09, it is time for a reality check. Though inflation is under check after reaching alarming proportions last year, the overall negative sentiment prevailing has persuaded political think tanks to go back to the drawing board. It would be interesting to see how the economic debate in the ensuing elections will play out, but it certainly worth examining how the trends have played out in the last few years.
Not so far back in time, the Government was sitting pretty with claims of being the second fastest growing economy in the world, clocking up average growth rates of 8-8.5% per annum in the last 5 years. Suddenly, India was the flavour of the season and it became fashionable to talk of the “Dancing Elephant” in the same breath as the other spectacular success story (the Dragon). India’s place at the high table of the global financial order was taken as par for the course and claims to economic super-power-hood did not seem very far-fetched. Data was cited to show a steady increase in consumption as measured by the Real Average Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE). Evidence of reduction in the headcount ratio – those surviving below the Poverty Line [income levels less than $1 (PPP) per day] – was bandied about. It was claimed that the same is decreasing at a rate of 1% per annum. The rise in numbers of the middle class with disposable incomes spawning a consumerist boom - prompted claims of emerging India.
However, a closer scrutiny of the distributional aspect of this growth reveals a depressing reality. At 267 million [2005], the number of poor remains unacceptably large. If one also includes the fact that of the remaining population, 190 million earn between $1 and $1.25 a day and a further 170 million earn between $1.25 and $1.35 a day, it would be clear that a large number of people - 55% to be precise - cannot afford a life of dignity. The increases in per capita income (currently about $950) largely reflect the income growths of the top quintile of the population. In fact, the data on changes in per capita expenditures reveal that the increase (between 1993 & 2004) in case of top quintile (richest 20% of the population) was 2.03% per annum against 0.85% for bottom quintile. The stark inequalities are difficult to ignore and the spate of Oscars for the “Slumdog Millionaire” is a grim reminder of the squalor of poverty that abounds amidst a shining India. India is only next to Russia in the number of billionaires as a proportion of the GDP. The Forbes 2008 list boasted of 53 Indians in the Billionaire club with a combined wealth of $341 billion - equivalent to 34% of the GDP of the country and at a modest rate of return of 10%, they command close to 3.4% of the national wealth of the country. In comparision, the 42 billionaires in China command only 1.4% of the country’s GDP.  Admittedly, the meltdown in the financial markets has eroded the wealth of these individuals to $107 billion [Forbes 2009]. Further, it is also true that assessing wealth of individuals using stock valuation may not be the best measure and leaves a lot to be desired, but it does reveal a rough measure of the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals. It could arguably be said that a few billionaires could possibly raise the mean income; without affecting the vast majority of poor.  Non-transparent financing of elections by the big business houses is hardly a secret and repeated attempts at electoral reforms in this regard have not resulted in a major breakthrough, as yet. A recent study has shown that an overwhelming proportion (66%) of the billionaires is in “rent–thick” sectors, where the nexus between politics and business is mutually beneficial. The Satyam saga is a pointer to the fact that the rot may be even deeper – since the IT sector was not really perceived to be classified under the afore-mentioned category. The symbiotic relationship between politics & big business has worried commentators enough to contemplate the possibility of an oligarchic state in India. Where does this leave the “Aam Admi” – the so called median voter? From our high school mathematics, it would be recalled that the median voter would be that voter who would divide the population exactly into two halves (one half having income greater and the other having an income lower than the median voter). A slew of schemes have been launched in the name of the common man, but have they been effective? The farm loan waiver has been criticised as benefiting the rich farmers more than the small and marginal ones - because the latter category was largely excluded from the access to credit from the Government Financial Institutions and therefore relied more on private sources of credit. Schemes such as NREGP, RKVY & NRHM have been designed to reach exactly the median voter – “Aam Admi” - but in the absence of reforms in the delivery mechanism, it is not certain as to what proportion of intended benefits is reaching the median voter. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission has submitted 11 reports so far, but any change in the Governance Structure still remains a commitment unfulfilled. In fact, some commentators have gone so far as to suggest that there is hardly any will and consensus  in the establishment to strengthen the weak state apparatus, as they would like to remain the custodians and guardians of the voter’s access to the services provided by the state.  A beholden citizen can thus be exploited as a vote bank. The recent return to power of incumbent governments in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh & Delhi was seen as the citizens’ vote for good governance.  I wish I could characterise it so, but I am not so sanguine. In Rajasthan, with an excellent record of implementation of NREGA entailing huge transfers of money to the rural labour with a reasonable degree of process integrity ensured by the activist groups, this was not sufficient to ensure reelection to the incumbent Government.
So, it is difficult to predict the totality of factors that shall be impacting the decision to be taken by the voter in the coming elections. Whether he is swayed by cold rationality of economics and governance or he is swayed by political arithmetic or he is persuaded by calculations of multiple identities - caste, creed, or regional; but one thing can be taken as a given for all political parties. And that is that they can ill-afford to ignore the needs of the median voter.  If their slogan and agenda fail to enthuse him (her), they are not likely to be given the mandate of governing the country for the next five years. The moral of the story - with due apologies to John Allen Paulos - “It’s Mean to Ignore the Median”  
(The writer is an IAS officer and presently posted at LBS Academy, Mussoorie)