Why The Congress Party is Pro Big Government

Back in 2009, just before the general elections, I had advisedĀ people to vote for the NDA. My argument there was that irrespective of the relative merits and demerits of the parties leading the two coalitions, the BJP was a more likely candidate to lead a reformist government for it was not the incumbent. Incumbent governments tend to get cozy with unelected people who are in power (for example, leaders of PSUs, unions, civil servants, etc.) because of which they are loathe to take up policies that cut the power of such people. In other words, they are loathe to take up reformist steps that decrease the size of government.

The same argument can be extended to argue why the Congress is inherently a pro-government party. The fact of the matter is that it is the party that has been in power at the Union government for most of our history. This means that a large part of the unelected government organization has its loyalties with the party. Consequently, the party too sees itself as being loyal to this cadre, and will not pursue policies that cut down their power.

This explains why the Congress-led UPA1 government decided to reverse the earlier NDA government’s decision to repeal the Essential Commodities Act. It explains why the Congress-led UPA1 government did not pursue the reforms in the APMC act that had been set in motion by the earlier NDA government. This also explains why the Congress-led UPA2 government is trying to push through the Food Security Bill, which seeks to increase the role of the government in the agricultural supply chain.

The reforms that the UPA governments have been trying to pursue are those that do not significantly impact its unelected-government-organization constituency. Foreign investment in retail, for example, will only affect the retail industry, and the government doesn’t have much skin in the game there. The Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement again doesn’t trample on government feet. Conversely, nuclear energy is a field where a compelling argument can be made in favour of a government monopoly, so that agreement will only increase government participation in the energy sector (note that I’m not against the deal. I’m only trying to explain why it is acceptable reform for the Congress). The MGNREGA again brings in several thousand more people into the government folds. The only exception in the list of UPA-led reforms that might challenge big government is the Right to Information, but that act was passed in the infancy of the UPA1 government when it was much more beholden to the National Advisory Council (NAC) than it is today.

So what explains 1991? Two things. Firstly, it was a whole bunch of low hanging fruit. Though government was reduced, the resulting incremental growth increased the size of the pie so much that the proportion of the enhanced pie that the unelected-government-organization had access to was enhanced. So from a rational tradeoff perspective, it was the right thing to do. Secondly, and more importantly, the reforms were inevitable. The Indian economy was in such bad shape that there was no way out but to do those reforms. So holding up 1991 as proof of the Congress Party’s reformist credentials is wrong.

But what is the guarantee that a non-Congress government will pursue reforms that could reduce the size of the government? They fully recognize the fact that large parts of the unelected-government-organization cadre are beholden to the Congress party, and they will want to cut this constituency down to size. Hence, they will work towards reforms that will reduce the size of government. Yes, there is no guarantee that they will not open up other fronts that will increase the government’s footprint, but they are unlikely to do worse than a government involving the Congress.

An Illiberal Society

Every few months or so a bunch of (mostly) Bangalore-based liberals go up in massive outrage all over the interwebs. On each occasion, the trigger for this would have been a bunch of cops raiding some bar, and imposing a new set of rules. The last time this happened, it was about cops randomly checking black-skinned people for drug possession and pushing, leading to pubs banning blacks from entering, altogether. This time, cops have instructed that pubs not play “loud, western music” and banned live music from pubs.

Already, pubs and even restaurants in Bangalore have to close by 11 pm and there is no dancing allowed (again because “dance bars” are banned). A bunch of pub-goers hanging outside a few minutes after 11 is an open invitation for the cops to enter the pub and try collect some hafta. The problems are plenty, but the biggest problem is that there is no political solution in sight.

The problem here is that however vocal and loud the liberals may be, they still don’t make up enough numbers in terms of the city’s population to make a difference. The fact of the matter is that the large majority of the city’s population (even if one were to consider only the middle classes into account) is either not bothered about these pub rules, or actually supports the new rules that the police make from time to time.

Firstly, it is not possible in order to have different rules for different kinds of pubs. So whatever rules govern say Fuga need to also govern South End Bar at the end of my road. Secondly, a large number of pubs are in residential areas, and for good reason – you do not want to go too far when you need a drink. There is some difference in terms of licenses between wine shops and bars (the former can’t “serve” liquor) but most wine shops double up as “standing bars” anyway. Hence, it is likely that you’ll have a bunch of drunks patrolling the residential streets late every night.

Thirdly, and most importantly (though I’d like the “police reforms” specialists at Takshashila to weigh in), the police force in the city is massively understaffed and underpaid. It’s not possible for our cops to make sure that despite the presence of walking drunkards, the streets are going to be safe. It will take a massive political effort in order to change this. Hence, given that it is not really possible for the cops to police the streets effectively, they resort to signaling.

By forcing all bars to shut down at a certain time, they signal to the population that they get things under control every evening, and there wouldn’t be much nuisance. The rules regarding dancing are an attempt by the police to somehow extract money out of pubs, since dance bars are officially banned (I don’t know why), and they can use the same set of rules to harass the discotheques. Loud music is again to gain credence among neighbours (remember that most pubs are in residential areas) that they’re doing something about the “menace”. The ban on “loud western music” is inexplicable.

This police harassment of bars is not a standalone problem, it’s part of a bigger problem in terms of police reforms. As a stand alone problem, though, given the small proportion of people it affects, I don’t foresee a good solution. What needs to be done is to aggregate all stakeholders who are affected by this – regular pub/discgoers, pub owners (very important), liquor companies, people selling cigarettes and bondas late in the night, and collectively lobby for change in regulation. It’s not going to be an easy battle, considering that a large proportion of the city’s population is conservative, and will be up in arms against any change in rules. It won’t be an easy task either, since liberal but lazy parties like me (who prefer to get wasted at home) will also not lend support.