:: Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

In defence of populism

By Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

Mar 29 : It is a bit of a mystery as to why the term "populism" is almost invariably used in a derogatory manner in the context of India’s political economy. Every politician worth his or her salt wants to become popular — that’s inevitable if a person is in politics in the first place. Is not the desire to initiate or implement policies that would make an individual or a particular political party obtain the support of an increasingly larger section of the public what politics is supposed to be all about? Populism is not the same as making promises, especially promises of the tall variety that are made before elections and are not meant to be taken seriously.

Towards the end of the 19th century in the United States, a party known as the Populist Party was formed, originally made up of African-American as well as white farmers from the mid-West and southern areas of the US. The party’s members came together to agitate against falling prices of farm produce. They adopted the name from a similar party based in Kansas and aimed at attracting to their fold industrial workers, tenant farmers and small landowners.

The Populist Party sought to differentiate itself from the two dominant parties — the Republican and the Democratic Party — and by and large favoured peaceful and democratic reform. More than 40 members of the party served in the US Congress between 1891 and 1902. By the time America came out of the depression of the 1890s, the Populist Party had faded away. However, a part of its legacy survived.

The term populism became an integral part of political parlance in America and elsewhere. The dictionary defines the word as "any of various, often anti-establishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than traditional party or partisan ideologies". The term populism is further defined as forms of "grassroots democracy", "working-class activism" and "egalitarianism". Further, populism means "representation" or the act of extolling the aspirations of the proverbial common person, the working class, the underprivileged or the poor.

If these indeed are the etymological roots of the word populism, then why does the term have such a negative connotation? Why do so many people believe that a populist policy or idea is something that is necessarily bad because there is more than an element of exaggeration, if not downright deception, in such a policy or idea? Here’s an example from a news report that appeared on the website rediff.com on March 25, the day after the Indian National Congress released its election manifesto: "A section of economists has described the electoral promises of the Congress to provide rice and wheat at Rs 3 per kg to the poor and fix minimum daily wages under the rural job programme at Rs 100 as ‘populist’, which, if implemented, will increase food subsidy and public debt". To bolster this contention, the report quoted Rajiv Kumar, director of the Delhi-based think-tank, the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), saying: "It is clearly a populist measure and may not be feasible... such measures have always created huge fiscal gaps and have taken resources away from necessary expenditure in sectors such as (the) social infrastructure".

A question that would arise is why anyone in his right senses, including Mr Kumar, should have anything against the government providing 25 kg of rice or wheat every month at Rs 3 a kg to those living below poverty line (BPL). Currently, in most parts of the country, those holding BPL cards are supposed to be able to purchase rice or wheat at a price a bit below Rs 6 a kg from ration shops. Under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, those who undertake manual labour are supposed to be paid the official minimum daily wage that is around Rs 55-60 (or a bit higher) in most states in India.

Food subsidy schemes of the kind promised by the Congress have been in vogue in different parts of the country for decades now — from Tamil Nadu in the 1960s and Andhra Pradesh in the 1980s to Karnataka, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh in more recent years. There’s nothing new about such schemes. One could, of course, argue that such schemes have not been properly implemented and hence, became a drag on the scarce resources of the exchequer.

The day the Congress manifesto was released, the Supreme Court received a report on the functioning of the public distribution scheme (PDS) in the four states of Jharkhand, Karnataka, Orissa and Uttarakhand, that was prepared by a panel headed by Justice D.P. Wadhwa that had been set up three years ago. The report categorically stated that the PDS was "inefficient and corrupt" and that there was massive pilferage. "There is an unholy nexus between the transporters, fair-price shop owners and officials (in state government departments of food and civil supplies)", the report states, adding that after the Karnataka government announced a scheme to provide rice at Rs 3 a kg, there was a "mad rush" among people in the state to become categorised as BPL families.

Pre-election promises are not always that easy to fulfil. No one knows this better than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. In his first press conference as finance minister in P.V. Narasimha Rao’s government in June 1991, he expressed scepticism about the government’s ability to "roll back" prices of essential commodities that had been promised in the Congress manifesto drafted under the tutelage of Rajiv Gandhi. Dr Singh demurred before saying it may not be possible to bring down prices. Immediately thereafter, many in the Congress were up in arms against him for his candid confession. The party mouthpiece, the National Herald, wrote a stinging editorial against his statement that was widely quoted in the international press. Dr Singh had to quickly eat his words. The politician in him triumphed over the economist.

He, like all politicians before and after him, quickly realised the importance of populism.

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta is an educator and commentator based in New Delhi