Is health of Democracy stabilized in world?

The coming year will be full of elections. The world's most populous democracy, India, heads to the polls, and many other big emerging markets—including Indonesia, Brazil and Turkey—will elect presidents. Add to that mid-term elections in America, voting across all 28 countries of the EU for the European Parliament and many other polls, from Afghanistan to South Africa, and 2014 will see a great global exercise in democracy. Yet many people fret that, despite all this voting, democracy is in poor shape. Turnout in elections in the rich world has been dropping since the 1970s, from more than 80% to less than 70% (in the case of European Parliament elections, turnout has fallen every time since voting began in 1979, to just 43% in 2009). Voters in many countries are rejecting mainstream parties and turning to fringe groups. In America, politics too often look dysfunctional and gridlocked. Elsewhere, from Brazil to Thailand to Ukraine, people have taken to the streets in protest. Is all this evidence that representative democracy is failing to adjust to the age of the internet and social media? Or is democracy working more or less as it should, giving opportunities to citizens to express dissatisfaction with their leaders?

Is Congress speedometer at the end point?

Election phase 2004 ended, Sonia Gandhi came to power. Far from viewing liberalization as a major success, she portrayed India as tarnished, not shining, under Vajpayee. Her focus shifted from liberalization to welfarism. Bureaucrats got the signal, “Don’t liberalize more”. Thanks to earlier reforms and global buoyancy, GDP growth soared to a record 8.5%/year, but Sonia de-emphasized this.

Next came the financial crash of 2008-09 widely blamed on excessive deregulation and corporate greed. The world over, an outcry began for stiffer regulation and more controls. This had strong echoes in India too. Liberalization was seen as having gone too far, even though it was half-baked in India compared with the Asian tigers.

Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh endeavoured mightily to revitalize decision-making since late 2012. They devised the Cabinet Committee on Investment to spread the responsibility for decisions among relevant ministries, reducing risks for any one minister or bureaucrat. But though they cleared a mammoth Rs 6 lakh crore worth of projects, there is still no boom in capital goods or construction. Implementation paralysis continues because bureaucrats still find political signals mixed, and political protection inadequate.

By itself, the May election will not be a game changer. A fragile coalition won’t have enough unity of purpose to provide clear signals to the bureaucracy. Ministers in a fragile coalition may seek quick money in the short time available.

A new government with a substantial majority and clear policies is required to send bureaucrats the signal: “Fast implementation is safe, will be rewarded.” The new government must be seen focusing on economic revival, not black money: that itself will curb court activism. It must protect bureaucrats not guilty of personal gain in scams. It must promote decisive bureaucrats and sideline ditherers. That will end implementation paralysis, and revive fast growth.