Delhi, India
In India, prime ministers (PM) have always been more than just primus inter pares (first among equals). The most effective among them have personified the combination of three main roles â as a public figure of mass appeal, as one who is not merely a leader of the ruling party in the Parliament, but one having considerable influence on it and as the head of the government.
Each of these three roles influences the other two. Despite differences in personality and style of functioning, as between Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, AB Vajpayee and Narendra Modi, the success of the prime minister has depended to a large extent, on oneâs ability to balance these functions.
Hopes and aspirations of multitudes of people have to be raised by the nationâs most important functionary in such a way as can be substantially met by him as the head of the government.
Herein lies the problem. Our best PMs have all been tall in stature, but their performance records, almost inevitably, have been mixed and short of expectations.
There are a few reasons for this. Whenever a government takes charge, the hype attached to the electoral process creates an impression, aided by the media, that things would start changing big time.
Nothing revolutionary happens for the simple reason that government is a continuum, that the elected leaders have to work with the same instrumentalities of the state, and that the freedom to make new capital investments is often rather limited.
In a short time, the executive arm will get to grapple with the serious business of governance, where the PMâs stewardship can make a major difference initiating paradigmatic changes, as happened during the nationâs short tryst with capitalistic ideas from the early nineties.
As one symbolising public hope, the PM has to constantly interact directly with the people, and frequently so, explaining what is expected to be achieved in the next five years, admitting failures and errors in judgement and specifying how the problems are sought to be overcome.
During the early election years after independence, Nehru converted every public meeting to an exercise in adult education, explaining to people the nationâs experiments with democracy and secularism, the need for industrialisation and large irrigation projects, among others.
Softly and persuasively, the PM has to seek public support in the nationâs resolve to fight corruption, promote communal harmony and improve relationships with neighbouring countries.
The body language should be accommodative, not combative, exuding the aura that he is the leader of the whole country, not merely of his party, which might have obtained less than 50 per cent of the votes polled, and direct endorsement from a much lesser percentage of the countryâs population.
In his second role as one having an influence over the party, the PM should seek the partyâs support in keeping a close vigil on the performance and integrity of individual ministers. Axiomatically, if the minister is honest and efficient, the higher bureaucracy always follows suit.
In cases of direct conflict between the sectarian goals of the party and the inclusive idea of the government, the PM should act as a wise mediator and gradually steer the party towards the latter.
The PM alone, by virtue of his moral authority and wide public acceptance, can reduce the areas of potential conflict between the government and the party.
Another area where he can make a difference is by way of influencing the national discourse on issues that constitute the idea of India like a pluralist democracy, a federal structure, a mixed economy and of course, tolerant secularism that embraces and respects all faiths equally.
All these ideas, when sought to be shaped by public action led by the state, invariably get modified in some way or the other. The ideals that the Father of Our Nation espoused in respect of all the above have been substantially reshaped since independence.
As the chief executive of the nation, the PM has to persuade and inspire, facilitate change and prioritise action - often in combination. As the head of government, he has to focus on legislations of significance, social and economic, that require to be urgently passed through Parliament, as for instance, on land and labour reforms and womenâs reservation issues.
On the executive front, his leadership for action is even more direct and pervasive. How to reduce poverty and income inequality, address farm distress, attract investment and enhance export to spur growth, keep inflation under control, generate employment through skill development as a movement, ensure national security, resolve the contentious NPA issue to enable banks to increase lending and how the Millennium Development Goals be achieved ahead of schedule, are among the umpteen concerns that would require his immediate attention.
Certain areas that are crying for reforms relate to augmenting the stateâs capacity to carry forward the governmentâs mandate. Civil service reforms and strengthening of institutions such as the recently-constituted Lokpal fall into this category.
In this Herculean endeavour, the PM and his ministers must take advantage of the counsel of the best minds, inside and outside the government, within the country and from abroad.
If everyone is humble enough to understand the limitations of oneâs imagination and capacity and is therefore prompted to seek advice from the knowledgeable, if only his team appreciates that electoral victory is merely the starting point of a process that requires to be carefully and pragmatically nurtured through the cooperation of all - then only will the prime minister of this complex and diverse country be able to make a lasting impress on the nationâs collective consciousness and be respected by all his countrymen as a statesman.
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article)
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)