We Want More

Last Friday evening (September 21), a number of Indians viewed the unfamiliar sight of their Prime Minister addressing them live on television. Yes them, directly. Some of them would have surely tuned in by choice, but others were caught by surprise as they flipped through channels at prime time.

Among the several things inexplicable about the largest democracy in the world is that its elected leaders, even the most popular ones, barely feel the need to converse with their constituents. The only predictable time that our Prime Minister talks to us every year is at 7 am on Independence Day. The people of India deserve better, don’t you think?

The ideal of a representative democracy is based on the notion that the elected representatives interpret and act on the expressed (and often unexpressed) needs of the society. There is an implicit bond of trust between the representative and the citizens, one which needs to be re-affirmed every once a while, especially when big decisions loom on the horizon.

Worldwide, the most popular public leaders are often the ones who talk to their constituents regularly, even weekly. In a long established tradition at the Whitehouse, US President Barack Obama releases weekly video recorded messages to the nation. President Obama has given out 169 such messages since he assumed office, each lasting for an average of four-and-half minutes, and adding up to a staggering 12 hours 19 minutes till date. The US President also gives a customary annual State of the Union speech at primetime, when a large chunk of the nation makes a point to tune in.

In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been in office since 2002, gives a radio address to New Yorkers every Sunday morning talking about the most pressing issue facing the city, and sometimes their country, in simple and frank words. All of these addresses are recorded and made available on the Mayor’s website, so are the numerous press statements and videos of press briefings the Mayor holds every week. New Yorkers are rarely in doubt what their Mayor is thinking at any point in time.

In contrast, Friday’s speech by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was an unprecedented effort by him to reach out directly to the nation after weeks if not months of cries from several quarters for him to speak up, not just on the recent big ticket policy decisions, but also on the corruption scams that have hit the news headlines nationally and globally. Until Friday, the PM relied on parliamentary speeches, infrequent press briefings, and written statements released on PMO’s website to get his message across to the people of India.

Friday’s speech was televised and webcast live by Doordarshan, and–for a first time for PMO–complimented by live tweeting, and a live Youtube feed that Google officials helped arrange. The speech was delivered at 8 pm, which meant that you didn’t have to put an alarm clock to listen to the PM this time. On the flip side, the exact time was revealed only around mid-afternoon via twitter.

The most popular global presentation forum, TED, gives twenty minutes to each of their presenters to talk about one big idea. At twelve-and-half minutes, the PM’s speech was a little too short to explain the rationale behind two big policy decisions taken last week that cracked up the UPA coalition and made the government run for cover: rise in prices of diesel and LPG, and opening up FDI in retail.

The PM made some very pertinent points linking both these issues to India’s macroeconomic condition, frequently using numbers to explain the need to reign in fiscal deficit, and to push back on declining economic growth. Interesting, but for most Indians in front of their TV sets, largely academic. They wanted to know how would FDI in retail affect them, how true was Mamatadi in claiming that these policies will hurt the poor? Alas, the PM’s explanations here lacked the same degree of punch. He claimed that FDI in retail will lead to more jobs, drive down wastage, and offer better prices to farmers and consumers. But stripped off any evidence or convincing arguments, these statements came across as mere claims, as unsubstantiated as those that UPA’s opponents are making.

Nevertheless, the PM’s message was cogent and well-articulated. It should be welcomed by everybody whose business does not involve trashing UPA 2 for every step it takes. The last year has been filled with acrimonious shouting contests, stalled parliaments, and a deluge of flawed or unsubstantiated arguments. The PM’s address was the first attempt to move the debate in a different direction.

For Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, this was a rare occasion when he took advantage of the bully pulpit that only being the head of a nation offers. As a widely admired public intellectual and the architect of the 1990s economic reforms, the ongoing policy debates are issues that the PM can and should lead the conversation on. In doing so, he might not only help reverse the tide of UPA’s declining popularity, but also make India a better representative democracy.