Why Thatcher is no Sonia
Margaret Thatcher died of a stroke, we were told earlier today. Depending on which side you’re on, she either was a great leader or a witch.
But she certainly was not Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party in India, and one of the most powerful women in the world according to Time magazine. Why? Because she did not have a ‘respectful’ media that was afraid of questioning her.
Indian media today is about around 100 channels and papers. It is an important voice, and is largely free. But leaving aside a few papers and magazines, it is also largely unquestioning of the actions of the Gandhi family, and of its distant leader Sonia Gandhi.
Gandhi wields power through her obedient prime minister Manmohan Singh. At one time he was a respected harbinger of economic reforms that saved India from going bankrupt in 1991, and also ushered in a series of high-growth years. In his stint as prime minister however, he has shied from the reforms that Indian economy needs - giving more impetus to the private sector, making it easier for foreign companies to do business, getting the government out of loss-making ventures that have bled for years, allow foreign investment in retail to improve the leaky and inefficient supply chains. He has done very little of any. Last year, after being in charge for close to a decade, with rating agencies like Fitch and Standard and Poor’s threatening to cut India’s credit rating to junk, Singh replaced the finance minister and the government allowed foreign investment in some areas.
This was too little, too late. And the reason was that Sonia Gandhi favors pro-poor socialist policies and pushes the government to announce programs that are a drain on treasury, and another avenue for the famously corrupt Indian bureaucracy to make money. Take for example the recent Food Security Bill that proposes to provide foodgrains at affordable rates for the millions of rural poor. That is a laudable goal -except that the economy grew slow, and the government doesn’t have enough revenue to support that huge expenditure without falling into a spiral of high fiscal deficits, and low growth.
So why don’t Indian journalists question Gandhi after her powerplay from behind the scenes has resulted in the government adopting one populist measure after the other that has made India the worst performer among all BRIC nations? The British media in comparison questioned Thatcher and her policies throughout her term, during which she came to be called ‘Iron Lady’. There were papers and magazines that to this day maintain that her policies crushed the middle class, despite evidence that the same policies also resulted in revitalizing a decaying British industrial economy.
Indian papers in contrast hardly write anything against Sonia Gandhi, directing all criticism instead at the hapless Singh who by now is surely one of the most reviled figures in India. Given the low levels of education in the country, much of the debate online is not very well-informed. To believe that Manmohan Singh is the sole architect of India’s declining economy would be a mistake - even after considering that he should have stood up to Gandhi. The truth is that the prime minister today is a member of the Congress Party, which is in the firm grip of Gandhi. She has taken to heart the policies in the 70s adopted by Indira Gandhi, her mother-in-law, who successfully contested elections after promising to eradicate poverty through socialist policies and as expected, failed to do that. Gandhi does not see the last part - she just believes populist policies are the only way to win an election and imposes these choices on the cabinet of ministers, who obey.
One person I talked to said reporters were afraid of questioning Gandhi because the government, led by the Congress party, will stop inviting them to events and conferences. This might happen, but that is surely no reason to comply with what she wants. Editors are wary of allowing anything negative to get out.
Sonia’s political moves should also be questioned. Her son Rahul, who she has pushed to be the head of the party after she retires, has been an uneasy politician, losing elections he has been involved in. There is little chance he will do better in national elections scheduled for 2014, particuarly against a likely opponent in Narendra Modi, the popular right-wing politician from rival Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Sonia’s power over the government comes from the fact that the Congress was drifting after Narasimha Rao’s government (1991-96). The government went ahead with bold economic reforms under Rao (Singh was his finance minister, plucked out of a top bureaucratic role) but was rife with infighting. The only person everyone in the party was willing to obey was someone from the Gandhi family. Sonia had distanced herself from politics and Rao never consulted her at all, as veteran journalist Vinod Mehta mentioned in his autobiography. But Rao fell soon after, as leaders fought for control of the party. Sonia joined politics and became leader of the party. The infighting ceased.
This power to be the glue which keeps the party together is a sign of how Indians are willing to believe in family legacies than qualifications. Her husband, Rajiv Gandhi, was the prime minister after her mother-in-law, Indira, was shot dead. Indira’s father, Jawaharlal Nehru, was independent India’s first prime minister.
The media accepted Sonia’s ascent to the post and has since remained sort of in awe. Thatcher would have loved this media. They hardly ask her uncomfortable questions. Surely, her failure to develop a young party leadership and install her son demands questioning - it was clearly a move akin to a family installing a heir and not at all healthy for a democracy. Her failure to have elections within the party is another point she should explain. What about the blatant tolerance of corrupt political leaders in the party against whom cases have been filed?
Gandhi is clearly no Thatcher, in either the latter’s political standing or ability to take tough decisions in the face of unpopularity. Gandhi has just gone ahead and done what the rural, uneducated masses want - by giving them everything - from food to jobs - for free. And to bolster her popularity within the party, corruption has been made a non-issue, by basically saying you can be corrupt and uneducated and still be a leader as long as you win.
A large credit for her success then goes to the media, which has not just failed to highlight her party’s disastrous economic policies, but has been quiet, rather irreponsibly. This undue deference has given her a free run to push for more populist policies at the cost of India’s development and by not taking action against corruption, helped India plummet down the rankings among the most corrupt countries in the world.
