End The Drift
Decision-making isn't a synonym for governance. Even so, it's a good pointer to a ruling dispensation's ability to be on its toes. On that score, data shows UPA-II fared badly in 2010.
The cabinet's record on number of decisions taken in 2010 compared to earlier was below par. Between 2005-08 during the Congress-led coalition's first tenure, the cabinet took an average of 242.5 decisions yearly.
The annual average since 2005 is 183. In 2010, however, the cabinet managed consensus on just 112 decisions, the lowest single-year figure since the UPA came to power.
Amazingly, decision-making actually decelerated post-2009, when the Left was no longer around to ambush it!
This can't but buttress public perceptions of a drift at the top. Some say coalition constraints have been hobbling governance, a view recently aired by Congress apologist Rahul Gandhi.
Others claim governments tend to take it easy in the initial phase of their tenures. Still others point to 2010's string of scams and food price crisis, thanks to which the UPA is down but not necessarily out. If there's some truth in all of this, none of it excuses policy paralysis.
Power-sharing can't be a fig leaf for blockaded governance. In the saddle since 2004, UPA-II surely didn't need time to limber up, more so given 2009's enhanced electoral mandate.
The fact is, the UPA needs to muster far greater resolve to tackle its current challenges. It's yet to nail graft in high places. Nor has spiralling food inflation been checked. If anything, Sharad Pawar has turned out to be the Shivraj Patil of the agriculture ministry.
His breathtaking statement that he monitors supply of only certain categories of farm produce and not others is of a piece with his habit of buck-passing. But the UPA as a whole can't dodge flak either.
Consider recent prime minister-led consultations taking an 'overview' on food prices. They came up with little more than stale thinking on ad h! oc 'solu tions' like export bans and crackdowns on hoarders. Nowhere is there a strong official commitment on agriculture's reform, to tackle the problem at the root.
Overall, the Manmohan Singh-led regime hasn't delivered as expected on reforms, be it tax rationalisation, financial sector or retail liberalisation, labour reform, the rural sector's modernisation or land acquisition revamp to push rapid industrialisation and infrastructure-building.
Instead, the UPA has increasingly seemed a house divided, with no clear centre of authority. Pulling in different directions, its predicament owes in large part to the spurious distinction between 'government' and 'party' the Congress has tried to erect.
All of this has given a handle to the BJP-led opposition to indulge in its own brand of obstructionism, impacting lawmaking. It's time both sides bucked up. The nation doesn't deserve a political rut. Nor can it afford it.
The cabinet's record on number of decisions taken in 2010 compared to earlier was below par. Between 2005-08 during the Congress-led coalition's first tenure, the cabinet took an average of 242.5 decisions yearly.
The annual average since 2005 is 183. In 2010, however, the cabinet managed consensus on just 112 decisions, the lowest single-year figure since the UPA came to power.
Amazingly, decision-making actually decelerated post-2009, when the Left was no longer around to ambush it!
This can't but buttress public perceptions of a drift at the top. Some say coalition constraints have been hobbling governance, a view recently aired by Congress apologist Rahul Gandhi.
Others claim governments tend to take it easy in the initial phase of their tenures. Still others point to 2010's string of scams and food price crisis, thanks to which the UPA is down but not necessarily out. If there's some truth in all of this, none of it excuses policy paralysis.
Power-sharing can't be a fig leaf for blockaded governance. In the saddle since 2004, UPA-II surely didn't need time to limber up, more so given 2009's enhanced electoral mandate.
The fact is, the UPA needs to muster far greater resolve to tackle its current challenges. It's yet to nail graft in high places. Nor has spiralling food inflation been checked. If anything, Sharad Pawar has turned out to be the Shivraj Patil of the agriculture ministry.
His breathtaking statement that he monitors supply of only certain categories of farm produce and not others is of a piece with his habit of buck-passing. But the UPA as a whole can't dodge flak either.
Consider recent prime minister-led consultations taking an 'overview' on food prices. They came up with little more than stale thinking on ad h! oc 'solu tions' like export bans and crackdowns on hoarders. Nowhere is there a strong official commitment on agriculture's reform, to tackle the problem at the root.
Overall, the Manmohan Singh-led regime hasn't delivered as expected on reforms, be it tax rationalisation, financial sector or retail liberalisation, labour reform, the rural sector's modernisation or land acquisition revamp to push rapid industrialisation and infrastructure-building.
Instead, the UPA has increasingly seemed a house divided, with no clear centre of authority. Pulling in different directions, its predicament owes in large part to the spurious distinction between 'government' and 'party' the Congress has tried to erect.
All of this has given a handle to the BJP-led opposition to indulge in its own brand of obstructionism, impacting lawmaking. It's time both sides bucked up. The nation doesn't deserve a political rut. Nor can it afford it.
Comments