It is a lie to argue that in a democracy, leaders frame policies after listening to the people. If that were the case then there would be no income tax. That is one thing nobody wants to pay! Nor for that matter would there be laws against child labour, or for minimum wages, or for public education and health. These measures first saw light in Europe and Britain not because of popular pressure or mass mobilisation.
They came into being because leaders, many of them aristocrats and business magnates, fought for them. By thinking of society as a whole - not just of the poor, or the rich - the elite in these countries actually brought about a revolution.
We, too, need an elite revolution, and rather urgently, for our democracy to work. When it comes to consumption, the Indian elite aspire to be like their European counterparts, so why not buy in as revolutionaries too? The elite alone can rise above narrow, immediate concerns and think "society". Only they can realistically set the direction of development, but they could also, quite as easily, set the clock back. The poor are too miserable to think beyond their next meal, and the middle class is obsessed by real, or imagined, threats to their status.
Yet, not any kind of elite will do. It is not the business elite, the professional elite or the political elite that is relevant here. What we need is an "elite of calling". No doubt, the "elite of calling" will be drawn from the ranks of the established elite, yet they are exceptional individuals in that they can see the big picture. They may be philanthropic, wellconnected and affluent, but that does not define them entirely.
What separates the "elite of calling" from other elites is that they force the state to deliver public services such as health care, education and energy, at quality levels, to every citizen regardless of class. They know that any programme that is aimed at only the poor is bound to fail, whether it be the Antyodaya of yesterday or the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of today. Nor would this "elite of calling" subscribe to chamber-of-commerce like recommendations that benefit only the moneyed and the privileged. Instead of advocating that wealth should "trickle down" they would rather it be "pushed up".
Nowhere do common people initiate projects of national significance. In a perfect democracy they would come in later to judge the leaders with their votes
|
Walt Whitman had once said: "Produce great men and the rest will follow." This adage has certainly passed the test of time. Here is a list of some great men, the "elite of calling", and what they did.
Earl Grey steered the Factory Act in Britain in 1833, ably helped by Michael Thomas Sadler, a big industrialist. Robert Peel, the aristocratic British Prime Minister, lost his job for he fought too hard against the Corn Laws. When he eventually saw it through, he handed much of the credit to Richard Cobden, a leading trader and businessman. Likewise, the 1837 Education Bill in Britain was presented by Henry Brougham, who was again a big landlord, and once Lord Chancellor.
The more comprehensive Elementary Education Bill of 1893 was guided by William Edward Forster, nephew of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton and brother-in-law of Mathew Arnold. Benjamin Disraeli, who had a Cabinet full of crusty aristocrats and industrialists, established the 1874 Factory Act as well as the Artisans Dwelling Act of 1875. Richard Cross, a large landowner from Lancashire, initiated the first major Bill on public health in Britain. In 1878, Disraeli's government enlarged the Factories Act and Lord Shaftesbury worked hard to see it through.
The list goes on. But what is remarkable is that none of these measures were in the immediate interest of the "elite of calling", but they believed in them for the sake of the society. As a consequence, for the longest time now, quality public health care and education are holy cows that no European government would dare sacrifice: not even under American pressure.
The elite make good revolutionaries too. Lenin's father, Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov, was a near-aristocrat with an important position in the Russian court. Angel Castro was one of the biggest sugarcane planters of Cuba who did brisk business with America. He was also Fidel's father. Mao Zedong was a middle class professional, but he was buoyed by true blue elites like Ye Jianying, Lin Biao, Nie Rongzhen and Zhou Enlai.
Therefore, whether it is the Left or the Right, it is the elite that calls the shots. But if we are convinced, as we seem to be, that democracy is the best way to get ahead, then we must take a leaf out of the European experience. We must be careful not to take the whole book, for there are many blots in the history of Europe, even Western Europe. Surely, with the gift of hindsight we can avoid them. Why should we imitate the West when we can learn from them?
The most important lesson is that it is the elite everywhere who take the lead in framing the social agenda. Nowhere do common people initiate projects of national significance. In a perfect democracy they would come in later to judge the leaders with their votes.
Take India, for instance. Nehru did not seek mass consent when he hit out at communalists, nor when he set up the mixed economy, nor, indeed, when he requested America to build India's steel mills. Did Rajiv Gandhi talk to the masses before he reformed the Panchayati Raj institutions? Did Narasimha Rao have a hot line to the people when the 1991 liberalisation programme was introduced? Incidentally, did Kalmadi or Sheila Dixit get public approval before going headlong into the Commonwealth Games?
So, if the elite decide almost everything, it is they, and not the masses, who should take the blame for a dysfunctional democracy. It is they again who can deliver our society. But, for that to happen, an "elite of calling" must emerge. How much longer must India wait for the elite revolution?
Buy the Business Today January 9 edition for more such columns by business leaders like Azim Premji and Nandan Nilekani.
