NEWS INTERVIEW SPECIALS CHAT ARCHIVES
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (the 1994 edition, if you really want to know) describes the word 'consensus' as 'general agreement or concord; harmony'. It then gives the second meaning as 'majority of opinion'.
Consensus is a word our prime minister (it's Inder Kumar 'Ike' Gujral this semester, in case you had lost track) has been using at every forum. Consensus this, consensus that. What he wants to convey is the Webster's first meaning: a general agreement and, consequently, a harmony that will allow his government to function one more day. Unfortunately, it is a 'general agreement' only among the politicians that comprise the myriad (at last count it was 12; let me know if I have left out any) parties that form the United Front government, plus the Congress.
(I think Gujral will find that 'general agreement' -- even unanimity -- will be easiest when the members of Parliament are asked to vote on a Bill increasing their emoluments, or giving them more perquisites and retirement benefits. Most other issues will get bogged down in the excoriation of 'general disagreement'. But that is a facet of Indian politics we just have to live with today, I think.)
We have proved to ourselves and the world in no uncertain terms that what our politicians want for us is usually not what we want for ourselves. In other words, the run-of-the-mill, garden variety Indian politician does not really represent the people who voted for him. He is in the game only for what he can get for himself in the short time he is normally allowed to spend lording it over the corridors of power.
So consensus in that sense -- as a meeting of minds among politicians -- is really a misnomer.
There is, however, one politician in our firmament who could teach us a thing or two about consensus, about its second meaning, the majority of opinion bit -- without going around town tomtomming it. Yes, we are talking about Finance-Minister-once-again-thank-god Palaniappan Chidambaram.
The man is amazing. Not three days in the saddle once again, and he is back on the front pages of every newspaper in the country, and a lot of them in other countries as well. His Cabinet colleagues have been heard to complain that Chidambaram hogs all the headlines, leaving little room for their own pronouncements. That he accepts each and every public speaking engagement. That he is a publicity hound.
I hope that is true. For it is only a publicity hound like Chidambaram that will reveal all that is on his mind and on his agenda, before he actually puts it into practice. This leaves room for a lot of national debate on each and every issue before it is translated into law. It invites all manner of analysis and criticism. It leaves the door open for -- in the worst case scenario -- dumping the project altogether with minimal loss of face.
Most important, it makes for a true national consensus on every issue, not just the consensus of a coterie of self-seeking politicians. As Tylor said, consensus is nothing really but public opinion, or words to that effect. And it is truly refreshing to find a politician who actually approaches his employers (the people, us) for approval on projects he wants to undertake.
So in three days, Chidambaram kicks off debates on:
One thing you have to give the man. The minute he is let off the leash, he wants to start reforming! But not blindly. He wants a debate on every single thing -- if not among the MPs, then among the public.
One great advantage to this modus operandi is that it is not the common person like you and me who will sit down and analyse the implications of the trial balloons that Chidambaram floats, it is the economic thinker, the pundit. In most cases, the people will be more swayed by what an impartial expert has to say on a subject than what the politician does. The message is clear: we do not, anymore, trust our politicians to do what is right for us.
Chidambaram seems to have realised that and taken the public debate route to reform. And he is using it to full advantage. Not only is he being viewed as a refreshingly different politician, but also one who has the country's good at heart. Neat, isn't it?
Offhand I can think of no other politician who has used the route of public debate effectively. Not unless you describe the governor of the Reserve Bank of India and the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board of India as politicians -- they are, after all, political appointees, aren't they?
Yes, both RBI Governor C Rangarajan and SEBI Chairman Devendra Raj Mehta have, whenever possible, gone public before announcing earth- or at least market-shaking measures. And the result has usually been a debate that has ensured ultimate public approval.
In Chidambaram's case, it is also a case of ensuring that, by seeking public approval of every step taken, he becomes the most sought-after politician in the country. Sought after by the voters and, consequently, by all the political parties. Be that as it may. I have no quarrel with that. In fact, it is only by pleasing you employers that you get ahead in your chosen career, isn't it.
And Chidambaram seems to be the only one in the current crop of politicians who truly believes that his employers are the people.
