T N Ninan: Relentless posturing

The election manifesto of CPI(M) shows little thought

A new CPI(M) website was launched on Wednesday, a couple of days after the party’s election manifesto was released. The manifesto is notable in that it does not promise outcomes (what rate of growth, how much increased equality, what level of reduction in unemployment, etc), but makes a list of random observations without any coherent framework: give the states more rights, protect the public sector, offer everyone guaranteed employment, etc.

Many of the party’s assertions are highly questionable. One of its initial statements is that, in the 60 years since Independence, “the vast majority has sunk further and further into poverty and hunger”. The fact of course is that the percentage of people below the poverty line has more than halved since the number began to get tracked 40 years ago—not enough, to be sure, but not what the party asserts. The manifesto then asserts that “neo-liberal economic policies have resulted in distorted growth accompanied by agrarian crisis, rising prices…”, forgetting that agricultural growth has increased sharply in the last four years, and that the inflation rate has been much lower than in the days before “neo-liberalism”.

It excoriates the Manmohan Singh government for “undermining our independent foreign policy” and signing the “unequal” Indo-US nuclear deal. Even at this stage, the party is unwilling to accept that India has pulled off a deal that no US president other than George W Bush would have allowed, and thus paved the way for nuclear commerce with countries the party approves of, like Russia and France.

“The public distribution system has been enfeebled,” says the manifesto, at a time when the food subsidy has been at record levels. The prices of aviation fuel have been dropped 11 times, while petrol and diesel have been dropped only twice, it complains. Well, since ATF prices are freely determined in the market, and not by the government, why doesn’t the party advocate similar market pricing for petrol and diesel?

The party says the public sector bears all the costs in public-private partnerships while the private partner reaps all the profits—which I suppose is one way to look at viability gap funding. But someone should point out that the privatised Delhi airport gives the government 46 per cent of all revenue up front, and its profit after costs is divided among all shareholders, including the Airports Authority.

Accusing the Centre of not helping states, the party says the debts of states were not substantially reduced, nor the share of states in the divisible pool of taxes enhanced. The party has forgotten that debt relief was given to states in 2003, and the new revenue-sharing formula was blessed by West Bengal’s CPI(M)-affiliated finance minister. Many states have been enjoying a revenue surplus, which is a dramatic turnaround. And, perish the thought, the party cannot be expected to admit that the increase in tax revenue (in absolute terms and in relation to GDP) is a result of the rapid economic growth rate which the party debunks for not having helped the poor (so where did the funds for the employment guarantee and all the subsidies come from?).

As for what the party will do if elected, the list of promises is what you would expect. But in making rash promises (double Plan investment, scrap the fiscal responsibility law and allow the states to borrow more), the party presents the standard formula: tax (capital gains, wealth, inheritance, etc) and spend. In promising mountains of deficit financing, there is not a word on the implications for national debt management and the country’s credit rating, or on the effectiveness of such spending. From the third largest party in the Lok Sabha, this is a document that shows little thought, devoted to endless posturing so that it does not have to offer serious solutions.