There are widespread expectations that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will effect a significant reshuffle of the Union Cabinet before the winter session of Parliament begins next week. The speculation about the nature of the changes and the ministers who will be impacted has intensified in the wake of the electoral outcome in Bihar. Taking into account the political messages that emerged from that outcome, there are likely to be three sets of factors that will influence the decisions. First, the prime minister might want to signal his discomfort with aggressive Hindutva rhetoric by dropping ministers who have been vocal proponents of it. Second, he may want to reward a few ministers who have performed relatively well over the past year by elevating them or giving them more significant portfolios. And, third, he might want to penalise non-performers and induct some new, young blood.
However, while all this is well and good, in a situation in which there are strong perceptions that the government is already in a rut as far as the structural reform agenda is concerned - and after only 18 months - it is questionable whether merely shifting of a few ministers is going to provide a solution. First, there aren't that many great performers in the Cabinet and it makes little sense to swap portfolios between indifferent performers. Second, and more fundamentally, the nature of structural reform is intrinsically multi-jurisdictional, cutting across several ministries at once. In the absence of an effectively coordinated decision-making process, reforms run aground because one or more ministries are unable to provide the necessary support. So, if and when the PM decides on a Cabinet restructuring (reshuffle is too pallid a term), he must take into account its implications for the structural reform programme. When the government came into office, there was much talk about realignment of ministries into clusters of closely interrelated domains, precisely with the objective of better coordination on policy and more efficient implementation. Unfortunately, with the prominent exception of the energy sector, in which power, coal and renewables were unified under a single minister, the overall Cabinet structure remained virtually unchanged. There were also some obvious anomalies, like the micro, small and medium enterprises portfolio being given to a minister of Cabinet rank, while the industry and commerce portfolio was given to a minister of state.
If the government is serious about providing renewed momentum to its reform agenda, aligning the Cabinet structure with policy and implementation priorities is a necessary step. This is about more than just creating groups of ministers; it is about giving competent and effective people unambiguous oversight of interrelated domains. Thus, the transport sector could be brought under an integrated ministry with a Cabinet minister, assisted by ministers of state in charge of railways, roads, shipping and civil aviation. Similar integration could be looked at for the energy, agriculture and social sectors. After its recent election victory in Singapore, the long-ruling Peoples' Action Party appointed a number of its senior-most ministers from the previous government as deputy prime ministers, each of whom was allocated oversight, coordination and mentoring responsibilities for broad domains - economics, international affairs, social welfare, infrastructure and so on. While a large number of deputy prime ministers may not sit well with the Indian system, there are lessons to be learnt from the way in which the Singapore government is now visualising ministerial roles and responsibilities. It is time to think out of the box here as well.
