The rise of regional parties along with problems of coalition management is causing concern for the governance of the country, the process of reforms, and growth of the economy. By 2000, coalitions and regional parties had already become the norm and there was a yearning for political unity across the country. In that year, Indians from many walks of life came together to understand the systemic forces shaping India and the world and project scenarios of India’s future. They predicted that growth would boom for a while and then decision-making and growth would stall unless alternative theories of development and governance were vigorously adopted.
The scenarists imagined four political configurations that could emerge for the country depending on election outcomes. Two of these were in the category of ‘Kaleidoscope’, in which power in the center and the states is shared by several parties. One version of Kaleidoscope was ‘Federal Harmony’, in which parties respected each others’ rights and learned to work together. The other was ‘You stab my back and I’ll stab yours’, in which front-page entertainment is provided by politicians. The other two scenarios were in the category of ‘Monochrome’, in which one party dominates throughout the country (a condition we have not had since the 1980s). One version of Monochrome was forecasted as ‘Ramrajaya’, in which the leadership is magnanimous and losers cooperate with the nation-building agenda. The other was ‘Volcano’, with seething trouble and losers waiting to strike. The scenarists also discovered a model of development and governance that would produce good outcomes for the country irrespective of which political scenario emerged.
Before we examine this model, here is an intellectual curiosity. It is presumed that stable governments are good for economic growth. However, a study of the growth of European economies between 1950 and 2000 showed that the country that had the fastest growth, Italy, also had the most coalitions and most changes of government! The Indian growth story may also be examined: the Hindu rate of growth is associated with predominantly single party governance across the country, whereas faster growth has come in the era of coalitions and regional parties!
In 2000, the scenarists predicted that India was slipping into a ‘Bollyworld’ model of development. Rapid growth was accompanied by increasing inequalities. Personal wealth and glamour were becoming markers of India’s shine. While poverty was reducing, feelings of unfairness were also rising, with demands for faster satisfaction of aspirations. Violence was spreading across larger swathes of the countryside, and young aspirants demanding ‘satisfaction now’ would commit more violent crimes in cities too. Glamour and violence provide entertainment in Bollywood movies. In real life glamour and violence create tensions which would infect the political space, and the scenarists anticipated a second scenario if these tensions were not addressed effectively. This scenario was ‘Atakta Bharat’, in which interactions between political parties and between experts would become like ‘buffaloes wallowing in a pond’: unable to agree; and decision-making stalled. Meanwhile, ‘the children would be waiting’ according to the scenarists, for improvement in health and nutrition, education, and jobs when they grow up. Inaction would dampen growth, dim the demographic dividend, and result in deeper social and political problems.
The third scenario was based on a better architecture of governance along with an alternative theory of inclusive growth—not dependent on ‘trickle down’ but bottom-up contribution to growth. Not on ‘first growing the pie before sharing it’, but on growing the pie together, with faster growth of livelihood opportunities, and strengthening local governance, capabilities, and entrepreneurship. The metaphor of this scenario is ‘Fireflies Arising’. The World Economic Forum asked Oxford Economic Forecasting in the UK and NCAER in India to run the three scenarios—Bollyworld, Atakata Bharat, and Fireflies Arising—through their computers to predict rates of GDP growth and poverty reduction. They predicted Bollyworld and Fireflies Arising would accelerate growth. And that Bollyworld would degenerate into Atakta Bharat and growth would slow. Whereas Fireflies was sustainable—socially, politically, and economically. And poverty reduction would be fastest with fireflies arising.
Fireflies Arising is a model of inclusion driven by widespread growth of respectable livelihoods rather than hand-outs to the poor. It is a model of governance based on a ‘4L’ architecture: Localization, Lateralization, Learning, and Listening. In this scenario, power will shift from the center to states and local bodies. Solutions will be local and will work, not ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions designed by experts in the center. Silos will be broken and there will be more collaboration laterally: between government departments and between NGOs, governments, and businesses. Collaboration is essential to develop new, systemic solutions. Therefore we need more dialogues in which people really listen to each other, rather than debates in which they aim to demolish others.
The scenarists of 2000 tested this architecture of governance in all four political configurations. They found that people benefit and the country would be more stable with this form of governance irrespective of which political configuration is thrown up by elections. The conclusion is that Fireflies Arising, with the 4L governance architecture, provides an attractive vision for India’s future. Inclusion is faster and more dignified, and the economy grows faster and is more stable too. No wonder the World Economic Forum’s experts, who had also examined alternative scenarios of China’s future, described Fireflies Arising as ‘Pahale India’: the model by which India would emerge as the most respected country in the world.