BackThe ideological overtones of honesty
If mass dishonesty is a prelude to anarchy, societies also need to tolerate a little bit of dishonesty to thrive
Premium
What do you have?’ people used to ask me. I used to say, ‘I have honesty’." Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi, said recently. Now people say, “Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has honesty, but what is its ideology?" The Communist Party of India (Marxist), for instance, has announced that it will assess AAP’s views on ideological factors before deciding upon a possible alliance. However, a point often overlooked is that the political plank of honesty has important ideological overtones.
An electorate may be more partial to big government positions when espoused by honest politicians even as similar positions led by venal representatives are seen as opportunities for self-aggrandisement. The acceptability of AAP’s agenda by voters across the ideological spectrum is an example of this. An honest government also promotes honest taxpayers as widespread tax evasion may be a welfare maximizing response to a dishonest government, especially in the case of direct taxes. Thus honesty enables a government to do more without fiscal imprudence. In this sense, honesty complements big government policy stances.
But honesty can be a substitute for ideology as a whole, when ideology is defined as a set of doctrinaire positions that limit the free choice of legislators. One stream of game theoretic writing in political science treats ideology as an instrument that allows voters to monitor the post-poll voting behaviour of representatives in a low-cost manner. Without such monitoring, representatives may lapse into self-seeking behaviour. A reputation for honesty, in this literature, becomes a substitute for ideology, as voters no longer need to be protected against their representative’s lack of integrity through a set of easily identifiable policy positions. Such a reputation allows parties to shift policy stances in the face of new information without running the risk of being seen as opportunistic. The apparent freedom of the AAP to choose policy positions, free of ideological baggage, can be explained by this theory.
However, the positive implications of an honest government can be muted when honesty is not voluntary but is enforced in the midst of a general perception of dishonesty. This can lead to inordinate costs of monitoring. The main burden of these costs come not from direct administrative expenses (for example, for maintaining the Lokpal) but the consequent discount on bureaucratic competence, innovation, and speed, all in the interest of being seen as honest before the eyes of the law. The gains from honesty can be wiped out by these costs. In a country such as India, in an age of technology, we cannot afford a government beset by policy paralysis of the kind witnessed since the expose on the 2G spectrum scam. The emasculation of government in a highly policed environment may be desirable for proponents of the market economy but not to those who believe government has an important welfare, regulatory and directional role to play. Indeed, every society needs to tolerate a little bit of dishonesty to thrive.
Sometimes a government may be headed by someone known to be outstandingly honest but peopled by those whose integrity may be unknown. In such cases, the leader may acquire extraordinary authority (combining in their person the role of the church and the state) and the government may end up functioning like a dictatorship. History is replete with instances of leaders coming to power on a wave of disaffection with prevailing norms and then becoming despotic rulers themselves. Adolf Hitler, Moammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe and others form part of this long and ignoble list.
There are three ways out of this impasse. First, the popular leader can quickly induct new faces into the party who can rival him or her in public perception, if not immediately then in the near future. The possibility of icons such as Medha Patkar and Mallika Sarabhai joining the AAP bodes well on this account. Second, a leader who finds himself in a situation of overweening dominance can take the route of renunciation—favoured by the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, Jayaprakash Narayan, and even Nelson Mandela, who stepped down from the presidency of South Africa at the height of his power. This again requires creating an able cohort of leaders in waiting. Third, the party could develop an ideological position and thereby dim the blinding focus on personality. Thus ideology can be a shield against the cult of personality that inevitably comes into play when a leader seizes power on the promise of moral cleansing in dishonest times.
In general, the morality of the common man is counter to neo-classical thinking in economics that emphasizes sovereignty of consumer choice, and valorizes the assumption, and implicit acceptance, of the insatiable craving for material objects. Morality argues for a voluntary limitation of wants in a Gandhian spirit. It is anti-materialistic in a way neither right wing or left wing ideologies are. Morality, as an ideology, may also imply greater infringement of the state in the realm of personal matters, a paternalistic development deeply inimical for a libertarian society. However, one could argue that a society upholding section 377 of the Indian Penal Code—outlawing homsexuality—already exists in this unwholesome space.
In India today, when systemic corruption has spread like a cancer, and exists in abundance even in states with leaders not personally prone to pelf, a resurgence of honesty can only be welcomed. However, there are attendant risks. In a few years’ time, it will be wonderful if Kejriwal could say, “Today no party can hope to succeed on a plank of honesty alone."
Rohit Prasad is an associate professor of economics at MDI, Gurgaon.
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
