Explaining Ministerial Posts.

What makes a good candidate? From the electoral process it would seem that one of the most important criteria is money. Almost every candidate and his family had assets over a crore. Is money (both in terms of payments and receipts) an important criteria in these politicians getting berths in ministries?

A study of the recently held Karnataka State Elections and the reports of the manner in which people were allocated ministries paint’s an interesting picture.

To the common man it would surely seem that this is so considering how news papers report the allocation of ministries. Certain ministries like revenue, forest and transport are termed ‘lucrative’, such ministries are clubbed with others that go under the nom-de-plume of ‘plum’, ‘prominent’ and ‘much sought after’. A recent news paper report on the portfolio allocation in the Karnataka government contained “First timer to the ministry, Shobha Karandlaje, has been showered a bounty with she being placed in charge of the vast Rural Development, Panchayat Raj and Rural Water Supply”.

To anyone it would seem that the Chief Minister had given this post to her not because of her skills in Rural Development but so that she could ‘make hay while the sun shines’. This may not be far from the truth considering news reports that use terms such as “awarding some key departments” when discussing portfolio allocations.

This is not to say that the head of the government does not choose people according to their qualifications a case in point being Chidambaram. However sometimes politicians also evince interest in certain ministries because they have large businesses connected to them. Thus according to one news paper the Reddy brothers who are also mining magnets were keen to get the mining or forest portfolio. Such interests are explained by news papers as ‘eying the pie’

Though these people would like to put their hands into the coffers, the head of the government sees this as their Achilles Heel. Seat allocation is done on the basis of ‘keeping the coterie happy’, ‘checking growth’ of other politicians and finally ‘horses-for-courses’ where a suitable candidate is found for a particular ministry.

It is unfortunate that we as a public take this type of form-a-government without a whimper. It is not because we have lost faith in the political process, it is because we expect no better from these people. Robert Wright, in his book Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, states “this is why leaders serve public interest; not because they are public spirited, but because neglecting the public welfare can diminish their own welfare’. He goes on to explain that this is seen more in chiefdom's where the chief lacks a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Handing over portfolios to these politicians in a way legitimises the way they function. So like in the days of yore politicians are actually petty chiefs who gain power to hoard and then distribute largess to keep everybody happy.

Ministers in the last Karnataka government had a field day while they were in power. A news report states that assets of those in the last Karnataka government jumped manifold. The assets of one minister and his wife grew 13 times in the four years he was in power – from Rs 3.76 crores to Rs 49.72 crores. The report states tongue in cheek that in terms of CAGR, assets grew anywhere from 68.42 percent for some to 111.47 percent for others.

So what we actually have is a ménage a trios comprising greedy politicians, unconcerned media and listless public. The media humours itself as it plays with words to describe the corruption, ineptitude and blatant disregard for peoples welfare that the politicians have. The reports in the media only serve to instill a sense of decay amongst the people as they accept this form of politician to be the only one available. The politician off-course has a field day because he is beyond approach and reproach not only because he is thick skinned but also because of the power he and his party wields over everything and everybody.

This form of a ‘welfare-state’ does not work for the common person. The only welfare that occurs is that of those already rich and powerful. There should be norms and a process of vetting that needs to be laid down when ministries are allocated and the norms are not about 'keeping people happy' or 'in their place' or allocating ministries for profit. Suitability for the job should not be narrowed down to the amount that can be usurped, but should depend on the person’s educational qualifications and experience.

Forming governments is not a birthday party where birthday gifts and return gifts are exchanged. Nor is it cattle market where the highest bidder gets prime beef. It is a position of great responsibility and the only focus should be that of the welfare of the public.