WITH the UPA regime having ‘successfully’ completed its first year in office, it is now open season for report cards on the government’s performance. In better, and more stable, times such anniversaries would have gone uncommented. With, however, a redefinition of political longevity, most regimes are keen to celebrate even their first hundred days in office. A year, thus, seems a long time.

It is a matter of considerable relief that the annual stocktaking has not been converted into a media blitz with self-congratulatory advertisements (at public expense) crowding the print media and television. It is possibly reflective of the low-key style of the prime minister. That said, both the exercise and the accompanying public discourse has failed to extricate itself from entrenched party-political divides.

Take, for instance, the response of the NDA. Having boycotted the recently concluded session of Parliament on grounds that smack more of petulance than principle, it has failed to live up to the role of a responsible opposition. Coming to terms with the loss of power is never easy. But to permit easy passage of not only the Finance Bill but equally crucial legislations like the Right to Information Bill without debate is not only suicidal for the party but damaging to the maturing of political culture. No wonder, all that the principal opposition could focus on at this occasion was snide comments on an ‘invisible’ prime minister, a ‘shadow power’ in 10 Janpath and the ‘unhelpful and arrogant attitude’ of the regime.

The response of the Left, committed to supporting the government from the outside, has been somewhat more nuanced but predictable. Expectedly, they remain dissatisfied with the pace of detoxification/desaffronisation, particularly in the domains of culture and education. Maybe they would have been happier with a reverse McCarthyism, replacing all appointees of the previous regime with individuals of their choice. Equally, they remain unhappy with the non-reversal of the policies of economic reform. What, however, remains troubling is that the Left seems to have played more a ‘dog in the manger’ role rather than place a more fleshed-out economic alternative strategy in the public domain. Any expectation that they would have leveraged their experience of running West Bengal for a quarter century in advancing a workable agenda of pro-people growth remains a faint dream.

The upshot is that we have once again missed the opportunity to debate crucial public policy choices. Unlike the heat of political battle during elections when contending parties tend to deal in the hyperbole, given a year of experience with a new dispensation behind us, surely it is not unreasonable to expect a more reasoned debate.

Despite over a decade of fractured electoral verdicts, necessitating coalition rule, our major parties still find it difficult to grow out of the earlier days of one-party dominance. Unfortunately, our political managers continue to treat a rainbow verdict as a disaster. No wonder, the only strategy is that of compromise and accommodation, not creative engagement to generate a new consensus. It is precisely in times of flux when entrenched political actors and institutions are faced with their limitations that it becomes possible, and democratically, to strike a new path.

More than scoring debating points and listing missed opportunities, it is time that our political establishment breaks new grounds. Who, a few years back, would have imagined ‘peace’ in Kashmir or a ‘less acrimonious’ relationship with Pakistan. Yet, when the opportunity presented itself, key political actors in both countries were willing to take a gamble. Can this not be built upon and the process speeded up?

Similarly, after a decade and a half of experience with ‘reforms’, is it unrealistic to expect better progress on changing outmoded rules and procedures to enable a variety of economic actors greater freedom to produce wealth and jobs. Raising diversionary slogans of dilution of sovereignty and assuming that the officialdom is the sole repository of national interest cannot be an acceptable answer.

True that Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi have been cautious and low-key in assessing their performance. In itself, this is a great relief from the hype of India Shining and the country being portrayed as an emerging super-power. Nevertheless, the feeling persists that we, as a collectivity, have failed to engage with the possibilities created by a changing world. Can we hope that the next time around the report card will read different?

Harsh Sethi