6.2': Bullet, Single Tea and Butter Biscuit

The answer I think is in a joking reply I gave a north Indian friend who asked me the reason why the southern states have such good level of human development, at least on a comparative basis. I replied it’s because we, that’s the Tamil Nadu electorate vote for free televisions and we have institutionalised corruption.

In an earlier post I have explained the link between corruption and development in detail. Essentially I argue that a local MLA can increase his income only by undertaking developmental projects where he has a cut. This of course cannot be applied universally, and is conditional on the electorate voting out non-performing candidates. This is true, Napolean, the DMK candidate contested in Mylapore because the electorate in his former constituency (between 96-01) refused to let him enter the constituency because of his non-performance. I’m not sure what is old constituency is though. Secondly, since in TN we have institutionalised corruption, the electorate don’t mind if the politicians swindle money as long as it is tied to development. This insensitivity has provided an impetus for politicians to swindle money using this route.

This insensitivity towards corruption and tying it with development leaves a narrow window within which politicians can swindle and profit from their offices. This means that both parties have to use similar if not identical means to swindle. For instance, alcohol is highly regulated in TN, the main reason being it presents huge scope for bribes. Except for a few elitists, no one is really complaining because the state has assured cheap alcohol for the masses, though quality is questionable.

This narrow window for corruption means that overall policy of the state, especially economic policy has to be stable and consistent. Both parties know that they can become richer only by promoting investment and developing the state, the strong caste lobbies also enforce this stable policy using their votes. This ensures little change and stability, which is essential to attract investment in the state. This partly solves the issue of credible commitment which scares the hell out of prospective foreign investors in India. This has also raised the minimum voters expect from politicians in TN. Irrespective other policies, they have to deliver prosperity to the state. That is considered a minimum requirement for votes. Of course this standard was established by the strong caste lobbies in the state, whose welfare required economic prosperity. Economic prosperity is a public good, and its hard for one caste to corner it entirely, especially if it is driven by the market.

In states like UP and Bihar, voters vote for getting their caste into power, but then after that they don’t demand performance. They want power, but don’t demand its benefits, this has allowed politicians to skit the of development. In TN it has helped that both the principle parties vie for the same vote bank. This means that if one party doesn’t deliver, the electorate can always vote the opposition into power, and still have their man in power, while they also can demand performance. In UP, one party represents a caste, leaving voters with a lack of choice if they wish to have their caste in office. This means people vote for the benefit of power and cannot demand performance since it’s a monopoly. Its pertinent to understand that politicians maintain this monopoly over their caste, for instance BSP will crush any other organisation claiming to represent the dalits in UP, because competition will harm BSP’s chances.

In essence why TN developed is because of two reasons

1) More than one party competing for the same vote bank
2) Institutionalised corruption, which indirectly leads to development.

Where does free televisions come in? Since there is nothing else to differentiate the two parties, they resort to free televisions and free cycle distribution to garner votes. The electorate has raised the minimum level required for both parties and reduced the policy debate to such frivolous issues.

PS: I’m not justifying corruption, but just propose a case where its lead to the development in TN, conditional to some criteria being met.

PPS: The big difference between the two parties viz, the DMK and ADMK is the velocity of money in the black economy in TN. In DMK, the black money is concentrated amongst the top rung of the party, while in the ADMK it trickles down to all levels. This difference does affect the party people vote for, but not in huge numbers for either party to reform its policy regarding this. If substantial numbers voted based on this difference, by now both parties would have similar structures of distributing their black money.