The popular 2001 Hindi movie “Nayak,” starring Anil Kapoor as Shivaji Rao, presents a fascinating yet highly idealised vision of political reform and governance. The protagonist, a TV journalist, accepts a challenge to become the Chief Minister for a day and manages to implement drastic changes that supposedly resolve deep-rooted issues of corruption and inefficiency within the system.
This narrative, though captivating, mirrors real-life populist strategies that are increasingly becoming popular across India, particularly in the northeast. It is almost like a playbook that follows a certain model that can catalyse political consolidation.
With a display of charisma and firm words, leaders latch on to either sensitive, cultural or communal issues that practically do not have any easy solution, promises and sometimes attempts are made at sweeping changes, often bypassing established procedures and systems. Then, large-scale public relations and advertising campaigns are organised once they have the people on their side to keep the narrative alive. In such circumstances, social and developmental issues often lose out on their social currency.
From politicians who rise to power on the back of anti-corruption crusades to leaders who vow to overhaul bureaucracies overnight, the allure of the ‘magic wand’ approach to governance is now palpable across northeastern politics.
Leaders promote themselves as decisive, no-nonsense reformers capable of single-handedly rectifying systemic issues, without recognising the practicalities of governance in a democratic society, bound by laws, and institutional norms. The necessity for procedural integrity often reveals the limitations of such populist approaches which makes the ‘Nayak’ model of politics and governance appealing but more fanciful than feasible in reality.
Governance — A Complex Machinery
Real-life governance is a complex, multi-layered process that involves numerous stakeholders, including elected representatives, bureaucrats, and civil society organisations. Each decision has far-reaching consequences and must be carefully considered within the framework of laws, regulations, and administrative procedures.
More importantly, while leaders are usually portrayed to be the all-in-all, functional governance is a fine balance between maintaining political control and empowering the bureaucracy. This is not to say that policies and interventions do not originate from the top democratic offices, but in the implementation of all lies the biggest hand of bureaucracy.
For political opponents of the system, sharpening swords on the incumbent is the usual practice, but in actuality, political opponents humble themselves when they are in the driver’s seat after understanding the nitty-gritty of what drives a democratic governance framework. In such cases, tall promises and aspirational guarantees need the crutches of media publicity or the game plan changes altogether. Bureaucracy becomes their biggest ally then.
Populist Measures vs. Sustainable Solutions
Populist measures often focus on immediate, visible actions that appeal to the masses but fail to address underlying systemic issues. For instance, while suspending corrupt officials might temporarily appease public outrage, it does not tackle the root causes of corruption, such as inadequate salaries, lack of accountability, and the need for institutional reforms.
Similar instances of populist measures have been seen in India and other developing economies. In the Philippines for example, between 2016-2022, former President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs saw thousands of alleged drug offenders being killed or imprisoned without due process. For some, even independent verification never took place to know whether they were drug offenders in the first place or not. While this approach was initially popular among certain segments of the population, it led to widespread human rights violations and did not address the deeper issues of drug addiction and poverty that fuel the drug trade.
In Meghalaya similarly, to enforce the promise of ensuring a safe mode of transportation for women, in 2010-11, the then-government started pink taxis, which were to be driven and used exclusively by women. But soon in a span of a few months, the cab drivers were replaced by males as there were no takers because many women did not come forward to drive the taxis. Also, given the time it took to fill a taxi waiting for female passengers, earnings were not sufficient.
Sustainable governance therefore requires comprehensive strategies, including policy reforms, capacity building, and institutional strengthening, which cannot be achieved overnight.
Hero-Worship is Harmful to Accountability
This centralisation of power is dangerous in a democratic setup, where collective decision-making and decentralisation are key to effective governance. A single individual with a saviour portrayal, capable of single-handedly fixing all problems, undermines real-life governance that requires collaborative efforts from multiple stakeholders.
Hero worship in politics often leads to a dangerous lack of accountability, as the charismatic leader’s grand promises overshadow the practical realities of governance. While public imagination may be captured, very few question the feasibility of these promises or the absence of detailed plans to achieve them. And the few who do are looked upon as the enemy of the majority.
The allure of such fancy rhetoric creates a complacent electorate that is more captivated by the leader’s vision than concerned with the pragmatic steps required for implementation. Consequently, this diminishes critical scrutiny and allows leaders to evade accountability, as the public, entranced by the promise of quick and magical solutions, fails to demand concrete action plans and transparent governance mechanisms.
Undermining Institutional Integrity
Institutions are the backbone of governance, providing stability, continuity, and accountability. The ‘Nayak model’ undermines the integrity of these institutions by suggesting that they can be bypassed or overhauled overnight once the so-called hero of the masses comes to power. Real reform requires strengthening institutions through transparent processes, capacity building, and fostering a culture of accountability. Disregarding institutional processes in favour of dramatic, unilateral actions, as depicted in the film, can erode public trust in governance and lead to institutional instability.
The economic cost of such actions is enormous as well, leading to a decline in public welfare and economic stability. Moreover, the social fabric is often strained because such implementations are not well-thought-out measures, creating an environment of uncertainty among public servants and citizens alike.
Effective governance is participatory, involving citizens in the decision-making process. The ‘Nayak model’ overlooks the importance of public participation, portraying governance as a top-down process driven by a single leader. In reality, democratic governance thrives on public engagement, consultation, and feedback. Policies and reforms are more likely to succeed when they are inclusive, transparent, and reflective of the needs and aspirations of the people.
The Role of Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy, targeted for various negative reasons, plays a crucial role in implementing policies and delivering public services. While there are undoubtedly challenges within bureaucratic systems, wholesale condemnation and dismissal, as suggested by ‘Nayak’, are neither fair nor practical. A lot of this is of course seen in real-life instances too where political opponents use their clout to target officers directly and make bold media statements, going to the extent of sometimes demanding suspensions.
Building a responsive and accountable bureaucracy requires systemic changes and continuous efforts, rather than sensationalist purges. Reforms should focus on improving bureaucratic efficiency, enhancing accountability mechanisms, and incentivising integrity and performance.
Favouring dramatic action over strategic reform is a one-time overhaul which gains public attention for some time but dampens the machinery within.
Leaders like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore emphasised the importance of incremental change leading to good governance, setting a classic example of how developing modern frameworks and institutionalising public service excellence can be achieved through systematic reforms rather than populist measures.
A one-man show, while appealing as a cinematic fantasy, falls short when subjected to the scrutiny of real-life governance dynamics. Its emphasis on sensitive issues, quick fixes, and centralisation of power is antithetical to the principles of democratic governance. While the movie “Nayak” may inspire viewers with its portrayal of idealistic change, it is crucial to recognize that effective governance in the real world demands a more nuanced, pragmatic, and systemic approach for which no one has a magic wand.
Views expressed are personal. The author is a policy researcher and consultant.