The paradox of the middle class in Indian Democracy

I have always felt there is a paradox about middle class behavior in Indian democracy. We are the ones who contribute most to the running of the government. We pay income tax with least default. We pay for the sales tax on most goods. We work for the companies that shell out corporate taxes. So directly or indirectly we seem to be the Atlas on whose shoulders the entire weight of the government rests. Yet we are the ones the government pays least heed to. We crib the most about government functioning. Yet we do not seem too keen on voting. And in spite of all our criticism, we are staunchest defenders of the system. We are not interested in radically changing the system but in finding quick fix solutions within the system. I found this all a bit too weird.

A deeper introspection on this paradox made it clear to me that possibly the above observations are not an anomaly but a logical consequence of the system design. So I would like to share my insights on the same. Let us start with a simple model. Let us forget things such as caste, religion, regional feelings, specialized trade groups and lobbies etc. for time being. Let us just consider just 3 sets of stakeholders – the rich, the poor and the middle class. Who would need the government most?

The rich have enough money. With their money they can buy guards/weapons to protect themselves and their wealth and use their power to acquire more money which in turn will make them even more powerful and the cycle can continue. So government and laws are at best a hindrance to them.

Let us consider the case of the poor. They benefit the least if current state of affairs continue. So they benefits most by rocking the current system. They are already in the worst possible situation. So things can’t get worse. In a lawless situation, they can indulge in thievery and extortion and take what they want for themselves. Laws and governments prevent them from doing the same, keeping them poor.

If we take the case of the middle class, we are the most vulnerable of the three. If poor take to lawlessness, the middle class is the soft target. The rich are too powerful. Similarly if the rich want to increase their wealth, the middle class would be the target as there is nothing to snatch from the poor. So middle class are the ones who need the government most to let us keep our hard earned wealth and continue leading our lives.

So we see middle class are the ones who need the government most. So for the system to be stable, it has to bring the other two classes on board. So if the rich have to relinquish their direct power, they should have indirect power through the government. This can only happen if they have their men in the government protecting their interests. Similarly the poor need continuous incentives to be kept in line. That is why subsidies, reservations, free stuff etc. play an important role in politics.

So for the system to stable, we need governments that dance to the tunes of the rich in the background and pander to the short term wishes of the poor in the open. What is the charm in being a member of such a government? Your just a puppet to the rich and are forced to keep taking populous measures that may not be in the long term interest of the country as a whole. So only incentive can be personal gain. Any surprises why only the corrupt are attracted to politics? As one senior politician had once famously remarked, the one who takes honey out of the beehive will definitely lick his forearm.

If we see from the middle class point of view, in spite of the corruption and populism, we are able to carry on with our lives. We can go to work, earn money, watch cricket and movies, take vacations and foreign trips, read novels, blog, sleep, eat, marry, have children etc. without any serious hindrance. So obviously we don’t want to rock the boat. That is the reason for our staunch support of the system. But we realize the inherent unfairness of the system. That is why the cribbing. However we know in the heart of hearts that we cannot get a government that gives importance to our interests. That is probably the cause for indifference towards participation in the democratic process.

Elaborating on the indifference, a lot has been said about importance of middle class voting. But if one were to consider the voter equation in any typical constituency, the middle class will not have sufficient strength to single handedly influence the results. At best we can be the deciding factor between two candidates – both of who have equal money, muscle, media and caste power. By that we can ensure they are not totally ignored in governance. But still middle class will always have to have the last place in the government’s pecking order. Other than that possibly voting is a symbolic gesture in support of these governance institutions that middle class need for their survival. Not a prospect that can really excite everyone, eh? So are we justified in totally castigating the ones who chose not to exercise their franchise as unpatriotic and insensitive?

Possibly, my arguments so far may suggest I am advocating continuation of status quo. In fact I do not. Though I feel things are quite in balance, it is an unstable equilibrium that can be upset at any time. A stable equilibrium would be one where the poor are continuously being moved up the ladder so that continuously the number of poor keeps reducing while the number of middle class keeps increasing. Eventually we would have a situation where middle class become a deciding factor. Then with complete support on one side of the class divide, the government can put a collar on the rich. Eventually the inequalities can decrease and we develop a mature stable society. But those who are currently in power have been spawned by the current situation. It would be hara-kiri on their part to try to change the situation. So they would do the best to maintain status quo. And if the status quo gets upset by a religious or communist revolution or a military coup, the results can be disastrous as evidenced in many other parts of the world.

So the least destructive path I can see is the path Anna Hazare and co has taken. Pushing and prodding the government inch by inch. This would of course be a long and painful process, requiring a lot of patience. But eventually if one can drain the gain seeking possibilities in politics, the current breed of politicians would make way for a better class of statesmen. I have seen lot of people suggesting that middle class should enter into politics instead of participating in the Anna Hazare kind of movements. I do appreciate middle class people who try to enter into politics. But I doubt if they will be see any success in the next 10-15 years. If Anna Hazare type of movements continues incessantly for next 10-15 years, being a constant pain in the ass, then possibly some of the current political crowd would exit the scene, leaving some space which these middle class aspirants can try to fill. Then it would take another 10-15 years to take the country on the path to a stable equilibrium. In my assessment, I would say a two pronged approach of protests and petitions on one side and an attempt to create true statesmen on the other side if persistently adhered to can lead to true progress somewhere 30 years down the line. But both are absolutely necessary and one can succeed in the absence of the other.