Your article astutely captures the paradox of Indian politics: its omnipresence in public discourse but near absence in governance. I would argue that while routine, root-based functions of governance can be automated or bureaucratized to achieve efficiency, true politics begins where such processes end. Governance, in its technical and procedural form, is merely the machinery; politics is the art of deciding what ends that machinery serves. And this is where the wisdom of a statesman distinguishes itself from the short-termism of politicians.
Politics, at its core, is about making choices among competing solutions under the same set of constraints. It requires deliberation, negotiation, and compromise—processes that are inherently messy, inefficient, and contentious but essential to the democratic ideal. The depoliticization of governance, as the article highlights, has stripped this process of its vitality. Bureaucratization and technocracy, while well-meaning, have centralized decision-making and reduced political representatives to passive bystanders, severing the crucial link between elected officials and their constituents.
The shift from discretionary political action to rigid bureaucratic schemes and cash transfers, as outlined, reflects a preference for efficiency over representation. However, democracy is not about efficiency; it is about empowering communities to articulate their collective needs and ensuring that those needs find a place in policy and governance. The sidelining of elected representatives from governance has eroded this dynamic, leaving communities disempowered and representatives discredited.
Moreover, the rise of technocratic governance risks fostering a “soft authoritarianism,” where centralization masquerades as efficiency. While technology and bureaucracy can implement policies, they cannot decide which policies are just, equitable, or aligned with the aspirations of diverse communities. Such decisions require political wisdom, grounded in a deep understanding of local realities and informed by active engagement with constituents
Your article astutely captures the paradox of Indian politics: its omnipresence in public discourse but near absence in governance. I would argue that while routine, root-based functions of governance can be automated or bureaucratized to achieve efficiency, true politics begins where such processes end. Governance, in its technical and procedural form, is merely the machinery; politics is the art of deciding what ends that machinery serves. And this is where the wisdom of a statesman distinguishes itself from the short-termism of politicians.
Politics, at its core, is about making choices among competing solutions under the same set of constraints. It requires deliberation, negotiation, and compromise—processes that are inherently messy, inefficient, and contentious but essential to the democratic ideal. The depoliticization of governance, as the article highlights, has stripped this process of its vitality. Bureaucratization and technocracy, while well-meaning, have centralized decision-making and reduced political representatives to passive bystanders, severing the crucial link between elected officials and their constituents.
The shift from discretionary political action to rigid bureaucratic schemes and cash transfers, as outlined, reflects a preference for efficiency over representation. However, democracy is not about efficiency; it is about empowering communities to articulate their collective needs and ensuring that those needs find a place in policy and governance. The sidelining of elected representatives from governance has eroded this dynamic, leaving communities disempowered and representatives discredited.
Moreover, the rise of technocratic governance risks fostering a “soft authoritarianism,” where centralization masquerades as efficiency. While technology and bureaucracy can implement policies, they cannot decide which policies are just, equitable, or aligned with the aspirations of diverse communities. Such decisions require political wisdom, grounded in a deep understanding of local realities and informed by active engagement with constituents