Unstable lives: Are they really a means of personal gain for rulers

The general impression of the thinking classes about the expectations of a common man, from Government, revolve around good governance, honesty, law and order, development, etc.  The baffling instances of dishonest public servants(includes elected representatives), finding support from the people, question this belief.  There is an impression gaining ground among persons in public life that the people really aren't concerned about corruption in public service as long as it doesnot touch their lives.

In order to examine this hypothesis, we need to first look at the expectations of the voters.  There are two classes of people in our society, the voting majority whose livelihoods are quite unstable and at the mercy of nature or factors beyond their control, and a mostly non-voting minority who have secure livelihoods.  People from the rural areas mostly involved in traditional livelihoods and the urban working classes, are the majority who participate in the democratic process out of a sense of compulsion- a compulsion driven by hope of finding that special someone, who will be able to pull them out of the uncertainty in their lives.  A majority of the thinking class sceptics, find this belief in our democratic system as innocent and misplaced.  However, for those whose lives hang precariously, there is no alternative except to put faith in the public servants, in the hope of gaining some stability in their lives.  For someone who is starving, any agent who comes forward to satisfy their hunger becomes their God and their embodiment of good.   Action matters here, not the intention.  As long as the agent's acts are good his intention is not looked into.  Since the immediate concern of the needy man is his need, he cannot afford to look into the merits or demerits of the agent who comes forward to mitigate his problems.  Such is the power of immediate needs and hunger.  Just as it didn't matter for the people whether Robin Hood plundered someone to provide for them, so also the vast majority of needy people aren't in a position to care about the virtue in their Government.  If someone understands this situation to mean that virtue is not necessary for the rulers or that people don't care about their misdeeds elsewhere, then its the greatest folly that they are committing.

Those with a selfish interest, take care of the peoples meagre needs and occupy positions of power.  Thereafter starts exploitation of the seats of authority for personal gain.  It has to be kept in mind that the twin actions of taking care of peoples needs at one place, and plunder in other sectors hidden from public view, are in fact contradictory in nature.  Once a person gets a taste of being in power, like a tiger which tasted human blood, will try to remain in that seat forever, which in turn requires taking care of peoples needs endlessly.  This will in course of time result in either of the two things.  A sustained implementation of welfare policies such as, housing for all, employment guarantee schemes, pensions, will result in bringing some stability to the lives of the majority.  Once the immediate needs are taken care of, people start thinking about the next thing that is good for them, and realise that their provider whom they have been revering till today is in fact a fellow with selfish interests.  The realisation will make them search for a better and selfless alternative to rule them.  Alternatively, if in course of time the stability which they are looking for from the current ruler, doesn't step into their lives, impatience steps in.  This impatience again makes them search for a better alternative.  Therefore, a public servant who is motivated by selfish interests can never find favour with people permanently in the long run. 

Todays politics finds the needy people as means for personal gain.  Peoples needs are subject to exploitation during election times by unscrupulous contestants, through offers of cash-for-vote.  It would be foolish to imagine that any election to a public office, in such circumstances, is an endorsement of the view that a vast majority are not bothered about virtue in those elected.  It could mean that either the people are so preoccupied with the current concerns in their lives that they are unable to focus on larger issues concerning the virtue of their public servants, or that they have not been well informed about their virtue.  

A snapshot of the forces that dictate the expectations of the two classes of citizens from his government is given in the table below.

CONCERNS REQUIRING GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION	UNSTABLE LIFE	STABLE LIFE
1. Livelihood	Yes; agricultural support(loan, inputs,irrigation), employment guarantee, min. wages etc.	No; self-sufficient
2. Good Governance	No	Yes
3. Food Subsidy(ration card)	Yes	No
4. Housing subsidy	Yes	No
5. Free health care	Yes	No
6. Pensions for old and infirm	Yes	No
7. Education	Yes	No
8. Corruption at top	No	Yes
9. Rule of law	No	Yes
10. Roads	Yes	Yes
11. Traffic	No	Yes
12. Village/town infrastructure	Yes; very poor infrastructure	Yes; but relatively better infrastructure
13. Drinking water	Yes; big concern	Yes; but manageable
14. Modernisation of economy	Yes; not high on priority	Yes; priority item.

Corruption or virtue of the public servants doesnt find a place on the agenda of the voting majority in our State.  This does not mean, as discussed earlier, that they endorse the short-sighted selfish behaviour of the rulers.  It can only mean that though important, it is not in the current agenda of the voting majority, and the non-voting minority have to keep up their efforts to bring the item of good governance on to the agenda of the voting-majority.