#11 The Politics of Outsiders versus Insiders
CAA, NRC, Iran, and the Overton Window
PolicyWTF: The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019
This section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen?
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Indian government’s somersaults over its linkage with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) should count among the top all-time PolicyWTFs. By now you would have consumed several good explainers already so I will focus on just two points.
The first point pertains to the philosophy of identity politics. Making identity the central focus of politics will have debilitating unintended consequences for a diverse society like India’s. It’s a slippery slope: once this ‘Insider vs Outsider’ framework becomes the mainstay of our politics, the circle that defines 'us' will keep shrinking. Today it’s about Indian citizens vs non-citizens. Tomorrow, it could well be about Maharashtrians vs Biharis or Kannadigas vs Tamilians. If there’s any doubt, see how the politics of Assam has already adopted a hostility towards all outsiders.
Banerjee and Duflo in their Indian Express op-ed also make a similar point:
The same questions about economic justice for the local population, if not confronted now, will arise (and have already arisen) everywhere in India, in an ever more fractal way. Are Tamil-speaking children of Bengali Hindu migrants to Chennai entitled to jobs in the state government? How about the Marathi-speaking children from Bihar, who grew up in Maharashtra? And while you are worrying that, what about good jobs in the private sector? And why stop at the state boundaries? Should Mumbai city jobs be restricted to Mumbaikars? Paranoia about immigration is a genie that needs to be put back in the bottle as soon as possible.
My second point is that if given a go-ahead, an NRC exercise will be immensely costly in three ways. Think of it as a tax system having three types of costs: administrative, compliance, and distortionary. Crude estimates for administering NRC are in the range of ₹64,000 crores. Compliance costs relate to the burden individuals will bear in order to prove their citizenship. This includes the costs of corruption. Finally, distortionary costs in this context refer to the perversion of our politics because of this issue. A significant part of both compliance and distortionary costs will be in terms of opportunity costs — individuals will have to trade-off their time and money (remember demonetisation?) while receiving no apparent benefits in return.
For more on this, listen to our episode on CAA/NRC over at Puliyabaazi Hindi Podcast and read up this excellent FAQ made by my co-host Saurabh Chandra.
A Framework a Week: The Overton Window
Tools for thinking about public policy
Only a few years ago, no Indian politician would have risked talking about privatisation of Air India. That’s no longer the case. Earlier this week, the civil aviation minister spoke (yet again) about the impending sale of the company. What explains that politicians can take a certain position which only a few years back seemed too radical, unpopular, and electorally untenable?
That’s where the Overton Window heuristic comes in. The basic idea here is that for any political issue, there's a range of socially acceptable positions that's narrower than the range of all possible positions. These socially acceptable ideas are seen as being inside the Overton Window — they are mainstream and uncontroversial. On the other hand, policy positions outside it are viewed as shocking, upsetting, and electorally harmful. Hence, politicians only voice opinions within the Overton Window. Any politician who voices an opinion outside this range of acceptable opinions will see their career come to an abrupt end.
The key point is that, with social pressure, the Overton Window can shift over time. It can also be increased or decreased in size. Effectively, today's radicals may become tomorrow's moderates.
The figure below, from Mackinac Center for Public Policy, illustrates the Overton Window for Education Policy in the US.
(Image source: Mackinac Center)
So, what are the lessons from this for us outside the government? One, for any policy, work out the range of options and find out what lies within the Overton Window and what lies outside it. This policy action map will act a good starting point for shifting the Overton Window. Two, instead of advocating advocate for minor, incremental changes to an already accepted idea, make the case for a currently “unthinkable” idea, state it cogently and provoke an informed discussion. These efforts would make radical ideas look more normal, nudging them into the “acceptable” category, and eventually making them politically viable.
Matsyanyaaya
Big fish eating small fish = Foreign Policy in action
The killing of Major General Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was the biggest foreign policy story of the week. Not that we needed one, but the coming days will serve as a reminder for how complicated West Asian geopolitics is. As a primer offering insight into the complexities of the region, I really like this mosaic chart titled “Grid of Grievances” from The Economist.
(Mosaic Chart of West Asia relationships. Source: The Economist)
As is evident from the graphic, there is no single nation-state in the mosaic that has friendly or for that matter, even neutral relations with all the other geopolitical actors in the region. Even the external actors in the region such as Russia, the US and the European states find it difficult to maintain friendly relations with all the states in West Asia. This dynamic will play out over the next few weeks.
A related public policy question that has always interested me is why has the US Policy Orthodoxy on Iran Sustained for Four Decades? After all, Iran is one of the more “normal” states in West Asia. It is also a regional power and now there is even some alignment between US and Iranian interests in Afghanistan and over ISIS. And yet, the foreign policy of the US towards Iran hasn’t changed for nearly forty years. What are the possible reasons? Here are four of the most commonly-held views and my responses to each of them.
The oft-repeated reason given is the Iran hostage crisis of 1979. It is argued that this highly televised, 444-day imbroglio is the reason behind the perception of Iran as a ‘rogue state’ in the US. I doubt if that is the case. Even though this crisis might well be the reason that set the current policy orthodoxy in motion, it does not sufficiently explain why the orthodoxy would continue for four decades. In fact, in the same year, the US embassy in Islamabad was burnt. Two Americans died as a result. And yet, there was no break in the US-Pakistan relationship. So, it doesn’t seem logical that another contemporary incident of a similar nature, one in which no American hostage was killed, can create and sustain a policy orthodoxy for four decades.
The second reason given is that the hatred towards Iran is sustained by Iran’s own acts of hostility towards the US. Indeed, Iran has often taken up the gauntlet on various occasions. But again, this reason doesn’t sufficiently explain why the policy orthodoxy did not change even after Iran demonstrated its willingness to change as part of the P5+1 negotiations. The North Korean example shows that the US that a change in relationship terms is possible even with a state belonging to the ‘axis of evil’.
The third reason given is Trump. That’s an easy one to contest though. Long before Trump came into the picture, this policy orthodoxy was still going strong.
The fourth reason given is “follow the money”. The argument is that pro-Israel and pro-Saudi lobbies in the US ensure that there is no foreign policy change in the US on the Iran issue. There is some weight in this argument and it could help explain the longevity of the policy orthodoxy. If that is the case, the emergent hypothesis is that the policy change is incumbent on the Iran-Saudi Arabia-Israel triangle. Unless Iran can patch up with at least one of these two West Asian powers, the US will keep the heat on.
In any case, this question needs methodical research. I think it’s just one of those questions in foreign policy which is not raised enough.
HomeWork
Reading and listening recommendations on public policy matters
Understanding Policy Change: How to Apply Political Economy Concepts in Practice — a useful handbook on political economy.
The Four Aspects of Joint: A Model for Comparitively Evaluating the Extent of Jointness Within Armed Forces — has a good framework to analyse the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) reform.
Premature Imitation and India’s Flailing State — argues that India’s limited state capacity calls for presumptive laissez-faire instead of more regulation.
That’s all for the week. Happy New Decade, folks. If you like this newsletter, please do read and share.