Political cronyism, anyone?

Amid a suspected cronyism scandal and cover-up, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on March 25 apologized again “for causing anxiety and loss of confidence in his government.”  

Releasing the Economic Survey 2017-18, the Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of India, Arvind Subramanian argued that India was going from a “Path From Crony Socialism to Stigmatized Capitalism.” India’s private sector still bears the stigma of having been “midwifed under the pre-1990s ‘License Raj’ – an era remembered for its red tape and corruption” to “Rent Raj,” of the mid-to-late 2000s, which he opined were mostly funded by “reckless and imprudent lending by public-sector banks, which often funneled resources to high-risk, politically connected borrowers.”  

It is not unfounded. India was ranked 9th position in the index of crony-capitalism, according to a study by The Economist, in 2016. “POLITICAL connections have always greased the wheels of commerce. But for the past 20 years… crony capitalists—individuals who earn their riches thanks to their chumminess with government—have had a golden era,” it noted. Worldwide, the worth of billionaires in crony industries soared by 385% between 2004 and 2014, to $2 trillion, the study added.  

A simple lexicon definition of crony-capitalism is “an economy in which businesses thrive not as a result of risks they take, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class.” In other words, the success in business depends on the relationship between businessmen and government officials.  

It can be extrapolated to other spheres as cronyism itself is defined as, “The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.” In many cases, appointing a close associate or loyalist in a position is not wrong. But if it is bestowed on a person despite not being the most suitable or deserving, the charge of cronyism arises.  

In Nagaland, the Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party – which helms the People’s Democratic Party - in its manifesto, had promised to strive towards the achievement of “meritocracy culture” and reward for hard work.  

“We will guarantee reward for hard work and steps will be taken to give positive hope to all those who strive hard and invest in hard work,” it declared.  

As one marvels at the reported as well as the confirmed appointments of the various individuals to various posts under Government of Nagaland, the Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio's pledge to ensure an era of “good governance, transparency and a culture of meritocracy” after his swearing-in on March 9 last, sounds highly nostalgic and shallow. A short and idealistic reverie if one was taken over by the vow.  

The recent spate of appointments appears to take into account other exigencies rather than these attributes, and inclined more to a paragon of political cronyism.  

The words of wisdom as such expressed is more of a political chant than that of a mantra for progress and development.   An incentive that comes from politics which in itself can be considered as a cradle of cronyism.