<i>Bullets vs. Ballots: Foreign policy decision-making in China and India</i>

The recent statement by a prominent politician, that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would have been shot with a single bullet for "bluffing" the nation over the Indo-US nuclear deal had he been the premier of China, has added a new dimension to the hotly-debated nuclear deal. Keeping aside the appropriateness of such a statement coming from a seasoned politician, it draws attention to the arbitrariness and the absence of accountability in the Chinese foreign policy decision-making.
China, yet to undergo a democratic transition, is an erratic state with a frustrated society suffering from what Lucian W. Pye has called 'emotional quietism'. On vital issues of national and international importance, the Chinese central authorities take all policy decisions by themselves and issue orders to a passive society. Very little space exists for non-state actors, research institutions and even media to play a constructive role and provide feedback mechanism to the government. Instead, they are forced to disseminate official views as public opinion and sell it to an economically rich but 'politically impoverished' society. Of course there is no question of an opposition political party. Therefore, the possibility of any action against say the head of the Chinese Government , as suggested by a leading political authority in Delhi, is both ludicrous and naive.
The arrogance and arbitrariness of the Chinese political elite is particularly noticeable in foreign policy issues. Since Mao's days, it has been the privilege of a select few to decide on key issues. A classic example is China's decision to attack India in 1962. For a long time, scholars like Neville Maxwell, supported by some elements in India, squarely blamed Nehru for his so-called forward policy that led to a war between the two countries. But recent researches prove beyond doubt that it was Mao's decision based on personal calculations to raise his own profile in international relations.
The absence of democracy and transparency aggravates the problem of arbitrariness in China. For example, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) exercises an extra-ordinary influence on the Chinese foreign policy decision-making. Many of its generals hold senior positions in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the government. Partly for this reason, China has an aggressive strategic culture and a history of wars and skirmishes with its neighbours. Perhaps, the PLA's belligerence also explains the protracted negation of the Sino-Indian border dispute without any resolution in sight.
Such arbitrary and extra-constitutional influences are difficult, if not impossible, in Indian circumstances. Call it the bane or boon of the Indian democracy, a plethora of views are engendered on any issue of national importance. While the standard models of decision-making process such as rational, bureaucratic or organizational model may or may not be applicable in all cases, the different prisms used to judge and debate issues help in the emergence of a consensus opinion and ensures greatest happiness of the greatest number. This is more so in the realm of foreign policy that is characterized by consensus and compromise. On all foreign policy issues concerning India such as improving relations with its neighbours, the great powers, non-alignment and so on, all political parties have broadly toed a common line, more so when they were in power. When the Indo-Bangladesh Water Treaty was being negotiated by the Deve Gowda government, the BJP opposed it. It was, however, the BJP-led NDA government that implemented the treaty and ensured one of the best phases of Indo-Bangladesh relations. Similarly, it was the NDA government that punched the nuclear apartheid against India in late nineties, then not appreciated by the major opposition parties.
Through the Indo-US nuclear deal, the UPA government has only given finishing touches to a process started by its predecessor. It is definitely not an arbitrary and unilateral decision, as has been alleged and as the Chinese do. The issue was there for a long time in public domain and had been in the limelight ever since July 2005. All mainstream parties would have taken similar steps had they been in power. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has managed a deal that is rational, fair and just and carries forward the consensus tradition in Indian foreign policy.
China is a role model for economic reforms and there are certain things that a country can learn from it. But this is also a country that suffers from democratic deficit having spillover effects on many other things such as decision-making. As long as China remains an authoritarian country with one party system, decision-making would continue to be centralized, non-transparent, arbitrary and a privilege of the few. Purges and executions could be a logical corollary. It cannot be a match to India's pluralist-democratic culture and a transparent way of making decisions. India need not take a lesson in decision-making from China. Hence, while quoting examples from China, our politicians should be cautious and admire it for the right reasons. Statements that show their ignorance about China or any other country will only cause them embarrassment!

By arrangement with IPCS, New Delhi.