The long run vs the short run

There are no easy solutions to two important debates of our times-sustainable development and the basic structure of the Constitution, but the guiding principles are clear

In the run-up to the Budget presented on February 1, many had suggested that the government would be better off planning for the long term instead of giving in to short-term populism. Basically, they were advocating prioritising fiscal prudence over near-term growth impulses, with the argument that ultimately such an approach would benefit the economy in the long run.

Around the same time, two other matters were being actively covered by the media. One is about the Joshimath tragedy in Uttarakhand and the other about the argument between the government and the Supreme Court as to whether the basic structure of the Constitution is supreme and unamenable to changes. These two matters are in no way related to the budget-making exercise, but a rational discussion on them raises very much a similar issue, i.e. the short-term considerations versus long-term aim.

John Maynard Keynes, in the 1920s, famously said — in the long run we are all dead. While this profoundly philosophical statement is saying the obvious, in this mortal world, one has to constantly negotiate the choices between the short-run and long-run objectives — and it is by no means an easy task.

Budget 2023-24 has since been presented. The discussion about what was done and what should have been done would continue ad nauseam! Let’s talk about the other two matters.

The fact that the laws of nature are immutable is known to humans for centuries. “Sustainable development” as a key word might have technically emerged only a few decades back, but all communities and societies across the globe all along understood that there are limitations to development without adversely affecting the environment.

The difference between the grandstanding by the governments on environmental issues and the actual situation on the ground is also well known. Apathy, greed or corrupt practices aren’t the only reasons for ignoring the environmental concerns. At times, it is the political expediency to execute the so-called “development projects” to show some measurable achievements in the short term.

The governments, at the central and state levels, get elected for a limited period — every five years they have to go back to the electorate showcasing the progress made in their previous tenure. Such progress is showable in the easiest way in terms of numbers and figures, and understood as such by the electorate.

As against this, it is not easy to effectively and convincingly communicate to the masses the virtues of sustainable development or of the long-term ill effects of environmental degradation. Compare the possible publicity impact of tweeting construction of kilometres of new roads or addition of megawatts of power generation capacity versus notifying an environment sensitive zone for conservation, or restraining setting up of polluting industry in an area!

Increased pressure on the natural resources with competing claims makes the choices even more difficult. It isn’t easy to come to terms with the truth. Note that even globally, there are many who still don’t believe in or don’t want to acknowledge the climate change impacts.

No wonder, then, there is a constant lobbying for lowering of environmental standards for various projects, avoiding environment impact assessments, doing away with stakeholder consultations and non-provisioning of environment management plan in the project cost. There have been cases where banks accorded financial closure to projects without ensuring mandatorily required environment clearance.

“Environment clearance” is routinely considered as any other industrial licence. There has been a clamour to rank the authorities/regulatory bodies in order of their speed in granting environment clearances. This is simply amateurish!

Of course, the argument from the other side would be that the projects can’t be held hostage to delays in environment clearances, the people in the area can’t be denied the fruits of “development” and workable solutions should be found quickly. Then, very often, rent seeking or corruption allegations are made in according environment clearances.

One needs statesmen as politicians who could convince the stakeholders of the virtues of environment conservation for long-term sustainable development. This is easier said than done. Politicians are driven by their quest for winning elections every five years and, in general, lack trust with the people.

Coming to the other matter, finding an amicable solution to the extant controversy about the basic structure of the Constitution appears to be rather difficult. Though the Constitution itself provides the legislative procedure to be followed for its amendment and several constitutional amendments have been made during the last many decades, many of these landed up before the Supreme Court in litigation, questioning the absolute power of the legislature to amend all the provisions of the Constitution.

There arose the concept of “basic structure of Constitution” and the argument the same is inviolable and beyond the reach of the legislature to amend. Though various Supreme Court judgements at different times pronounced varying views on the subject, the last judgement on the subject upheld the view that the basic structure of the Constitution can’t be tinkered with. What exactly is the basic structure hasn’t been defined anywhere, but the Supreme Court has held that it is the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and has unfettered powers of judicial review.

The view coming from the other side is that in a parliamentary democracy, the legislature, constituted of people’s elected representatives, being responsible for enacting legislations, has the jurisdiction to amend the Constitution in accordance with the need of the hour; there can’t be anything cast in stone.

To carry this argument further, though the constituent assembly framed the Constitution in its right earnest and it came into force in 1950, with the passage of time there could be genuine requirement for bringing in changes, and that the sovereign has every right to have a relook at the constitutional provisions.

The basic structure of the Constitution is its long-term vision as broadly agreed upon while framing it. The parliamentary elections are held every five years. If the incumbent governments are freely allowed to amend the Constitution as they deem fit, the amended constitution may, in fact, look quite different from the one drafted by the constituent assembly. On the other hand, there could be a genuine pressing need for bringing in some changes. As it happens, there are no easy answers.

The writer is a former IAS officer and Sebi chairman