Public interest -- real and perceived

D. Sampathkumar

WHETHER in law and order or in management of the economy, decisions by a Government are supposed to be dictated by considerations of public interest.

As concepts go, this is unexceptionable. But problems arise in implementation. How, for instance, does one decide what is in public interest? Are there universally recognised principles or parameters that help the public authority choose from among the welter of choices available when confronted with an issue?

For a Government in a democratic polity, `public interest' is not an abstraction distilled from theories of public administration. It is determined on the basis of an agenda that a vocal section of the public lays down. Also, it disregards long-term implications of courses of action chosen by it and is more concerned with immediate consequences.

The abduction of the Kannada matinee idol Dr. Rajkumar by the forest brigand Veerappan is a good example. The Kannada actor was freed the other day, without any apparent suggestion of a quid pro quo from the Government. The Governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu might or might not have done a deal with him.

Certainly, they were more than willing to do a deal. Witness the haste with which they offered to withdraw preventive detention cases against many languishing in jails in the two States. Cases they had been indifferent to for years and against all accepted principles of natural justice. But all of a sudden they offered to release them even without the formality of review contemplated under law.

Why, then, did they behave the way they did? They had two options before them. One, to negotiate with Veerappan, and secure the actor's release by offering concessions to him. But that, of course, meant sending a signal to the world that the State is soft towards law-breakers. This might embolden others to resort to even more daring breaches of law, and thereby destroy the fabric of the society.

After all, giving in to the brigand's demands might quite conceivably inspire Veerappan clones to indulge in acts of kidnapping of prominent citizens for ransom. If the State cannot guarantee the personal safety of its subjects, there can be no progress. Stated in the language of economics, the State, by signalling to would-be kidnappers that it would not do deals with them, kills the market for kidnapping. Viewed thus, refusing to concede to terrorists' demands has its elements of public interest.

The State governments also had another option. They could have done a deal with the brigand; which they, for all practical purposes, ended up doing, in the interest of the safety and well-being of the actor. Was `public interest' served in the bargain? Depends on one's perspective of what constitutes `public interest'. Those arguing for engaging the likes of Veerappan in negotiation are not too concerned about potential long-term consequences. For them, public interest is here and now. Not some vague notion of `interest' that would become relevant at some future date.

If thousands of fans of the actor would settle for nothing less than his freedom from captivity at any cost, the agenda for public interest is framed accordingly. Too bad that a few policy analysts and political thinkers should believe that such capitulation on the part of the Government has adverse consequences for the society, in the long run. It still may not constitute `public interest' in the Government's scheme of things.

Thousands of movie fans may outnumber serious thinkers and thereby force policy formulation in favour of a point of view advocated by them. The intellectuals may even be right in their claim that the public at large would suffer in the long run. That brings us to another dimension of the concept. As a concept, `public interest' is always something of the present and not of the future. Public interest is not a stream of cash-flows that can be discounted to arrive at a present value.

But large numbers do not always win in the end. The decision on a hike in the Customs duty on import of edible oil is a case in point. The hike may make edible oil costlier for consumers in the domestic market. As such, they might be expected to argue that such a hike is not public interest. Against this must be set the fact that there are sections of the public who stand to gain from a hike. One, the oil trade which deals in the oil produced in the country. Certainly, it might now look forward to larger business volumes in the commodity.

If supplies have been mopped up earlier then there is some scope for windfall profits too. To the oil trade one might add the vast number of oilseed growers in the country, though it is difficult to see how they might gain in the current season as the crop has already been harvested and crushed. Even if they are included in our calculation, their numbers pale into insignificance when set against the number of consumers of edible oil. That is practically the entire population of the country. One might think the logic of numbers is in their favour. But the Government ended up choosing the side of the minority -- the growers and trade segment of the population.

The Government evidently believes that the decision to hike the import duty on edible oil is in public interest. But this flies in the face of the evidence of a numerically strong body of consumers who have lost out in the bargain. How did this happen? What aspect of `public interest' policy does this demonstrate? Now, it is well known that the vast army of consumers is ill-organised. In contrast, the domestic oil lobby is far better organised to swing government policies their way.

The oilseed growers may not be that well-organised. But they have something else going in their favour. They have as their spokespersons out-of-work politicians who see in championing their cause a handy tool for personal political profit. In other words, public interest gets determined not on the basis of a real or notional head-count but on the basis of who is better organised.

Decisions are taken not on the basis of inherent public interest, but on the grounds of `perceived' public interest. It is by creating the right perception of public interest that one can alter policy formulation in one's favour.