Is the relentless exposure of hypocrisy a good thing for a democracy? Questions over the relationship between the private conduct of particular ministers and the government’s austerity drive have raised this delicate question. In a curious way, the terms of debate on this issue are unmasking our collective hypocrisy more than they are exposing particular ministers.

If taxpayer money is being spent on maintaining the privileges and lifestyles of particular ministers, then we should scrutinise whether the money is being spent prudently. But the case where the ministers are spending their own private wealth is a lot more complicated. Politicians perform a different expressive role in any society. They are meant to be exemplars. They are also meant to be expressions of that nebulous entity called “the people”. So it is prudent that the social distance between them and those they represent is never too great. Sometimes their gestures of solidarity and sacrifice can also reinstate a powerful idea that they are in office to serve, not to enjoy privilege. Depriving yourself of a privilege you could have otherwise enjoyed can be a message of reassurance. In that sense, there is a deal of political prudence in gestures of solidarity that austerity measures sometimes embody. But we should be clear that this ia about political judgment, not about ethics or morality.

An excessive moralistic tone runs several risks. Any anti-hypocrisy argument, where we make a parade of our abilities to set an example, is often quite hypocritical. There has been much hand-wringing over particular individuals staying in five-star hotels. But if we were being genuinely non-hypocritical about austerity where would we stop? Much is being made about the fact that ministers are not moving into government accommodation. But if we really examined the matter we might swiftly come to the conclusion that, in Delhi, it is most forms of government accommodation and the attendant services that go with it that are the markers of privilege and conspicuous consumption. Government houses with great market rental value, with extraordinary gardens, prime locations, with an army of excess labour to maintain them, are far more a sign of privilege and social distance than spending your own wealth as you please. In short, individual gestures at austerity disguise the fact that there is a fantastic structural privilege inherent in government. The hypocrisy of living with that privilege might be far more deleterious to public policy than individual acts of conspicuous consumption. Just fantasise how different government’s attitude might be if everyone in government was actually asked to arrange for their own house, facilities, domestic help, etc, as others do. We might even get sensible government policy!

... contd.