These are political dilemmas that can only be resolved by politicians. These are also dilemmas that lend themselves to empirical study.

The conventional political wisdom is that a hike in the price of petroleum products will inevitably undermine electoral support. I have no doubt that a standalone question to a voter ‘will you support a hike in the price of fuel’ would indeed evoke a strongly negative reaction. But I wonder whether the reaction would be comparably negative if the question were ‘would you support small and phased price hikes in return for guaranteed product quality?’ Or to the question ‘would you vote for the person who ‘promised’ subsidised kerosene but was unable to deliver or the person who raised prices but gave secure supplies?’

Politicians have a kneejerk negative reaction to any suggestion that involves a price hike. However against the backdrop of product shortages, black marketeering and quality adulteration (not to speak of corruption and inefficiency) — all the consequences of our distorted pricing and taxation structure — I wonder whether the fears of politicians are not simply a reflection of their preconceptions and expectations than of voter reality. It would certainly do no harm for politicians to draw on the widely available tools of scientific market research to better understand the true dimensions of the politics of oil.

The hard truth cannot be swept aside. We are inextricably connected to the international oil market, and cannot escape the implications of volatile prices. Committees can serve a useful purpose in drawing up the consequential route map. But only if there is the political resolve to consider its recommendations seriously — one that has been missing so far. So perhaps now, it’s the politicians’ turn.

... contd.