Why competition will be good for the bureaucracy The appointment process at the higher levels should be more open

Why competition will be good for the bureaucracy

The appointment process at the higher levels should be more open

Speaking in the House of Commons in 1922, British prime minister Lloyd George called the civil service in India a “steel frame”, and argued that the structure would collapse without it. A lot has changed with time after India inherited this steel frame from its colonial ruler. In 2012, Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd, a Hong Kong-based consultancy, found that the bureaucracy in India was the worst among 12 Asian countries surveyed. Clearly, the bureaucratic system in the country has not evolved according to the changing nature of administrative challenges and a growing economy where the activity is shifting towards the private sector.

The latest evidence, as reported in this newspaper and elsewhere, is the war of words between members of civil services, as the officers of the elite Indian Administrative Service (IAS) are lobbying hard against parity with other All India Services in compensation, promotions and other benefits. Both sides are making representations before the Seventh Pay Commission, which is expected to submit its report later this month. In effect, the debate is about maintaining the supremacy of one service over all others and reducing competition in appointments at higher levels.

This again is an indication of the need for structural reforms in the Indian bureaucratic system, especially at the top level. Both administration and policymaking are getting increasingly complex and require specialized skill sets. In fact, a good administrator may not always prove to be a good policymaker or vice-versa.

To be sure, the need for change is well recognized and about 50 committees and commissions have looked into administrative and related issues since independence. For instance, the government in 1966 constituted the First Administrative Reforms Commission (FARC) which was followed by a number of other committees. The United Progressive Alliance government in 2005 constituted the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (SARC). Both the commissions recommended changes in the appointment process at the higher levels of the civil service to make it more open. The crux of the matter is that there should be more competition for appointments at the higher levels as policymaking needs technical knowledge and domain expertise. The FARC had recommended that the entry in middle and senior positions in the Central Secretariat be allowed from all services on the basis of specialization, experience and knowledge.

The SARC went on to argue in favour of lateral entry from the private sector in senior positions, as that would bring in corporate culture and domain expertise which may not be available with civil servants in key areas. However, such recommendations normally don’t cut much ice with the incumbents. Be it in the financial markets, the real economy or the government, incumbents don’t like competition. Unsurprisingly, the SARC in its consultation found that most officers’ associations were not in favour of lateral entry in government jobs from the private sector, though some were in favour of being allowed to join the private sector for a specified period. As a result, higher positions in the government have remained largely with officers belonging to one service. In fact, even appointment to head regulatory agencies also normally goes in the favour of a serving or a retired bureaucrat.

This is contrary to the practice in developed countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where appointments at senior levels are made from a wider talent pool, which includes eligible civil servants and aspirants from the private sector with relevant expertise. Outside talent from the private sector is more likely to be target-oriented, which will improve the performance of the government. Also, more competition will encourage career civil servants to develop expertise in areas of their choice.

In its report, the SARC noted, “...the framework, systems and methods of functioning of the civil services based on the Whitehall model of the mid-nineteenth century remains largely unchanged”. It is high time that necessary changes which have been recommended and discussed over and over again are implemented.

Clearly, a 21st century economy needs to look beyond a 19th century model of bureaucracy and governance.

Reform subsidies and redirect expenditure

Wasteful subsidies that do not reach the poor should be reduced. The savings would be better spent and might actually reach the poor, says the author in the second of two articles

Simple proposals to reform subsidies and redirect expenditure can yield high returns. And the savings realised are substantial. On a conservative basis, the proposals outlined here will yield annual savings of Rs 20,000 crore (2015-16), Rs 60,000 crore (2016-17) and Rs 1 lakh crore (2017-18).

LPG attracts a total subsidy of Rs 22,000 crore. By no stretch of imagination is this for the poor. Effectively, it is an annual grant of Rs 2,000-2,500 for every non-poor (read rich) household. And, it would have been Rs 7,000-8,000, if oil prices had not plummeted. The cost per cylinder (14.2 kg) is Rs 585, whereas the price is Rs 418 per cylinder. The price was Rs 345 per cylinder in 2010. Had prices been increased at 10 per cent per annum (the inflation rate since 2010) the price would have been Rs 550 per cylinder today. In January 2014, the price was Rs 414 per cylinder; it hasn't changed in two years. An upfront increase is clearly in order.

The proposal: Immediately hike the price to Rs 460 per cylinder (a 10 per cent increase); the price should be increased by Rs 5 per cylinder per month starting April 1, 2016. This will almost entirely eliminate the subsidy over two fiscal years, that is, by March 31, 2018. Decontrol LPG prices with effect from April 1, 2018. This proposal will yield annual savings of Rs 5,500 crore, Rs 13,350 crore and Rs 21,500 crore in the fiscal years up to 2017-18.

On food, the subsidy amounts to Rs 1.25 lakh crore. It has doubled since 2010-11 because of the growing divergence between procurement costs [minimum support price (MSP)] and central issue prices (CIP), an open-ended procurement, higher procurement-linked costs and an expanded coverage.

The CIP for below-poverty-line (BPL) households per quintal are Rs 415 for wheat and Rs 565 for rice. The estimated economic costs per quintal of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) are Rs 3,000 for rice and Rs 2,200 for wheat. Since 2002 there has been no change in the CIPs. During 2002- 15, the MSP of wheat increased from Rs 620 to Rs 1,400 (125 per cent) and for paddy from Rs 530 to Rs 1,410 (166 per cent). Today, the subsidy is 81 per cent of the economic cost. The subsidy in 2002 was 45 per cent (wheat) and 48 per cent (rice). For above-poverty-line (APL) households, the subsidy has tripled since 2002 and risen from 34 per cent to 63 per cent of the economic cost.

Since 2002, there has been a substantial reduction in the incidence of poverty. If 45 per cent subsidy was deemed sufficient in 2002, what is the justification to raise it to over 80 per cent? Second, the poor do not live on staples alone. The annual inflation on other items of food has been in the range of 7-12 per cent. Surveys show that even the poorest of the poor spend only 35 per cent of their food expenditure on cereals. If so, why should the CIPs remain frozen? The National Food Security Act (NFSA) expands coverage to two-thirds of the population. APL households are also covered, which means prices are to be reduced. Entitlements for the abject poor (Antyodaya) at very low prices are justified. But, not for all BPL households. And, certainly not for APL households. The Shanta Kumar Committee (hereafter, the Committee) report has correctly argued that the NFSA coverage needs urgent and immediate review. In the present form, it is unjustifiable, fiscally unsustainable and administratively impractical.

The total procurement-linked costs have also risen. The FCI is carrying larger stocks than necessary; current levels are far in excess of buffer stock requirements. This entails higher interest, storage, transport and handling costs as well as storage losses. The Committee has brought out that the procurement system has worked primarily to the benefit of 'big' farmers in the north-western states (and a few other states). A meagre six per cent of all farmers sell their produce to the FCI. It is, therefore, a myth that the FCI procurement benefits all (or many) farmers. The Committee has given sensible suggestions on how to reduce these costs. However, at heart, the issue is how to cap total procurement.

The proposal: Increase CIP for wheat and rice to Rs 7.25 and Rs 9 per kg respectively. This amounts to an increase of four per cent per annum over 2002-15. Announce an increase in the CIP by 25 paisa per kg every month starting April 1, 2016. For Antyodaya households, prices as under the Act with an increase of 20 paisa per kg per month starting April 1, 2016. For APL households, increase CIP to Rs 9 per kg for wheat and Rs 10.50 per kg for rice immediately to be followed by increases of 50 paisa per kg every month starting April 1, 2016. (Taking into account MSP increase etc, the subsidy for BPL households at the end of 2018 would be 55 per cent.)

Other measures that ought to be taken include no open-ended procurement; cap procurement to meet buffer stock requirements and Public Distribution System (PDS) needs (at most 50 million tonnes); shift procurement to eastern regions; an implicit ceiling on procurement from north-western states (and Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh). Surplus states should move to decentralised procurement to meet their own PDS requirements and other suggestions of the Committee should be acted upon within three months.

The savings on subsidies are better spent on reaching the poor with a focus on employment, skills (learning), housing and safety nets and improving rural infrastructure. Accordingly, announce increased outlays (in per cent) (total outlays to be maintained in 2016-17): (i) MGNREGA by Rs 15,000 crore (45 per cent); (ii) National Rural Livelihood Mission by Rs 2,500 crore (100 per cent); (iii) Indira Awas Yojana by Rs 9,500 crore (100 per cent); (iv) National Social Assistance Programme by Rs 4,500 crore (50 per cent); (v) Scholarship for SC, ST, OBCs and minorities by Rs 3,000 crore (63 per cent); (vi) Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana by Rs 10,000 crore (100 per cent); (vii) Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana by Rs 5,000 crore (100 per cent); and (viii) Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana by Rs 4,500 crore (100 per cent).

Wasteful subsidies that do not reach the poor can be reduced. The savings can be better spent and can actually reach the poor. Yes, a political vocabulary has to be devised to deliver this message. Mr Prime Minister, who better than you to do that? It is time to get going.

Burdens the Supreme Court must shed

The Supreme Court of India is said to be the most powerful court in the democratic world. It showed in recent weeks that it could strike down a Constitution Amendmentratified by 20 states, and 'legislate' to devise a collegium system not found in the Constitution. On inviting suggestions to refurbish the collegium, Union Minister Arun Jaitley's jibe was that the court was acting as the constituent assembly.

Despite 65,000 cases in arrears, the court has enough adrenaline to consider issues such as ban on Sardarji jokes on websites, polygamy among Muslims and creating a safe corridor for wild elephants crossing rail lines. However, a visit to the court or reading its judgements would make one wonder whether it is a constitutional court at all. The long-winded arguments droning on in the 14 courtrooms are mostly over civil disputes of distant past involving land, revenue, disciplinary proceedings against employees, interpretation of wills and other mundane subjects, which should have ended in courts below
In some recent judgements, the court itself has observed that there should be some end to disputes over facts and it should not be dragged to the constitutional court. Last month, it stated in the judgement, Ram Bahal vs deputy director of Consolidation, that "appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence must come to a halt at some stage of the judicial proceedings and cannot percolate to the constitutional court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution."

This provision of the Constitution allows any losing party to approach the Supreme Court even without the mandatory certificate from the court that delivered the judgement. The apex court has discretion to reject such special leave petitions (SLP) at the threshold, but in fact scores of them are admitted in a normal week. This, despite the court itself having emphasised in several judgements that this discretionary power should be used only in exceptional cases when a question of a law of public importance is involved or the judgement appealed against shocks the conscience of the court.

The number of appeals entering the court through this gateway has exceeded by far the writ petition route. So much so that in another recent judgement, Leela Rajagopal vs Kamala Menon Cocharan, the court reminded itself that the jurisdiction under Article 136 is "highly circumscribed" and its use should be "highly economic". The first court might have determined the facts through evidence and examination of witnesses. The high court might have re-examined the evidence on record. Therefore, it is not for the Supreme Court to go through the facts "unless they give rise to questions of law that require a serious debate or discloses wholly unacceptable conclusions of fact, which plainly demonstrate a travesty of justice."

However, these precepts are not followed in practice. For instance, the list before the chief justice on Monday contained 72 cases, of which 48 were SLPs and 15 appeals. Only one writ petition was listed. The Ram Bahal case mentioned earlier started in 1974 and related to three plots of land in a village. Another recent judgement, Sant Ram vs Dhan Kaur, was an application for clarification of a 2009 order, involving a 1966 sale of 96 sq yards where a 14'/9' room was built illegally. In a tax appeal by the revenue authorities, the court found that the amount involved was so small that it was not worth even hearing, though the SLP was admitted long ago. These are only specimens; there are rows of them.

Public interest petitions (PIL), though they hog the headlines, take very little time of the court. Only a dozen out of more than a thousand cases heard in a week are PILs. Moreover, PILs benefit millions of people, who cannot approach the court directly.

The really undesirable outgrowth of the Constitution is the proliferation of SLPs, which are admitted and dumped in the record rooms till another generation of judges take them up. It might be true that the quality of judgements of the lower courts leaves much to be desired. But there should be some finality somewhere. Repeated review of disputed facts for decades benefits few except the second generation of original petitioners and lawyers. Or 3G

CMs' panel for lower burden on Centre

The Centre's fund share in centrally sponsored schemes(CSS) might come down if it accepts the recommendations of a high-powered panel of chief ministers on rationalisation such programmes.

The panel has favoured lowering the number of central schemes to 30 from 72 and earmarking 25 per cent of allocation in a scheme as flexi-fund, which would be spent in accordance with the finance ministry's guildelines.

To ensure the states spend their share of the funds, the panel suggested the Centre release its share after the states submit utilisation certificates for the instalment prior to the previous tranche.

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

In core category, Centre-state share to be 60:40 for general category states   In core-of-core, Centre to fully fund schemes   In optional schemes, sharing ratio to be 50:50   The panel also wants Centre's share in mid-day meal scheme to be altered   The panel submitted its report recently to the PM   NITI Aayog to monitor rollout of all schemes   Revamped funding pattern of the centrally sponsored schemes would be implemented from 2015-16

After the increased devolution to the states through the 14th Finance Commission, the 2015-16 Budget assistance to state plans was reduced from Rs 3.38 lakh crore in 2014-15 to Rs 2.05 lakh crore in 2015-16. The amount for centrally sponsored schemes was reduced from Rs 2.52 lakh crore to Rs 1.69 lakh crore.

The CMs' panel also recommended classifying all central schemes into three categories - core, core-of-core and optional.

In the first, the fund-sharing pattern between the Centre and states would be 60:40 for general category states. For the eight Northeastern and three Himalayan states, this ratio would be 90:10.

All core-of-core schemes would be fully funded by the Centre. In schemes categorised as optional, the fund-sharing pattern between the Centre and states would be 50:50 for general category states and 80:20 for Northeastern and hilly states. Funds for the optional schemes would be allocated to states as a lump sum and states would be free to choose which optional scheme they want to adopt. According to the panel's report, the NITI Aayog would frame the criteria for lump sum allocations and would monitor the implementation of all the schemes.

The panel submitted its report recently to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The report has not yet been accepted by the Centre.

The mid-day meal scheme has been classified as core (60:40 sharing pattern). The Centre has reduced its allocation but would release the amount only after the states issue utilisation certificates.

The third tranche of funding for this scheme is believed to be pending from the Centre. The first two tranches for 2015-16 were released under the old sharing pattern, officials clarified.

In a statement in February, the government had said it would fully support the mid-day meal scheme, pending the report from the chief minister's panel. Till now, officials said, the cooking cost was being shared by the Centre and state governments in the ratio of 75:25. The Centre bears the cost of foodgrain.

Other major programmes for social protection and inclusion have been classified as core-of-core schemes: The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, National Social Assistance Plan and the National Programme for Persons with Disabilities would continue to be 100 per cent funded by the Centre.

Housing for All, Law and Order and Justice Delivery System, Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchaee Yojana, Krishi Unnati Yojana and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan would be part of the core scheme segment. The Centre would give 60 per cent of the funds for these.

The chief ministers' panel was headed by Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Madhya Pradesh) and included Vasundhara Raje Scindia (Rajasthan), Mufti Mohammad Sayeed (Jammu & Kashmir), Raghubar Das (Jharkhand), Okram Ibobi Singh (Manipur) and K Chandrashekhar Rao (Telangana).

Supreme Court identifies four ways to improve collegium system

Focus on transparency, eligibility, a secretariat to assist collegium, dealing with complaints against candidates

Less than three weeks after it struck down a government move to create a constitutional authority to select the nation’s top judges, the Supreme Court on Tuesday identified four areas—including transparency—that it said needed discussion in order to improve the present collegium system of selection.

The collegium, which comprises the Chief Justice of India and four seniormost judges, selects judges to the high courts and the Supreme Court—a system that has drawn criticism for its lack of transparency.

On 16 October a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down the Constitution Amendment Act, which introduced a six-member panel called the National Judicial Appointments Commission. Declaring the earlier system of judicial appointments as revived, the court then asked for responses from various stakeholders on whether the collegium system required improvement.

Justice J.S. Khehar, heading the five-judge bench hearing the case, said improvements to the system had to be within the parameters of earlier practices.

On Tuesday, the court, acknowledging the public discourse, asked lawyers involved in the case to consider four possible areas of improvement: transparency, an eligibility criteria, a secretariat to assist the collegium and dealing with complaints against persons being considered for appointment.

The court said it received many suggestions that were “diverse” in purpose and intent.

Among those who gave inputs was the government, which, however, clarified its suggestions are subject to its “reservation about the correctness of the judgment” of 16 October. In its written note, the government said “to ensure public confidence and credibility”, the collegium system of judicial appointments needed to be “efficient, transparent and accountable”.

The government has suggested a three-step process of appointments, based on justice Madan B. Lokur’s part of the 16 October ruling. The first is judges may be appointed by way of applications or nominations. Further, apex court nominations may be made not just by the collegium, but also other judges of the court, the prime minister, president and the attorney general.

The centre also said the appointment process has to be “truly participatory” and seek inputs from a “committee of eminent citizens”, which would not be restricted to the legal fraternity. All shortlisted applications and nominations should be forwarded to this committee, according to the government.

A member of this panel ought to be a part of the panel that will interview would-be judges in the last stage of the selection, the government suggested. It said the “entire file with all views recorded in writing must be sent to the executive for its views on the antecedents, character, integrity and relevant facets” to determine if the candidate was suitable for the post of a senior judge.

The government supported the need for the collegium to have a “permanent and proper” secretariat that would collect background information and “assess the judicial worth of a particular candidate”.

Senior lawyer Fali S. Nariman told that court that the collegium had to be receptive to suggestions from responsible members of the lawyer community.

The court will hear the case next on 5 November, when there will be a debate on how to introduce the system, and whether collegium discussions need to be kept secret. The court will also hear suggestions on a permanent secretariat, complaint mechanism and eligibility criteria of judges. Lawyer Arvind Datar and additional solicitor general Pinky Anand will collate the suggestions and present them to the court.

On the eligibility criteria, one suggestion was to ensure a regional balance is maintained with adequate representation, including women. A lawyer pointed out that out of 611 appointments, only 62 had been women in recent times. “This system doesn’t remain a collegium system—it’s an alternative system of judicial appointments the government is suggesting,” said M.P. Singh, a constitutional expert and former vice-chancellor of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences.

“If the judiciary follows this, it will need a huge office. Before this, the collegium would take inputs for appointments to the high courts and Supreme Court. That process must be open and have the possibility of relevant people to give suggestions. England has a system of applications and shortlisting, but that will result in a complete change in the collegium system,” he added.

Green revolution needs a reset India’s agricultural growth rate has hovered around 2-3% annually, when in fact it should be at least 5%

Green revolution needs a reset

India’s agricultural growth rate has hovered around 2-3% annually, when in fact it should be at least 5%

India’s agriculture became moribund decades ago, and shows no sign of uplift for the long haul. Indeed, the rain gods have played havoc with Indian farmers. But not just the gods, Indian states have done precious little to tackle the problem head-on. The government’s solution is to give financial sops to farmers to buy peace from time to time. It is equally unfortunate that farmers just accept the sops and go away, only to return when hard times hit them again.

India’s agricultural growth rate has hovered around 2-3% annually, when in fact it should be at least 5%. Former prime minister Manmohan Singh repeatedly said Indian agriculture must grow at least at 4%, without which there will be no real rural poverty alleviation and no relief to distressed farmers. India’s green revolution is fatigued and needs a scientific and technological boost.

The irony is that the key to modern and technology in agriculture is with the ministry of environment, which has no expertise in agriculture, and as it happens, won’t talk to the ministry of agriculture to find ways and means of bringing about scientific and technological intervention. The reason the ministry of environment holds the key is that agricultural activities impact the environment. Therefore, using the authority of the Environment Protection Act of 1986, in the name of assessing the environmental impacts of new technologies in agriculture, the environment ministry has put a ban on introducing any new technology in agriculture.

The ministry of agriculture has not lost sleep over it. On the contrary, the Union minister of agriculture revels in eloquence about anachronistic agriculture. He seems to be least bothered about the lack of scientific progress in Indian agriculture, but wants Indian agricultural scientists to investigate the power of cow’s urine, panchagavya and yogic agriculture.

No wonder Arun Shourie remarked that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is the United Progressive Alliance plus a cow. The agriculture minister strongly feels that if Indian scientists can discover the power of cow’s urine and other Vedic paraphernalia, India can become the “vishwaguru” in agriculture. If this is the proclivity of the Union minister, there is nothing much to talk about state ministries of agriculture that never miss a beat to assert their rights over agriculture being a state subject.

Modern science and technology is an alien concept to state ministries of agriculture, state politicians and local farm leaders, all playing petty local politics, extolling the virtues of India’s annadata, with no clue as to what really ails their vote bank. They, too, simply throw good money at worsening problems year after year, and no real solution emerges.

Indian agriculture is seriously sick, and it needs a strong dose of bitter medicine. Market-based solutions are the only way forward. India’s investment in agricultural science and technology and rural infrastructure must be upped by 25%; the Indian Council of Agricultural Research must be turned into a private research corporation headed by a business-minded CEO; and private equity participation must be brought into India’s agricultural R&D.

Secondary agriculture must drive rural economic development. Small-scale farmers and subsistence farming must be gradually phased out as its size is not economically viable in the 21st century. No amount of shoring up economically unviable agriculture can help. Stubbornly persisting on flogging a dead horse is not going to improve the farmer’s plight.

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has given no evidence of its intent to set a future-looking agenda so far. That is not good for the nation, nor for the NDA’s electoral fortunes in the years to come. It needs to act fast. India’s agricultural science is already lagging behind by decades, and if the Union ministry persists in dragging agriculture to the medieval age, only God can save Indian agriculture, and even that looks doubtful.

The threat to global centrist politics Is the world headed for another round of ideological wars?

The threat to global centrist politics

Is the world headed for another round of ideological wars?

The election results in two very different countries over the past few days offer some clues on an unlikely common theme: the future of global centrist politics based on a broad consensus.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won a landslide victory in Turkey this week. His populist appeal seems to have survived despite a fragile economy. Stephen Harper earlier lost power in Canada to Justin Trudeau. Both Erdoğan and Harper—despite their differences—have been outsiders who challenged the consensus politics of their respective countries.

There are similar examples elsewhere in the world. Alexis Tsipras got a fresh mandate from Greek voters in September to take on the continental financial establishment. Viktor Orbán in Hungary is another outsider who recently took a tough stance on the refugees pouring into his country. Matteo Renzi in Italy is also a bit of a maverick prime minister.

In Asia, think of leaders such as Joko Widodo in Indonesia or Shinzo Abe in Japan. And then there is Narendra Modi in India, very self-consciously an outsider.

These are elected leaders. Also look at the advances made by the National Front in France or Podemos in Spain in local elections—two very different ideologies but having an outsider mentality in common. Add to that the election of the Marxist Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. Or the initial momentum of Donald Trump on the Republican side and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side of the US presidential primaries.

What binds all these strands together? The Great Moderation in economics had been accompanied by a Great Moderation in politics. There was a basic continuity in policy. That also increased the chances of global coordination since leaders were essentially pursuing their respective national interest from a common ground.

The emergence of the consensus is worth recounting. The years immediately after the end of World War II saw the rise of a social democratic consensus that brought parties across the ideological spectrum together. Many shared power in grand alliances in Europe in a bid to avoid the brutal divisiveness that plunged Europe into slaughter during the war. This was the era when the great sociologist Daniel Bell wrote about the end of ideology.

The economic stress of the 1970s shattered this social democratic consensus. That was the period when Margaret Thatcher in the UK, Ronald Reagan in the US, Deng Xiaoping in China and Mikhail Gorbachev in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics shook their respective elites.

The end of communism may not have led to the end of history. But global politics once again moved towards a consensus based on market economics combined with US geopolitical power. If the 1950s saw conservative parties make their peace with social democratic policies, then the 1990s saw social democratic parties embrace market economics.

Is the post-1990 consensus being challenged now with the rise of politicians who do not come from within the established system of political bargaining? Some global thinkers had predicted after 2008 that the crisis would come in three stages: a financial crisis followed by an economic crisis followed by a political crisis. Is that moment approaching?

The consensus after 1990 did serve the world well. But the advances made by maverick politicians over the past few years show that this consensus could be under stress. It is almost impossible to forecast whether the world is headed for another round of ideological wars, such as the one during the Thatcherite era in the UK, when the Labour Party responded to her new policies by swinging to the extreme left under Michael Foot.

The cracks in the centrist core could be a source of worry if extreme politics takes over. Things need not fall apart when the centre does not hold. But they could lose direction.