Economic development and securing public prosperity are no longer a function of political ideologies. In an interdependent global economy, Development chases the Market, irrespective of whether you are a Left, Centre or a conservative Right-wing government.

The evidence for that stares us in the face, as the biggest Communist country in the world continues to gleefully open up its economy to free market and the citadel of Capitalism fuses big business with a welfare state as it begins to provide universal healthcare. However, political discourse on the economy mystifyingly continues to wrap itself around ideologies that are Cold War-era relics.

In reality, business couldn’t care less about political ideology. What it does care about is access to the market. What it deserves, is an access which follows a transparent system and doesn’t rely on kickbacks and contacts. And there lies the “policy paralysis”.

India is one of the world’s largest markets. However, it is also an excruciatingly tough place to do business. According to a report by World Bank, India is ranked 134 out of 189 countries on the ease of doing business. What’s surprising is that the situation does not exist for a lack of liquidity, as India is ranked 28^th in the world for obtaining credit.

The most difficult aspects of doing business were identified as opening a business, securing construction permits and enforcing contracts. A few of my friends have recently turned entrepreneurs and almost all have related their experience of the complexities involved. As complexities increase, so do the avenues for corruption. A Byzantine system gives rise to middlemen and a culture of kickbacks, which most businesses in India have accepted as normal. However, global businesses don’t work like that.

Global CEOs perceive India as a country of opaque business practices, where you need to know the right people to get things done. Such a system, which relies on individuals rather than process, is automatically perceived to be risky as it is vulnerable to corruption. Add to that the fact that the governments in their respective countries are slightly more interested in stamping out corruption (ask Walmart) and this dampens their enthusiasm to set up shop in India.

Crony capitalism is of course never one-sided. Indeed, some of the most successful businesses in India are those that have learned to game this dishonest system to their advantage. Not all businesses want to operate in a fraudulent manner, but as long as incentives exist, many will.

Since the Satyam accounting fraud in 2009, the government has rolled out regulations to improve corporate governance and whistleblower protection. But the seriousness, with which existing or new laws need to be enforced, leaves a lot to be desired. The alacrity with which the Satyam fraud has been dealt with had a large part to do with the fact that Satyam was also a listed company in the United States of America. International governments and regulators continue to apply the pressure needed to get justice for their citizens. A similar intent seems to be missing from the Indian government (Central or State, from either side of the ideological spectrum) in pursuing the case of high profile errant domestic companies and their promoters, whether in the telecom, mining, real estate, microcredit or airline industry.

Policymaking and stricter regulation itself will not change the scenario. The news media has an important role to play. Enough has been written about media ownership in India. It is perhaps time to actually implement policy, which would prevent news media ownership by conglomerates which operate in other non-media industries and cause an editorial conflict of interest.

It would hopefully allow for a more wholesome reportage without bizarre lapses, such as not quizzing the grounds on which a public utilities company refuses a government-operated audit. Especially, if the said company hopes for the government to bail them out (for the second time in 3 years) when dues rack up. Maybe the Indian media would care to observe its Western counterparts who routinely bash bankers and Western governments for bailing out big banks with taxpayer funds – an activism which effectively closes similar exit options for reckless banks in the future.

The Indian news media today props up certain politicians and their ideology as being “business friendly”, a welcome alternative to the current government. Amusingly, the current government and its legacy of crony capitalism can very well be described as being “business friendly”. Unsurprisingly, this set of “friendly businessmen” is largely the same across both of the major electoral alliances.

The government is not required to be “friends” with any entity, except the citizens it serves. And yet in our country big business and politicians merrily go on a honeymoon, cheered by a highly compromised media that is unabashedly wearing blinders on corporate corruption. This is worrying.

The economy does not need outdated ideologies. The requirement is for a political leadership, which stands firm in its responsibility to govern with integrity towards it citizens – with no favours to anyone.

In the 1930s, faced with an economy in doldrums and incessant lobbying from self-serving industry captains, US President Franklin D Roosevelt declared, “Private enterprise is ceasing to be free enterprise and is becoming a cluster of private collectivisms: masking itself as a system of free enterprise, it is in fact becoming a concealed cartel system…The enforcement of free competition is the least regulation business can expect”. Do we have a politician who has the courage needed to call it like it is? Can they please have a chat with this person? (I can’t. I don’t have the right connections)

This author can be contacted at kartikmall@gmail.com