The first feel-gooder of modern times was Harold Macmillan, Britain's Prime Minister between the suicidal Anthony Eden and the whimsical Alec Douglas-Home. The phrase has vintage. It was first used by Macmillan to describe Britain was emerging from the gloom of victory in the Second World War. 'Gloom of victory' is appropriate, for the economy had paid a ruinous price for military success. Rationing, for instance, continued for years after the war.

Misery was compounded by misadventure: the 1956 Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of the Suez Canal ended in humiliation when the Americans reminded the European powers that Egypt was not their colony anymore. The peace dividend became visible during Macmillan's term, Britain began to smile, and its erudite Prime Minister invented the 'feel-good' phrase. So what happened when his preferred successor led the Conservatives into a general election in 1963? The Conservatives lost.

No single issue

Obviously there is no single issue that determines victory and defeat in as complex an event as a general election, particularly in as complicated a nation as India. Governance is akin to a gradual accretion of negatives, until at some point of time you cross the tipping point, and the glow of victory slips almost inadvertently into the fade of retreat. The problem of 'feel-good' as a catch-all slogan is that for every person who feels good, there are two who do not feel as good. The only politician who rode to re-election on such a slogan was Ronald Reagan, but that was because he took a concept a step ahead with his line, "Good Morning, America".

Ironically, success tempts a government into such a slogan; a static or failed government sticks to the emotive power of political issues. Rajiv Gandhi tried a variation in 1989, with 'Mera Bharat Mahaan'. There were solid economic achievements behind that claim. The reforms of Dr Manmohan Singh in 1991 could not have succeeded without the effective management of the Indian economy in the Congress decade of 1980 to 1989, launched with Indira Gandhi as prime minister and Pranab Mukherjee as finance minister.

Hype about reforms has obscured the fact that the Indian economy grew at exactly the same pace between 1980 and 1989 that it did in the ten years after 1991: at 5.8 per cent in the '80s and 5.9 per cent in the '90s. The best of the first phase came when the seeds planted by Rajiv Gandhi's innovative thinking offered fruit: between 1988 and 1991 the economy grew at 7.6 per cent a year. Rajiv Gandhi therefore had every right to believe that India was finally coming into its own, and there was enough in the foreign press, which had no reason to be subjective, to confirm such a view. Ironically, Rajiv Gandhi got 191 seats in the 1989 elections, almost the same as the NDA's 190.

Why does success become its own enemy?

When Harold Macmillan was asked what worried him most during his halcyon days in office, he answered gravely, "Events, dear boy, events."

Events are both imponderable and ponderable. You can ponder over those that can be seen ahead. The Supreme Court judgment on the criminal cases against Laloo Yadav, for instance, is visible in the near distance. This is one reason why the Opposition is stoking up a fire beneath those newly-appointed Central ministers who have been charged with various crimes.

The Indo-Pak peace process lies in thecategory of imponderables. Well, foreign minister Natwar Singh is no fool. He tossed out an idea from the standard reference book of hard hats when he suggested that the Indo-Pak dialogue should proceed on the Sino-Indian model. It means that differences over Kashmir should not prevent growth in trade and other items on India's wish-list.

Sensitive matter

It is understandable that a new government should seek some change of course in as sensitive a matter as Indo-Pak relations. The peace initiative with Pakistan had gathered substantial popular support, and any disruption will become one of those negatives that begin to add up. Three constituencies are beginning to get affected: those voters who do not want to see accused politicians in office; investors in stocks and shares, whose volatility is making them queasy; and the much larger peace-constituency which wants to build on the joy of the cricket series in Pakistan. Either singly or together, they are not yet sufficient to disturb the equanimity of the government; but the point is that when the NDA lost the elections they did not exist. Events, dear boy, events.

The decisive events on the political calendar are of course the Assembly elections. More often than not, the partners in Delhi will be in competition, creating its own set of tensions.

A timetable for the future will start to get formulated after the first of the Assembly elections, in Maharashtra in September. The advantage of the ruling alliance is that the partners are not in conflict there. Even though the Left will engage in friendly, or not so friendly, fire in the states, its support at the Centre is certain. Similarly, Maharashtra is sorted out; and there is no reason why the DMK should change sides. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the Congress has begun to reassert itself. That is how the stage is set. But will there be any drama? Old Macmillan had the answer. Events, dear boy, events.

M.J. Akbar is the Editor of The Asian Age.