Without State Capacity, will highway liquor ban pave safer roads?

The current issue of the relocation of liquor shops 500 meters away from the National Highways is causing unrest in some parts of the country. In a few days, the furore will die down and most shops will settle in their new locations. But is this move likely to reduce drunken driving substantially? The move is certainly well-intentioned but the desired benefits will be visible only if they are accompanied by strict enforcement.

To comprehend the issue by simplifying it, let us peep into the drunken driver’s mind. Why does he or she take the risk of drinking and driving? Because there isn’t enough respect for the law. The chances of a breathalyser check on the highway are nearly non-existent. Even if he encounters one, it would not be difficult to bribe his way out. Supposing he gets prosecuted, the fine would be a paltry Rs 2,000 which is not a sufficient deterrent. The chances of losing the driving license and hence his livelihood are also remote. So why shouldn’t the driver relish his evening drink brushing aside the little worry that the law might generate in his mind?

Relocation might give some positive results along the highways but what about the remaining roads. How can they be made safer?

To understand the problem and to propose a solution, we need to first appreciate the fundamental concept of ‘State Capacity’. Looking at the global landscape, there are countries where the state capacity is so high that the state controls the manner of interaction between parents and their children, even in the confines of their homes. At the other end of the continuum are countries where even crimes like murder get resolved by local communities and the state might not even be aware of it. The Indian state is somewhere between these two extremes.

It needs to enhance its capacity to implement its own laws. This would require, to eradicate drunken driving, recruiting more police officers, equipping them well, investing in their training, ensuring that they are not corrupt and, guaranteeing a quick legal process. It would also require the introduction of fines that pinch and assured denial of driving license. Of course, it is implicit here that driving without a license would be a treated as a far bigger offence and the state would have the capacity to implement this law as well.

A common counter-argument is that we are not a rich country and cannot afford to take away funds from the social sector and allocate to the criminal justice system. This is fundamentally flawed. The most basic contract between the ‘state’ and its ‘citizens’ is that the citizens will obey the law and state will always step in to provide them justice if wronged. Consequentially, it is imperative that the state should honour its most fundamental obligation towards its citizens and create appropriate ‘state capacity’ to uphold the rule of law.

If the penalties are increased and many of the processes automated, a strong criminal justice system will emerge and will fund itself to a substantial degree. If the rule of law prevails we would also become an efficient society. With fewer drunken drivers there would be fewer deaths. With better enforcement, there would so much order on the streets and in the society. It is difficult to translate that into precise monetary terms but it is clear that it would benefit the society immensely.

A state with capacity will be able to safeguard the rights of its weakest citizens. People will become more responsible and will start following traffic rules and will start avoiding offenses like littering and polluting the environment they live in. The economy would get a strong boost as people will sign contracts and move the court to get them implemented swiftly in case a dispute arises. People would like to set up businesses in such an environment.

Creation of greater state capacity would require simpler but stronger laws, clearly defined swift procedures, getting enough trained hands and the necessary equipment, strong oversight to prevent corruption, the ruling dispensation’s will and, a social culture that revers ‘rule of law’. In such an environment a driver who might be carrying liquor bottle in his vehicle will think a hundred times before uncorking it.

(Asim Arun, IG, UP ATS, is a guest columnist)