Once again, the Congress has put off organisational elections and deferred a change of guard from Sonia to Rahul Gandhi. Announced in March this year, the elections will now be held in 2016 and earlier this fortnight, the Congress president’s term, due to expire in December, was extended. Thus, hopes of sweeping party reforms triggered by Rahul’s recent makeover have been belied.
Some may see this as evidence of Rahul’s commitment-phobia. As a party veteran pointed out, he has committed neither to politics, nor to the party, nor marriage. When he took over as Congress vice president, it was with the clearly-stated agenda of bridging the trust deficit between the party worker and the leadership. He was keen on holding elections for party posts and following a merit-based approach to find the best talent possible.
None of that materialised, even after a string of electoral losses, prompting historian and political commentator Ramchandra Guha to reprove Rahul: “A leader who shirks responsibility, who works erratically in what for everyone else is a 24×7 profession, and who, above all, has a consistent record of failing to win elections and yet refusing to relinquish his post—such a leader does not wish his own party well, still less his country.”
When Rahul emerged visible and articulate after his two-month sabbatical, hopes that he would make good on his promise to recast the Congress were revived. He spoke up in and outside Parliament, and took on the NDA government, no holds barred. In Parliament, the Congress made up for its lack of numbers with its decibel levels and ensuring that the party did not fade from public consciousness. Rahul’s style of functioning also changed. Partymen found him more accessible and responsive. Those who thought he would run out of steam were proved wrong, as the Congress vice president continued to surface at political hotspots all over the country.
Fulfilling his promise of internal party democracy would have been the next logical step. But the Congress leadership has yet again shied away from any possibility of a contest, taking the excuse that the party constitution is being amended to reduce the term of office-bearers to three years. A meaningless provision, given that elections to the Congress Working Committee – the key decision-making body – have not been held since 1997 (when the late Sitaram Kesri was party chief). So, with all the CWC members being nominated rather than elected, the election of the party president is a foregone conclusion.
Internal party democracy in India is notoriously weak and the Congress has been particularly delinquent in this regard. The informal structure of the party is distinctly feudal, based on a chain of patronage. Grassroots workers have no avenues for upward mobility, as dynasticism prevails at the top rungs, with sons and daughters of Congress veterans being given pride of place. The coterie around the supreme leader sets the party agenda, leaving no scope for the voice of party workers and office-bearers to be heard. At the state level, satraps hold absolute sway, sometimes opposing each other, at other times cooperating.
Since advancement within the party depends on cultivating members of the coterie, or party elite, sycophancy is the preferred mode of operation. Investing in party workers becomes the lowest priority. The disconnect between the worker and the neta eventually erodes the party’s base, particularly when it is out of power and the ability to extend patronage is limited.
Accountability can only come through elections, by forcing office-bearers to cultivate a following among the party rank-and-file. It also promotes healthy competition among aspiring political leaders and keeps them in touch with the grassroots workers, who are the party’s access to the vox populi.
The views of the party workers are thus represented by their leaders, instead of being ignored. It also allows for healthy dissent, which can help in formulating party strategies.
As former Union minister Mani Shankar Aiyer once observed, the biggest weakness of the Congress after Indira Gandhi has been the “lack of coordination between senior party leaders and the party workers”. The Congress leadership appears to have given in to the Bahadur Shah Zafar syndrome, held hostage by durbaris, even as its footprint inexorably shrinks. That it finds itself wiped out in Delhi, both at the Centre and State, is inevitable.
Rahul has made a worthy effort to drum up some enthusiasm in the party through aggressive posturing, but a one-man shouting brigade is no match for the BJP’s well-oiled electoral machinery and committed cadre. While the Congress struggles to hold on to its workers, the BJP has already enrolled 10 crore new members and set in motion a plan to e-connect party offices at the district and state levels. For Rahul, ranting against the culture of patronage is not enough; he urgently needs to act to end it. Rather than fear dissent, he should welcome it.
Bhavdeep Kang
