A democratic Constitution, it was said about Germany’s Weimer Republic, doesn’t necessarily guarantee democratic politics. A Constitution is as good as the political and civic culture of a country allows it to be.
This truism was fully in evidence during the parliamentary proceedings of the past week. The debate centred on the Constitution Day and the so-called ‘wave of intolerance’ was marked by some lofty speeches and a unanimous resolution that reaffirmed the country’s faith in the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution.
Yet, and not surprisingly, the principal focus was on the responsibilities of the government in ensuring that the quality of public life was unscarred by atavistic passions. Maybe this needed reaffirmation, despite my personal belief that nothing has happened in the past 18 months to warrant any alarmist prognosis of the future. However, the government and the ruling dispensation is just one side of the coin. Equally significant is the flip side—the Opposition.
It is important to remember that the presence of a worthwhile opposition in Parliament is not something that the founding fathers had to grapple with. True, there were individual stalwarts from both the Right and the Left—the names of Syama Prasad Mukerjee, Hiren Mukherjee, Ram Manohar Lohia, Minoo Masani, Piloo Mody, Era Sezhiyan, Bhupesh Gupta and Atal Bihari Vajpayee come to mind. However, it is worth remembering that the first recognised Leader of Opposition was Ram Subhag Singh who secured that post in 1969 as a result of the Congress split. Indeed, it wasn’t until 1977 that India got a recognised Opposition party through the ballot box. And, if you consider that the 8th Lok Sabha (1984-1989) had no worthwhile opposition — the Telugu Desam Party was the largest opposition presence — it would seem that the parliamentary opposition is a relatively recent phenomenon, in national politics at least.
The implication of the opposition’s recent vintage is significant. It suggests that the evolution of India as a rounded democracy is still work-in-progress. The government may know what are its functions and responsibilities but an evolved democratic opposition is still a little distance away.
This isn’t necessarily an indictment merely of today’s Congress Party that believes that its 45 Lok Sabha MPs can only make their presence felt through disruptions. The conduct of the BJP, during its 10-year stint in the opposition benches between 2004 and 2014 wasn’t particularly decorous or constructive.
The absence of any all-round agreement of the role of the opposition may be a reason why there are frequent threats to take some issue or another to “the people” or even promise “blood on the streets”—a remarkable threat during the Constitution Day debate that an indulgent media chose to view as a rhetorical flourish. The Communists who have never quite made up their minds as to whether Parliament has a majesty of its own or is akin to what Lenin described as a “pig sty” has, of course, prioritised ‘extra-parliamentary’ politics over interventions in the House. I recall a Communist stalwart telling me some time ago that while “in other parties, the best are sent to Parliament, in the CPI(M) parliamentary politics is for the second-best.” I don’t know whether that assessment still holds good since the party now has a General Secretary who is also quite good as a Rajya Sabha MP.
If ‘bourgeois parliamentarianism’ gives a few awkward moments to the Communists, the Congress is confronted with a unique problem. The so-called Grand Old Party doesn’t have any problem with a Constitution it nurtured or even grasping the responsibilities (and, particularly, privileges) of government. Indeed, it often sees government as its divine right, passed on from one generation of the family to another. The Congress, however, has a real problem grasping its role in the opposition.
The problem may not seem unique since the party was in opposition from 1977 to 1979, from 1989 to 1990 and again from 1998 to 2004. However, the circumstances were different. During the Janata Party rule, Indira Gandhi was principally preoccupied with re-establishing her hold on the Congress and exploiting internal fissures in the ruling dispensation. Again, during the Vajpayee years, the party was essentially engaged in a holding operation with Sonia Gandhi at the helm. Its revival in the 2004 general election wasn’t an outcome of any conscious strategy but was an unexpected bonanza.
Despite the 2014 debacle, the Congress is not confronted with internal challenges. The dynasty remains at the helm and the only issue is when (not if) Rahul Gandhi will assume charge. Its real problem is that it has ceased to be the principal focus of opposition politics in the states. Its role as a junior partner in the Mahagathbandhan in Bihar was symbolic: it must share space with other anti-BJP parties. When Akhilesh Yadav suggested that a grand alliance could work if Rahul agreed to work under Mulayam Singh Yadav may sound cheeky to Congress activists but even elsewhere the talk is about Nitish Kumar leading the anti-Modi charge in 2019. The Congress has not only slipped in terms of numbers; its strategic hold over the so-called ‘secular’ space has shrunk. To cap it all, it lacks the organisational depth and confidence to take the fight against the BJP to the streets. At best, it can wage a war in the TV studios.
This specific set of circumstances could explain why the Congress has decided to use its clout in the Rajya Sabha to fight a total war against the BJP government using disruption as its preferred weapon. It may occasionally, for tactical reasons, give the impression it is a ‘constructive’ opposition that will engage with the government. In reality, however, it is not interested in building consensus. Whether on GST or anything else, the Congress has just one aim: to make the government dysfunctional. It is a classic example of asymmetric warfare born out of weakness.
The Constitution-makers never envisaged a situation whereby the opposition would try and forcibly prevent the government from governing. It’s a novel constitutional problem arising from a refusal to accept the ground rules of democracy.
