news details |
|
|
| Nainital conclave: rediscovering the party | | |
Harish Khare
There is a realisation among Ministers that inputs from the Congress party need not be treated as irritants. Ideas and policies have to be necessarily synchronised with ground realities and electoral compulsions.
LAST WEEK, the Congress party staged a two-day conclave of its Chief Ministers at Nainital (in Uttaranchal). Apart from the fact that it provided an excellent opportunity for a formatted interaction between the party and the government, the Nainital show ended up redefining the equations and positions in New Delhi, especially the nature of support the Prime Minister enjoys from the party hierarchy. These crucial signals have not been picked up sufficiently because of the current distraction caused by Pervez Musharraf's writing and publishing ventures.
To begin with, the Congress Chief Ministers' conclave was a ritual devised, way back in June 2001, to garner a prime ministerial mien around Sonia Gandhi. Because she was not able to make a mark as a great parliamentarian nor establish the reputation as an orator, as someone who could sway the masses in the manner of her famous mother-in-law, something else had to be done to add substance to her leadership profile. The conclave format enabled the tableau designers to cast the Congress president in the role of a stern taskmaster, keeping an eye of potentially errant Chief Ministers. The Chief Ministers' conclave contributed to her policy education, gave her some idea about the complexities of governance, and helped create an image of a leader of substance. The conclave was also a periodic reaffirmation of the power equations in the party — in particular the centrality of the Congress president and the primacy of the AICC over the State governments and the Pradesh Congress Committees.
This relationship between the Congress and the government necessarily came in for a redefinition when the United Progressive Alliance Government took office. The very fact that Ms. Gandhi chose not to take up the prime ministerial job and instead handed the baton to Manmohan Singh upset many calculations. Those inside and outside the Congress who did not like the idea of Ms. Gandhi becoming the Prime Minister continued to nitpick, suspecting her of doing quite a bit of backseat driving, accusing her of being the extra-constitutional authority, etc. On her part, Ms. Gandhi seemed over-sensitive to such accusations and was, therefore, over-anxious to dispel such notions; she has insisted on going out of her way to give all the due deference to Dr. Manmohan Singh the Prime Minister. In realpolitik terms, she has consistently rebuffed all those, within and outside the party, who would want to create a distance between her and the Prime Minister.
Once bitten, twice shy; perhaps Ms. Gandhi remains acutely mindful of the fact that a handful of Congressmen had indeed misused her name to create a rift between 10 Janpath and Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. That gulf only weakened the Congress party, and allowed non-Congress and anti-Congress forces to gain ascendancy in the polity. It took eight years of powerlessness at the Centre for the Congress to learn a few lessons on the inevitability of give and take; but it seems the Congressmen themselves are yet to re-orient their thinking to the party's changed circumstances. They continue to remain in thrall of their own habits of intrigue and machinations and hence are unable to adjust to the new arrangement in New Delhi.
It was, therefore, necessary that a few basic propositions be reiterated, and Ms. Gandhi did that with considerable aplomb. First, there was her forceful proclamation that there would be no Deputy Prime Minister. Many sensitive souls have found it a bit distasteful that a question that was meant for the Prime Minister was pre-emptively answered by the Congress president. For better or for worse, the issue has been settled. For nearly six months now the talk — sometimes in whispers, sometimes in conspiratorial suggestions — has been that there would be a Deputy Prime Minister. This talk has been fuelled as much by the ambition of senior Cabinet Ministers as by the implied suggestion that the Congress president was having second thoughts about Dr. Manmohan Singh.
By definition, the anointment of a Deputy Prime Minister in the mid-term always means a dilution of the prime ministerial authority. This was the case when L.K. Advani got himself appointed Deputy Prime Minister in June 2002; that elevation sent out signals that Atal Bihari Vajpayee had to share prime ministerial power with his deputy, creating avoidable confusion in the world's chancelleries and at home, especially in the bureaucracy. For the rest of his prime ministerial innings, Mr. Vajpayee had to negotiate his agenda with his deputy. The presence of a Deputy Prime Minister did nothing to enhance the prestige or efficacy of the office of Prime Minister. So by her rather "categorical" assertion on the question of a Deputy Prime Minister, Ms. Gandhi has, in fact, added to Dr. Singh's institutional elbowroom. The message has gone out loud and clear to the Prime Minister's detractors — and there are many in the Congress — that the party president remained firmly committed to Dr. Singh's continued stewardship of the government.
Those Congressmen who relish the fine art of machination and intrigue have been told to lay off. As it is, in a coalition government a Prime Minister is forever constrained to negotiate the exercise of his power with different power centres; but if reservations persist about a Prime Minister's longevity, such misperceptions would invite miscalculations, at home and abroad. At a time when the UPA Government was engaged in serious and complex negotiations with the Untied States and Pakistan, it would do us no good as a nation if any foreign interlocutor entertained doubts about the incumbent Prime Minister.
Rahul's role
The third useful outcome of the Nainital conclave was the re-statement that young Rahul Gandhi has been assigned a critical role in party affairs. Simply put, the post-Sonia Gandhi leadership scene is becoming clearer and clearer by the day. Again, for better or for worse, it is blessing for a political party to be so untroubled on the leadership front, now or in future. That Mr. Gandhi would be drafted in for a critical and central role — even if not in the immediate future — should enable the ambitious leaders to make their own calculations. How soon Mr. Gandhi will be ready for an activist role is between him and the Congress establishment but for the cadres and the middle level activists there is no doubt that the party's fortunes are inextricably tied to the young man's presumed strengths and unexplored weaknesses.
Apart from sorting out these crucial internal equations, the Nainital conclave has helped take the party-government relationship to a new, mature level of bonding. It needs repetition that the UPA arrangement is a new experiment for the Congress and Congressmen. Most Congressmen are still uncomfortable with the idea that the posts of party president and Prime Minister are not occupied by the same person. For the first two years, some of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's own aides belaboured under the impression that those in the government were ipso facto superior, that those who chose to remain in the party organisations were policy morons, and that the party had no business sitting in any kind of judgment on what the government did or did not do.
On its part, the Congress party leadership was reluctant to perform its basic and legitimate task of laying down the policy guidelines and ideological parameters for the government, lest Ms. Gandhi be accused of interfering in the "official" functioning. The party had to devise the stratagem of a National Advisory Council to enable Ms. Gandhi to have a say in policy matters.
Now after nearly two and a half years, the need for synergy between the party and the government is seen as natural and desirable. While the party has extended unreserved support to the Prime Minister in his various initiatives, there is a ministerial realisation that inputs from the party need not be treated as irritants. At Nainital, the party's reservations about the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) were heard with respect. The air of ministerial arrogance has evaporated. Ideas and policies have to be necessarily synchronised with ground realities and electoral compulsions. It is not a question of giving in to populism. It is a matter of re-discovering the importance of sensitivity in policy-making, aligning governance with the masses, their pains and aspirations. At a time when there is so much institutional disarray, the joyful bonding at Nainital should create the new habits of partnership and cooperation. More so if such bonding leads to a deepening of the democratic acceptability of governing processes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
