Camera-happy Party

For a political party so resolute in denouncing any reform for better economic fundamentals or more efficient organisation, the CPI has been glaringly quick to seek a key corporate ploy: merger and acquisition. In recent days its leaders have used their messengers of choice — the media — to sound out comrades in the CPI(M) on a proposal that the two left parties unite. It is a reassuring signal for Indian polity that the CPI(M) refused to be drawn into ideological polemic, and that its coalition man, Harkishen Singh Surjeet, rebuffed the overture unequivocally. For the CPI this should come as a moment of truth. Its stated desire for left unity cannot hide the underlying self-serving objective: to evade the ever-looming threat of derecognition as a national party (a possibility that the CPI survived just months ago) and to lay claim to the CPI(M)’s strong electoral mandate. And if it truly wants closer association with the CPI(M) it should seek a primer from that party on how to run coalitions.

The CPI has been incredibly opportunistic in its uses of political power. Remember, it was part of the United Front governments of Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral. During that stint in power, it went along with the proposal to dismantle the administered price mechanism. But now — out of government, and determined to compensate for its slim pickings in Lok Sabha with televised diktats and threats — it even opposes milder reform. It went along with Chidambaram’s dream budget in 1997, only to now resist sensible economic policy and issue ultimatums to the prime minister. In fact, the United Front’s common minimum programme carried much more commitment to disinvestment that the CPI would allow the UPA coalition, to which it proffers only outside support.

That outside support perhaps is part of the problem. The CPI’s keenness to be in government is no secret. The CPI(M)’s decision to remain outside put a spanner in its plans. But CPI cannot wreak its disappointment on the Central government — and by extension on the country, which is impatient to get moving with economic reform and development. Certainly, politics is a space for negotiating competing visions of progress and governance. In this, CPI leaders would be well advised to learn from their CPI(M) partners — especially the old guard, like Surjeet, Jyoti Basu, and even Buddhadeb Bhattacharya. Their interventions are marked by restraint and maturity. They acknowledge that political support to the UPA cannot fetch docile agreement from the prime minister and his council of ministers. We may not agree with many CPI(M) decisions, but they demand, and deserve, thorough engagement. The same cannot be said for the CPI. Its mode of debate and its proclivity towards shrill ultimatism should be seen for what it is: a desperate grab for media time. It is nothing more constructive than that.