Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Is the prime minister resigned or resigning? Where precisely does the nuclear deal stand? Will there be mid-term elections? Answers to the last two questions are formally deferred till some time in November, after the next meeting of the UPA-Left committee on the nuclear deal delivers some clarity. And then, it may not. Going by the heightened buzz in the capital a few days ago, Manmohan Singh8217;s resignation could have come in at any moment. It did not.
To an extent, this hide and seek over the nuclear deal brings into focus a coalition situation handled badly 8212; and not just by the lead players. Some of the fretfulness of the commentariat is actually nostalgia in disguise. It harks back to a simpler political time when decisions were taken singly, and the decision-making authority was a clearly bounded entity. Suddenly on a big-ticket issue, Manmohan Singh is being called upon to act like the Napoleonic leader that his day and circumstance simply do not permit him to be 8212; even if we disregard the unnatural division of labour with Sonia Gandhi and his own inclination towards a bloodless separation of policy from politics.
But the more the drama over the deal stretches on, it is becoming obvious that it speaks of wider things.
The story of how India8217;s politics changed in the early 1990s can be told in several ways. One way of looking at it is that it set in motion a dispersal of power. From being concentrated in one party and its high command, power travelled to many competing parties. From the prime minister8217;s office, it has spread to coordination committees with coalition allies. The Centre must share power with the states today. But this very welcome and long overdue process has lost its way.
An unlovely negotiation between the several players has become the main stuff of politics. It bears no resemblance to the transparent reconciling of clearly defined interests enshrined in democratic theory. Despite the coordination committees, and the Common Minimum Programme, it is an arbitrary and open-ended thrust and parry. It continues even after decisions are taken. It is conducted perpetually behind closed doors.
Nothing can be ruled out. UPA allies can come out and publicly oppose decisions after participating in their passage through the cabinet. Sections of the ruling party can take their cue and loudly suggest their own degrees of separation from the Congress-led government8217;s major policies. The Left can support the Congress-led government and constantly threaten it too. It can insist on its claim to a principled politics while wooing the half-baked UNPA.
Much of this has to do with a structural deficiency of India8217;s politics that has persisted. Political parties are inarticulate groupings of ad hoc factions presided over by supreme leaders. Sixty years on in the world8217;s largest democracy, there is no inner party democracy that can lend some predictability, a degree of coherence to party politics. But the present disorder is about more than just that.
The 8216;one party dominance system8217; or the 8216;Congress system8217; that lasted from independence up to the late 1980s was defined by certain rules of the game and a promise. The rules were flawed, of course. They were not democratic or representative enough. The system essentially operated through narrow patron-client compacts between national elites and regional bosses. Yet the structure was generally buoyed up by the promise of a more large-hearted politics spelt out by Congressmen of an earlier time, especially Nehru. The seductive power of Nehruisms 8212; the regular letters of the prime minister to chief ministers, for instance 8212; was irresistible. Eventually, the Congress system caved in because the rules of the game became more and more restrictive, and the underlying promise increasingly symbolic, even as India8217;s politics was becoming more demanding.
The problem with the more fragmented system that has taken its place is not just that it still lacks any settled rules of the game. More crucially, there is no redeeming promise at its centre. At the bottom, this is a failure of articulation and leadership. Coalition politics has yet to find someone to spell out its founding vision. It still waits for its Nehru.
Take a look at the meagre resources Manmohan Singh 8212; even if he were so inclined 8212; could draw upon today. V.P. Singh was among the first to see the transformed political dynamic and put it in words. Politics is about 8220;managing contradictions8221;, he said, it is about the 8220;realignment of political forces8221;. But in the end, he failed to find the encompassing words for the big ideas 8212; be it coalition politics or Mandal 8212; that were set in motion in his time. His politics is still with us, but V.P. Singh himself has become a divisive and polarising figure. He must take some responsibility for that.
Narasimha Rao has been hailed for the 8220;shoutinglessness8221; with which he negotiated the complex demands of the changing political realities. The Congress had been reduced to a minority in Lok Sabha and the power game at the Centre had become more competitive than ever before. Rao made a minority government last, even usher in economic liberalisation. But we cannot look at Rao for an inspiring vision of the new politics. Even disregarding the Babri demolition and the JMM scandal under his watch, Rao will be remembered as the erudite politician who survived the odds. He couldn8217;t rise above them. Atal Bihari Vajpayee headed the first non-Congress government at the Centre to last a full term, which was also a full-blooded coalition.
Vajpayee is credited with the nuance and savvy, and even the statesmanship, required to lead in a more fragmented politics. But if Rao slept through the demolition, Vajpayee retreated from crucial tests of his leadership into enigma. Ambiguity has its political uses and Vajpayee used it with sophistication. His tragic flaw was that he wielded it when history called him to take a stand on Ayodhya and Gujarat.
The current impasse over the nuclear deal showcases the enduring poverty at the heart of the new politics. The dispersal of power that started nearly two decades ago carries on, and there is hope in that process in the long term. But for now, the pieces don8217;t begin to add up.
