Power demands its own methods

It is unprecedented for three Central ministers — for Defence, Finance and Railways — to demand the dismissal of a state government. Executives of a ruling coalition do not `demand’. They execute.Who do they have to address a demand to when they constitute the State? Themselves? A charter of demands is the stock in trade of the politician out of power. Demands from people who are already in power are acceptable only in North Bengal, where Subhas Ghising has made it a political institution.

Yashwant Sinha, of course, has clarified that he was calling for Rabri Devi’s ouster in his capacity as President of the Bihar unit of his party. It is a barely acceptable excuse, for his activities at the state level now stand eclipsed by his larger role at the Centre. Nitish Kumar and George Fernandes do not enjoy the services of even that fig-leaf. All three have instinctively used the methods of the politician with no say at the Centre, despite being safely installed in office in Delhi.

Thereafter, equally instinctively, the BJP produced a sneak preview of its Big Idea on Article 356. Through the good offices of Soli Sorabjee, it suggested the empowerment of the President, which is entirely in line with theparty’s respect for central authority and, by implication, the Presidential form of government.

Intrinsically, the Presidential form might not be such a bad thing, given the recurrent failure of Parliament to either originate or maintain sensible policy initiatives, even on issues which relate directly to the economy. But the provocation for leaning towards it — to ensure that the President has absolute jurisdiction over `his’ rule — is extremely suspect. It goes against the basic framework of the Constitution, which operates on the principle that checks and balances should be built into the system to prevent the concentration of power and authority. There is, it might be recalled, a legal precedent outlawing such change.

But then again, the sangh parivar has always argued that the issues it addresses, the Big Ideas it generates, are so very incomprehensibly large that the courts are incapable of dealing with them. That very questionable logic, so far applied to articles of faith, may again be trottedforth, this time in the form of national interest.

The point to be noted is that even this time, the BJP had no idea about the tools it should have used. In the limited case of the Rabri Devi government, it rendered itself ridiculous by falling back on methods it should have outgrown using direct contact with the masses when it should have used the machinery of State. And in the larger case of Article 356, it made its attempt through a government office when it should have gone for an endorsement from the masses.

The BJP has perfected the art of running campaigns on large issues through energetic, highly efficient cadre-based movements, followed by a direct contact programme with its ideological figureheads. This was the ideal opportunity to cash in on that experience. It would have been a far more compelling rationale than an Attorney General who proposes change without being able to substantiate its need.

In the months ahead, the BJP will stumble repeatedly thanks to these two factors. In terms ofprogramme, it will pay for its continuing obsession with the Big Idea. In terms of its implementation, it will be hurt by its failure to realise that power calls for its own methods. There is a whole National Agenda left to be fulfilled. It appears that we will not lack for entertainment.