Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The BJP8217;s Sushil Modi impasse in Bihar seems to have unwittingly wrought a potentially important victory for intra-party democracy. Since both factions in the state BJP appeared to be equally strong, and the central leadership was apparently divided too, the usual olive branch/hardball tactic didn8217;t cut it 8212; leaving the party with no option but to institute a secret ballot to decide matters. This is, or rather could be, a welcome precedent in a country where most major parties, especially the Congress and the BJP, sorely lack institutional mechanisms to settle differences and dissidence.
The part-honourable exception is the Left, with its robust tradition of intra-party discussion on key issues. In fact, when Jyoti Basu was being considered as a potential candidate for PM, the CPM central committee voted an open vote against it 8212; by a skinny 7-vote margin. But neither the Congress nor the BJP has a robust tradition of intra-party, structured deliberation. Most matters are simply divined by party leaders who make or break other functionaries. That8217;s why dissidence often takes such a virulent form 8212; there8217;s no institutionally sanctified escape hatch for grievances or debate. The Sushil Modi secret ballot, born out of exigency, showed that a clear decision can emerge and everyone can have a say even when intra-party fights are bitter. Party reform is a long, arduous process. For the US Democrats in the bad old days, party bosses decided matters in closed, smoke-filled rooms until administrative structures and intra-party ballots were entrenched as late as the 8217;60s. The British Labour party also reformed itself after decades of pressure. In India, this may take even longer. But the Modi decision provides at least an interesting departure point.
