Conversation piece

Government, thundered the editorial in the latest issue of Congress Sandesh,has the duty to respond to the demands of civil society,but it should be done in a way that does not compromise the dignity and rightful authority of an elected government. The journal was affronted that four senior members of government had gone to the airport to receive yoga guru Ramdev prior to his threatened fast,something it declared was unnecessary. This is a dispute on which reasonable people including whichever fraction of them are in the Congress party could conceivably have different views. And it is fortunate,and overdue,that some of these views are being expressed. Congress Sandeshs editorial went on to argue that civil society,too,was not represented by Teams Anna and Baba alone,that those should realise that the elected government and Parliament also represent civil society and its aspirations.

This is a sensible development,in that sections of the Congress party should now remember that identification with the government and,indeed,with its legitimacy is a crucial political task. Criticism of policy should not be seen as sniping or as positioning,but as part of a genuine conversation within a democratic party,allowing it to correct its mistakes and errors and allow it to better represent the people whom it claims to. Some Congressmen outside government live too easily on the idea that the party is easily separable from the government,that it breathes a different,more rarefied air,one that it shares with civil society and NGOs and other,non-political things. This would,of course,be far from the truth. The party has to win elections,and it forms a government to implement policies that it deliberates and chooses.

The Congresss tendency to behave like an outsider in its own house has contributed to the drift in the UPA 2 government. Few in the party step up to elucidate what the partys political reactions are to the issues of the day. With three more years to go of its scheduled term,does the party have the will to move beyond reactiveness,to frame debates instead on the unsettled issues that define our politics? What is the partys thinking on questions of land acquisition,for example? We dont know. Where are the debates on it being played out by party members for the benefit of the public? They arent visible. For the sake of mature politics,this opacity must be dispensed with.