Opinion Raisina Downhill

There is no other way to describe the manner in which the Samajwadi Party and the Trinamool Congress have complicated the race for the president. These parties choose to publicly reveal the Congress’s names; then they choose to publicly contradict their ally. The interesting point is not that they disagreed with the Congress — they have every right to do so — but that they seem to have chosen to humiliate the Congress leadership. By putting the prime minister’s name up,they have indicated that there should be a drastic change in government; and the alternatives they have suggested,particularly the name of the former president,A.P.J. Abdul Kalam,are to entice the opposition. So much for coalition dharma.

But the Congress’s mishandling is equally monumental. Its reputation for doing things by murky stealth has fuelled all kinds of speculation: that the Congress wants to fire from the shoulders of allies to scuttle Pranab Mukherjee; that the Congress wants to make changes in government and so forth. All of this may be speculation,but creating circumstances where speculation runs riot has reputational consequences. It also erodes the party’s authority. What are the implications for the Congress when an impression is created that that allies do not think that the finance minister is worthy of being president? Or when it is being told by its allies in public that it is time for the prime minister to move on? Or when the word of Sonia Gandhi is quickly contradicted in public?

Let us also,for argument’s sake,consider the possibility that there is some Congress encouragement to the allies. It is well known that this government needs a massive purge. Elevating a senior leader to the position of president may have been just the occasion to do a massive rejig. Many voices within the Congress have begun to argue this. The disjunction of political and administrative power no longer works. The authority of the prime minister has been eroded. Even his friends and die-hard supporters implicitly acknowledge this. In another form of doublespeak,when they say he is a decent man,what they mean is,he is not up to the requirements of the office at this juncture.

Pranab Mukherjee is a gifted political creature. But it has to be noted with some sadness that he has run one of the worst finance ministries in recent memory,scaling back many of the gains of reform. He must share some of the blame for bringing the economy to the brink. Much of the Congress leadership is wearing a tired old look,defensively trying to cling on to an old order that no longer works. Then there is the question of Rahul Gandhi’s intentions. It is very clear that his assumption that he could shore up his authority only by building the party has backfired. It is hard to generate enthusiasm for the party when the government is in deep crisis. It is also clear that he now needs to demonstrate some tangible leadership or governance achievement or his authority will erode even further. He cannot fight the next election on promise,he has to fight it on achievement.

In short,the Congress needs to make a radical break with business as usual. We have no idea whether it has the resources to do so,whether the next generation can step up to the plate. The evidence is not encouraging. However,the Congress has no option but to try. The party has a notable inability to let go of people who have become a liability. The presidential election could have provided one occasion for doing so. But if the intention is to use the presidential election this way,the Congress must own the narrative of change. Admittedly,it is in a difficult position. It has allies that will embarrass it for the sake of doing so; it is conceivable that any name the Congress suggested would have been publicly contradicted simply for the sake of making a point. The contest is also a reminder that so much energy and public attention has to be invested in the politics of intrigue,at the expense of addressing real challenges.

We can debate the merits of different candidates. But it is never exactly clear how parties determine who is a trustworthy president. Is attribution of untrustworthiness based on fact,or is it simply a stratagem in cutting others down? Or,is this simply a spoils game? If there’s one thing Indian history teaches us,it is this: you will be constantly surprised by virtuous people buckling and compromised ones suddenly showing spine. Our judgements of people do not seem to have any rational basis. Like in soap operas,political characters become cardboard cutouts of virtue and vice,cutouts designed to cloak intrigue.

It is said that the president is the representative of the nation. That remark is quite profound,but in an unwitting sense. Pratibha Patil was a perfect representative: a harbinger of the mediocrity of patronage-driven political life. Kalam was also,in his own way,a perfect representative: his capacity to put the people beside not below him,his boundless optimism and inchoate but ambitious hopes for the future made him stand out. But he also embodied the central contradiction of the age: a yearning for a certain faux innocence that equates apolitical with being virtuous.

This presidential election is important. The president may prove to be consequential in 2014. But this is also a time of immense institutional crisis. Not one public institution inspires or elevates us. But all that is on offer reminds us of old complicities rather than new directions. Sometimes an answer to such a crisis lies in process. Let us not hide behind scheming consensus. Make it an open contest and let representatives vote without whips. We are unlikely to countenance such radical measures. So unless a miracle happens,a new president will likely be a perfect embodiment of the age: an age coping with the uncertainty that comes when all authority dissolves.

The writer is president,Centre for Policy Research,Delhi
express@expressindia.com