Back in Britain,we have a new leader of the Labour Party. After he lost the majority in May 2010,Gordon Brown resigned. A process was set in place to elect a successor. By Labour Partys rules,only MPs can contest for the position of a leader. Nominations have to be obtained from MPs and then all the candidates have to go around the country on hustings to put their case before the members. Five candidates,four men in their 40s and one woman in her 50s,contested. After three months of campaign,there were votes by MPs,party members and by trade unions. In the end,Edward Miliband,40,narrowly beat his brother David,45,to win the leadership.
The results were announced at a party conference where political debates were held about party policies. The Conservative Party also had their conference where the recent tough decisions about reducing the budget deficit were put before the party members. There were arguments and differences. There was a debate and a discussion.
Contrast this with India. There is no inner party democracy. Leaders do not get elected; they get anointed. The Congress has,of course,long ago given up on having contested leadership. Jitendra Prasada stood against Sonia Gandhi the last time the Congress had a contest but that was the end of his career. Now,of course,Sonia Gandhi has been re-elected and then we shall wait for Rahul Gandhi to be summoned to the job which is his without any need to contest,or explain his ideas or policies. Even the BJP which proudly claims to be a non-dynasty party,had its leader Nitin Gadkari imposed by the RSS. The Samajwadi Party and the RJD are just family firms and do not believe in any inner party democracy.
Can a democracy be healthy which has political parties which fail to practice it indoors? Dynastic succession is feudal,whether it happens in North Korea or in India. It is not so much the problem that families are involvedafter all brothers fought each other in Labour Partys leadership contest in the UK too though they were not succeeding their father. Even so,they fought by publicly stating their principles and arguing about policy. There is never any discussion of political ideas in India. On TV panels,parties abuse each other in a tu-tu mein-mein fashion. Each blames the other,raking up past scandals.
Indian politics is not about a contest of ideas or alternative visions of Indias future. It is about winning power and having the control of patronage. Patronage generates money to fuel politics in its turn. Being Chief Minister of Maharashtra allows you to give Rs 2 crore when your leader comes to town for a rally. No one asks where the money came from.
Consider for example the futile proceedings in Karnataka Assembly. The only reason for the mayhem was that BJP is in power and Congress wants to show that as a party in power at the Centre it can outbid anyone else when it comes to financing defections. The Governor who should be above party politics is no such thing. The Constitution of India may have been drafted by the Constituent Assembly but the powers of the Governor are the same as they were under British Rule,ie,they are undemocratic. No such powers are granted to the President to suspend the popularly elected government at the Centre. Why is that so ?
Yet the entirely useless mayhem in Karnataka spells danger for the federal nature of the Constitution. When the Constitution was written,it was assumed that Congress would be in power at the Centre and in all the states. This was the reality for a time until Kerala went Communist. The Kerala government was soon subverted,thanks to Indira Gandhis agitation as Congress president,to which her father surrendered. Since then,the ruling party at the Centre has frequently misused Article 370 at will. The Congress,having been in office the longest,has the worst record in this matter. Obviously,two terms in power in succession has brought back the old bad habits.
India may be the largest democracy. Is it the fairest?
