Opinion The young and not-so-bold
If younger politicians have less power,it is because they dont take risks
There has recently been some lamenting over the fact that Indias young politicians have not yet given any evidence of being capable of changing the nature and character of Indian politics. Instead of creating new paradigms,many are being accused of succumbing to reactionary discourses around caste and religion. Worse still,many politicians of promise seem silent spectators on the big issues of the day,generating doubts about their capacity to lead in the future. While it would be unfair to generalise across a whole generation,the concern about their future leadership potential is not trivial. There is also a strange paradox at work. While the younger generation is being asked to identify with young politicians,it is also more difficult to construct a credible picture of what young politicians stand for,the strength of their character,and their skills as politicians.
This may be a personal impression,but I dont think it is atypical of my generation. We are much less confident in our judgments about politicians in their early forties or younger,than we are of older politicians. Part of this is of course due to time: senior politicians with longer tenures and policy engagement are just more visible. Fairly or unfairly at least we have something to go on; they have become characters in our lives. But there may be deeper structural reasons why we will be more uncertain about young politicians,and they in turn will lack wider political credibility.
In our parliamentary system,it is increasingly very difficult for any politician to create a base outside of a couple of constituencies. The only politicians who are able to do that do so in exceptional circumstances,where they first ride the wave of some kind of broad social movement. They rise and create their power in the crucible of mass mobilisation. An interesting question is this: with the exception of Mayawati,are we seeing the end of the era in which prominent politicians owe their initial rise to some kind of social or ideological mass churning? Will it be increasingly difficult for any politician to claim a political base outside a couple of constituencies? If so,will it weaken the ability of individual politicians to stand their ground? Whatever their other failings,no one ever accused a Mulayam,or Karunanidhi or Mayawati or Mamata,or Advani or Lalu of not standing their ground. For all their failings,they had larger constituencies. Almost all contemporary young politicians have no constituency beyond their literal constituency. In that sense,they carry no power and weight. But the absence of social movements linked to mass politics will increasingly weaken individual MPs,make them more dependent on party hierarchies and potentially less assertive. It will also make them shy away from risk,because the ground under them is more fragile.
Modern politics is more complex. We have politicians who are vulnerable because they understand local politics,but not the complexities of large and fundamental policy issues; on the other hand there are those whose policy grasp is matched only by their inability to engage with power structures all the way down. It is harder to become a complete politician who can straddle the demands of the local and the global. Very few young politicians are doing administrative stints in states,and in the long run this will make them vulnerable.
Insofar as party hierarchies matter,the signal from the top is important,particularly in the Congress. Rahul Gandhi has shown some political acumen in realising that the Congress organisation needs full-time attention,and that a national party has to take risks by not succumbing to the allure of every alliance. But his worldview and his ability to engage with policy probably remain a mystery to most people. In an abstract sense his commitments are symbolically enacted often: his commitment to the poor,Dalits,secularism and so forth. But leadership and statesmanship are not just about sentiments,and organisational commitments. They require an ability to engage with complex policy questions,judgment calls,capabilities to deal with the complex organism called the state and an ability to give clear signals about a broad vision of India.
Right now the Congress is facing an untenable gap between professed ideals and actual policy: they care for the poor,but are unconscionably complacent about inflation; on caste and religion they are ready to display the worst kind of cynicism at the drop of a hat; on internal security there is no coherent vision and government is marked by a peculiar absence of energy. But in a sense Rahul Gandhis relative silence on these issues is likely to create an unhealthy political culture amongst young politicians. It also sends confusing signals about what the non-negotiable values of a party are,whether it is constituted by integrity in that larger sense. It also creates a culture of inarticulacy.
Third,winning elections is never easy; and any young politician who wins must be given credit,whatever their pedigree. But we have to admit that our generation has had it easier in many respects. We have not had to confront the kind of fundamental political choices previous generations did. And while many of them made grievous mistakes,they learnt the hard way how to make difficult choices,how to engage in ideological combat,and get a measure of their own convictions right. The very fact that we can also take for granted a whole range of background conditions,from our collective institutions to our unity as a nation is a great privilege for us. But it also runs the risk of great complacency: for it makes us too easily forget the big and fundamental questions that are at stake in every political act.
Everyone laments that young politicians are not given more space and responsibility. But this lament is itself a reflection of the fact that young politicians are not a force to reckon with. In politics,no one gives anyone power. Power has to be created. If young politicians are finding it difficult to do it,it is already a sign of their weakness. Power can be lost by reckless risk. But the reverse is also true. Power also cannot be created without sticking your neck out a bit,without risking something. For how else do you become a focal point for an alternative imaginary? The sad fact remains that there is not one single young politician who has been known for any forward-looking visionary stand that carried with it some risk. The disquieting thought is that this condition is likely to endure.
The writer is president,Centre for Policy Research,Delhi
express@expressindia.com
Share
