While many open letters are being written to Narendra Modi, advising and counselling him on things he must do, the Congress is being subjected to a severe mauling for its disastrous performance. Not just the media and the pundits, but even party members have started murmuring that the party failed in its mission to campaign on its strengths and counter the powerful Modi wave that washed away every other party.
Not surprisingly, the bulk of the criticism has been directed at Rahul Gandhi and his advisers. It was he who led the campaign and it was his face that was projected everywhere, so it follows that he must take the blame for the party’s poor show. Milind Deora has hinted that not only was Mr Gandhi served by poor advisers, he also took that poor advice. This is as close to a direct censure of the Gandhi scion as possible in the Congress — not surprisingly, people close to him have immediately reacted by pointing out that young Deora has not won his own seat, for which he can hardly blame the party vice-president.
Most analysis of the Congress Party’s abject failure to enthuse voters has been laid at the door of the dynasty. It is the Gandhis, not just by their actions but their very presence who are responsible for the downfall of the Congress — so goes the received wisdom. Remove them, let meritorious non-Gandhis rise to the top and the Congress can revive itself.
Is that really so? In 2004, Sonia Gandhi, fighting almost insurmountable odds, defeated the Bharatiya Janata Party, all dressed up in its “India Shining” campaign and then shocked everyone by refusing to become the Prime Minister. It had been an uphill battle for her from the time she stepped out of private life to take over a demoralised Congress in the late 1990s and then made a serious political faux pas in 1999 when she claimed to have the support of 272 members.
The BJP was at its peak then and the Congress an also-ran; and yet five years later the former was out and the latter formed the government. In 2009, when Mr Gandhi came up with the strategy of going it alone in Uttar Pradesh and the party won 21 seats, he was praised for his acumen and vision.
It was the same dynasty then and the same one now. So what happened? There are several reasons why the party has done poorly, one of them being that it had no answers for an expensive, energetic and imaginative campaign launched by Mr Modi. It was, as Jairam Ramesh has said, “out campaigned and out-funded” by the BJP. Besides, the United Progressive Alliance-2 was rocked with scandals and non-performance; the voters were clearly angry.
The mother and son combination must take the flak, but it is difficult to argue that the voters were showing their displeasure at the idea of dynasty. If that were so, the Shiv Sena wouldn’t have won and in the past the Akali Dal has done quite well in Punjab, despite several members of the Badal family occupying ministerial chairs.
The BJP has never criticised those two dynasties and did not have any problems granting tickets to sundry children of its leaders (Pramod Mahajan, Yashwant Sinha being two of them); so why single out the Gandhis?
In a democracy, the idea of dynastic succession in politics militates against the notion of meritocracy. The leadership of the Congress has been mostly in the hands of the Gandhi family since the late 1960s and this has often led to the loss of leaders who get frustrated that they cannot make it to the top. Timeservers have replaced talented people. At the same time, the dynasty acts as the binding force that keeps the party together. Those who would not like the idea of working under their peers are quite happy to live under the comforting umbrella of the Gandhis. The much-maligned dynasty, for all its faults, does serve a purpose — what is more, it has a connect with Indians all over the country.
This time round, that connect just failed. Mr Gandhi could not reach out to a new class of young (and, for that matter, old) voters who wanted to hear messages of hope. Most crucially, the party has lost the old style state level boss who knew the pulse of his region and could provide inputs to the high command. The upper echelon of the party is full of rootless wonders that have no idea about how elections are fought. There is a strange fascination for technocrats rather than politicians. Rajiv Gandhi too had brought in smart, management types and vowed to get rid of power-brokers to rejuvenate the party, but the truth is that every party does need a few power-brokers and political managers too. That breed has almost vanished from the Congress.
The soul-searching that the party is indulging in will mean little or nothing if it does not take a really hard look and then some tough decisions, including perhaps a purge of the decision-making bodies and the induction of new, young minds who can be groomed for the coming years. Nothing would give the party’s rival more joy than if the dynasty is completely discarded, but it would be a strategic mistake.
The Congress understands. Yet, for all its usefulness, the dynasty will have to either change with the times or recast its role — it cannot act as an impediment to the emergence of other strong leaders.
If the Congress wants to spring back as a strong party, it has no other choice but to reinvent itself for the future. Rumours of the demise of the Congress are greatly exaggerated — a 128-year-old organisation, which still has 12 Chief Ministers and an all-India presence does not just fold up.
But if it continues on the same path with the same jaded ideas, there is a real danger it will sink into irrelevance. And that will not be good for Indian democracy.
