The current political scenario is far from the ideal which we
must aim at. Of the two main national parties, the Indian National Congress and
the Bharatiya Janata Party, the former is under the control of a dynasty and
the latter under the control of an external organization as is increasingly
evident. Both conditions may be interpreted as internal affairs of the parties
concerned, but they are not. Such controls may be necessary for the survival of
the parties but are damaging to the polity of the country. Therefore, they are
a public concern.
Political parties in a vibrant democracy should be free from
any control, within or without. They should be free to function within the
parameters of their party constitution and their political and economic
ideology. Unfortunately, though the parties have a written constitution, they
adhere to it only in letter while in spirit they are dictated by an unwritten
constitution. There is no such thing as a supreme leader or ‘supremo’ in the written constitution, only president,
general secretaries, etc. but the unwritten constitution, sometimes more
supreme than the written one, has ‘supremos’ in place. This is not a feature
restricted only to national parties but a predominant condition in almost all
regional or semi-national parties. We have so many ‘supremos’: Sharad Pawar in
the NCP, Jayalalitha in the AIDMK, Karunanidhi in the DMK, Mamata Bannerjee in
the TC, Mulayam Singh in the SP, Mayawati in the BSP, and the list could go on
including Micky Pacheco in his GVP. And most of these supreme leaders also have
dynastic ambitions if they are blessed with politically inclined offspring. So
the Congress is not alone in its propensity for the dynasty. Shall we call it
the popular political culture of India? Call it what you may, but we must admit
that this culture needs correction.
The dynasties within parties are more of an imperative for the
party’s survival than a requirement of the state or the nation. New political leaders
spring up to meet the needs of the times as has been amply manifested in the
sixty-six years of independent, democratic India. The people have proved their
mastery in changing governments whenever required. But the political parties in
India, unlike their counterparts in other countries, have not been able to rise
to the occasion whenever a change in leadership is called for. The process has usually
not been smooth; internal elections have been avoided by building up a fragile
consensus which does not last long; and inevitable splits have followed. It is
the fear of these expectations that deters the party members from going for
internal democracy, thereby opting for dynastic succession. And when this
process continues over a long period of time, it becomes the TINA factor: there
is no alternative, as it has happened in the Congress. The dynasty is required
to keep the party together. The party is required to keep the country together.
But the party could also keep the country together with another acceptable
leader if only the infighting that may follow could be avoided. But the egos of
politicians, like of many others, are bigger than the interests of the nation.
The Communist parties are cadre based and driven by ideology,
however obsolete it may be. They are led by the collective leadership of the
politburo, with the general secretary on the top. All other parties need to
take a leaf from their page at least in this respect.
Having commented on the functioning of leadership in the
Congress and other parties, let me now examine the functioning of the Bharatiya
Janata Party. On the face of it there is internal democracy but the party has
always been accused of being controlled by the RSS, the holding entity of the
Sangh parivar. There are many other organizations in various spheres which are offshoots
of and affiliated to the RSS. I don’t see anything wrong in that although I do
not subscribe to the RSS ideology, being a democrat and a liberal, who firmly
believes in diversity and detests uniformity anywhere. But I do see something
very wrong in the external control that the RSS exercises over the BJP, a
recognized political party. The BJP may be the brainchild and the offshoot of
the RSS, and may have been nurtured by it. But now the party has grown and
spread, and is aspiring to rule the country. It is now necessary that it exists
independently of the RSS, and not be dictated by the parent organization. The
way the parent organization has imposed its choice first in the selection of
the BJP President and now its prime ministerial candidate is most unhealthy for
democratic polity. The way Rajnath Singh has gone about consulting the RSS and
proclaiming its choice does not speak well of the BJP leadership.
An important question now arises. Will every choice that the
BJP makes continue to be dictated by an external organization? When the people
elect their representatives to the next parliament, they are supposed to take
the party, its leadership and the candidate into consideration, not external
factors. The parliament is supreme and the parliamentarians must be guided by
the constitution, the good of the nation, and the good of all citizens. If
external organizations that have not been voted to power have control over
elected representatives, then it will be a sad day for democracy and for the
nation.
Strong internal control of a party is bad, but external
control is worse.
Published in The Navhind Times, Panorama 15.09.2013
No comments:
Post a Comment