The Congress has always been a party of many factions, unfettered and free at the lower tiers and forcibly united at the top by a dynastic leadership. If it is truly democratic, it is only in the sense that it takes a lax view about factional infighting and indiscipline. Its intolerant side is reflected most sharply in its refusal to entertain any discussion or introspection on the role of the Nehru-Gandhi family. Despite all the noise about the need for a surgical intervention to save the party after its dismal showing in four major Assembly elections, the organisation is still unable to have an honest and rational discussion on the leadership issue. After every failure, the favourite target of criticism is the clique surrounding the dynasty — the family itself is above reproof. In today’s context, the focus is invariably limited to whether Sonia Gandhi should continue as president, whether she should immediately hand over the leadership to Rahul Gandhi, or why only Priyanka Gandhi can save the day. It is arguable that a large party like the Congress, with its diverse support base and competing regional satraps, needs to be guided by a strong and unassailable leadership. But this should not stand in the way of an honest appraisal of the loss in Assam which gave the BJP a historic victory. The defeat in Kerala, though expected, has hurt it. The party was left holding on to the tiny Union Territory of Puducherry, a poor consolation prize. The failure to build a viable alliance in Assam and the inability to accommodate those unhappy with the regional leadership of the party cost the Congress dearly. Although it did well to stitch together alliances with the Left in West Bengal and the DMK in Tamil Nadu, there is no guarantee these will last. If success promotes binding, failure speeds up unfastening.
Some of the problems the Congress faces at the national level were reflected in Puducherry, where the central leadership had to resolve differences within the local unit on who should be Chief Minister. The eventual choice was V. Narayanasamy, an AICC general secretary who had not even contested the Assembly election. Very often, the criteria for electing leaders of the legislature party have more to do with loyalty to the national leadership and less to do with their acceptance among voters or the cadre. The party that ran the Congress close in this election, the AINRC, is led by N. Rangasamy, who had to leave the Congress after other factions rallied against him. The national leadership of the Congress has always been deeply suspicious of regional strongmen, and factional rivalry has served as a tool to keep middle-level leaders in check. While this might strengthen the position of the national leadership in the organisation, the long-term consequences of such an approach are debilitating.
No comments:
Post a Comment