What makes Akhilesh Yadav so helpless? Or Rahul Gandhi so inadequate for the responsibility he is expected to shoulder? Why cannot the former set right the rising crime graph and crumbling administration in Uttar Pradesh despite realising that it will have deep, adverse political impact? And, why cannot the latter put the correctives in place in the party’s organisational structure despite knowing that there is no hope till the Congress revives at the grassroots and the intermediate levels?
With Akhilesh at the helm it is not the same anymore. The state is said to be run by at least four chief ministers at the moment. Reuters
To begin with, let’s junk that dynasty debate. It’s overdone and it offers a rather simplistic explanation of the power equations at play at the top in the so called dynastic parties. It begins with the flawed assumption that the dynastic leaders are extremely powerful and have the unchallenged authority to effect wholesale changes in the parties they head. While it is true that the responsibilities of reviving and re-energizing the party lie with them, it is not necessarily true that they wield the dictatorial control to achieve that goal. They are, to put it in simple words, a brand identity but the power of the brand remains dispersed among several other coordinates. They are not often in the control of the latter.
Here’s what explains it better. Narendra Modi is the brand identity of the new-look BJP. He is powerful on his own in the party, like the Gandhis or Mulayam once were in respect of their own parties. The important coordinates in his success are the Sangh Parivar and the social coalition the party has built in its favour. Till his charisma overwhelms the other two, Modi’s leadership will have no challenges. Once the other two become restless and assertive, his success and longevity in power would depend a lot on how he manages them. Atal Behari Vajpayee was a popular leader on his own, but his position became shaky after the Sangh lost interest in him and the social coalition – the coming together of forces of caste and class - that had backed him, disintegrated.
Coming back to Rahul and Akhilesh, both carry the burden of legacy. Both are saddled with the unwelcome baggage of the past and are not strong enough to shake it off. Mulayam’s success as a leader had its coordinates in other people such as Azam Khan, who brought Muslims to the social coalition, and later Amar Singh who brought in the Thakurs. Also, brother Shivpal was an important element in the party’s organization. So long as Mulayam was in power and in control, the leadership issue was never an issue in the party. With Akhilesh at the helm it is not the same anymore. The state is said to be run by at least four chief ministers at the moment: Akhilesh, Khan, Shivpal and Mulayam himself, each being a centre of power on to himself. The multiplicity of power centres has hit administration, but Akhilesh can do little. Throwing away the older lot is not an easy task; it means the possibility of alienating the support they bring and also unrest in the party ranks.
Similar is the case with Rahul. He has been talking about the weaknesses in the Congress’s organization in public and in private for long. He has been talking about the disconnect between party workers and leaders at the state level, about democratising the Congress and about evil influence of regional satraps on the party. Had he been as powerful as he is assumed to be – the ordinance-tearing act was an act of sheer frustration, not a show of power, at not being able to stall any of the unpopular measures being pushed through by the old guard in the government and the party – the Congress would have been a different organization already. He, like Akhilesh, has to bear the burden of legacy. He cannot chop off the deadwood since they can further weaken the party in their spheres of influence at the state level. They also have tremendous nuisance potential otherwise.
Both leaders lack the moral authority or the real power to bring about changes. The process, if at all the leaders are serious about it, has to begin with Sonia and Mulayam. But are they the leaders they were once? Not by a long stretch. Rejuvenation of parties depends essentially on the induction of new blood. Indira Gandhi had the strength of personality to take on the ‘syndicate’ and build the Congress from scratch. Modi’s success has a lot to do with marginalizing the old guard. Again, it is about the force of personality. Neither Sonia nor Mulayam look strong enough to do something similar, forget Rahul and Akhilesh.They are the victims of legacy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment