T
By Dr Rajvir Sharma
THE Congress-led government is in office, but not without a history. The Congress strategists and advisors to Sonia Gandhi did well to advise her not to present herself as a candidate for the post of the Prime Minister at the time of election. It was a strategic move to take away the focus from the issue of occupation of the seat of Prime Minister by a person of foreign origin. At the same time, the Congress was not sure if the allies would stay with it, if the party insisted on Smt. Gandhi'sleadership as Prime Minister. That strategy helped in having a pre- and post-poll alliance.
The fractured verdict, however, cannot be interpreted by any democratic yardstick as a mandate for Sonia Gandhi or the Congress. In fact, the voters feel betrayed by the CPM, the SP, the BSP and the like, who were accorded huge victories in their respective states against the Congress.
The Congress on its part should be thankful to the media which played the role of an ally of the party and ?objectively? promoted and served its cause by writing off the NDA and focusing constantly and solely on Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka. The print and electronic media did not think it necessary to reveal to the nation the dual character of the CPM in relation to its approach to liberalisation and privatisation and of Congress and other allies on corruption, etc. It concentrated on the Congress campaign against the failure of NDA to address the issues of poverty and unemployment while ignoring the performance of the Congress in the past or in the present on that count. The Doordarshan, whose autonomy was very dear to them, was grossly misused and was compelled to advance the Congress cause and depict Sonia as really saintly in her decision to quit the offer.
It concentrated on the Congress campaign against the failure of NDA to address the issues of poverty and unemployment while ignoring the performance of the Congress in the past or in the present on that count. The Doordarshan, whose autonomy was very dear to them, was grossly misused and was compelled to advance the Congress cause.
The Congress, the Left and the media combined together to describe it as the greatest act of renunciation, unmatched and unprecedented. They eulogised her for two days as the tallest and a selfless person. The idea was to generate public sympathy and acceptability for her to be utilised in future, if and when the need arose. It was also an attempt to convert their weakness into strength. The whole drama reminded one of the Indira Gandhi days when the failure of the leader was sought to be covered by deliberately managing crowds at her residence to show her as the Messiah of the poor and the weak of the country. At that time also the drama, like the one enacted at 10 Janpath, was very common. In those dramas too, the opposition and more so the BJP was shown as the villain, posing a threat to the unity and integrity of the country. The Congress remembers how Mrs India Gandhi could rule the country for a very long period of time by encashing these tactics. Congress decided this time also to let Sonia go, but not without securing and creating euphoria for her and her parivar by mobilising the Congressmen to dramatise the situation as much as they could. It was also decided that she would relinquish the post only formally to continue as the de facto Prime Minister.
Formally she would be above mundane allurements and disinclined to power and position, while in practice the Congress constitution will be amended to make her the leader of the Congress parliamentary party, and she would also be the chairman of the united progressive alliance alongwith the present head of the party. Thus, while being the most powerful seat of authority with remote control, she would enjoy the fruits of a leader much above any other in the past or present India.
All said and done, one cannot remain unconcerned about the reasons that weighed heavily while refusing to be the Prime Minister. Some of the following occur to one'smind immediately:
- Despite the unanimous choice by the supporters, she was conscious that she may not be acceptable to the large masses of people of India as the PM of a vibrant, stable, progressive democracy of the world.
- The self-appointed champions of ?secularism? and of the poor might be ultimately pushed to the background by the popular upsurge against her.
- She was haunted by the realisation that she did not have the requisite experience and capacity to effectively govern such a vast, varied and plural society.
- She became wary of the initial reaction, rather refusal, of some of the pre-poll allies like DMK and NCP and post-poll allies like the Left and the SP to participate in the government which was the indicator of the shape of the things to come, wherein many of them would be interested in sharing power but not the responsibility. That might prove to be problematic in balancing the competing and sometimes, conflicting interests. She knows that this government will be overshadowed by the contradictions of policy, ideology and structure of the alliance and good governance would remain rhetoric.
- The spontaneous panicky response of the stock market also confounded her fears about the image of her leadership as Prime Minister.
Therefore, despite no love for power, she did not tell the allies about her inability to accept the offer of prime ministership immediately after her election as the leader of the pre- and post-poll alliance and it was again her hate for power that she entered into an alliance with those, whom till the other day, the party held responsible for the death of Rajiv Gandhi. Anyway, the decision is hers, notwithstanding the reasons.
Now, since the government is in power, it has sent wrong signals just at the beginning, by first including persons faced with charges of corruption and secondly by offering to accept the Left candidate for
(The writer teaches political science in Delhi University.)
Comments