The first time the Congress lost power at the Centre was in 1977. Indira Gandhi was around. She was a strong leader with her son Sanjay Gandhi giving her full support. The Congress weathered that storm, even though the party did go through a tense period. What helped Indira Gandhi retain firm control over the Congress was also the manner in which the Janata Party failed to act as a cohesive political unit and provide a sustainable and alternative model of governance at the Centre. Instead, it launched a vicious personal attack against Indira Gandhi that soon made her an object of sympathy for the people of this country. In 1980, she returned to power at the Centre.
Now consider what happened to the same Congress after its leader PV Narasimha Rao lost the elections in 1996. Rao quit within months after losing the general elections and Sitaram Kesri became the Congress president. More than half a dozen senior Congress leaders declared open revolt against Kesri’s leadership and the Congress was splitting in many directions. Sonia Gandhi joined the Congress as a primary member in 1997 and a year later became its president, a post she occupies even today. Between then and now, the Congress under Sonia Gandhi’s leadership has won two general elections.
The key difference between these two scenarios is that in 1977 the Congress had a strong and undisputed leader in Indira Gandhi and in 1996 it had no such leader. Now that the Congress has found in Sonia Gandhi a strong leader (with a successor already in place!), it is unlikely that the party will split or become rudderless even if it were to lose a general election.
If the BJP did not disintegrate after its defeat at the hustings in 2004, it was largely because the party had a leader like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, whose moral authority and leadership no one could challenge or question. With Vajpayee having retired from active politics, the mantle fell on Lal Krishna Advani. But Advani is no Vajpayee, just as Vajpayee is no Advani. This became even more evident after Advani failed to win the 2009 general elections for the BJP.
So, there is nothing new or surprising about what is happening in the BJP at present. The problem began the day Vajpayee and Advani failed to resolve the issue of choosing their successor. Once Vajpayee was gone and Advani failed to win the general elections in 2009, there should have been no delay in deciding the next leader of the party. The biggest mistake the party made was not allowing Advani to resign in the wake of the election defeat. Mind you, Advani did put in his papers. But existential concerns of some of the senior leaders forced Advani to reconsider that decision.
That was when the problems began. If Advani had used that wave of sympathy for him in the wake of his resignation as an opportunity to force the party to choose its next leader, he would have spared the nation the sorry spectacle of its national leaders trading charges against each other through the media. In many ways, this is also an indication of how the BJP has begun suffering from weaknesses that usually afflict the Congress. The saffron party used to take pride in the discipline and code of conduct among its members. A cadre-based party, it has been argued, does not suffer from organisational indiscipline. The developments in the last couple of weeks are proof of the BJP’s degeneration into what earlier used to be the Congress culture. Nor is it a party with a difference.
Two years from now, the Left could face a similar test. The CPI-M in West Bengal will go to elections and seek the people’s mandate to form the next government in the state. Mamata Banerjee’ Trinamool Congress will give the Left party a difficult time. Many political pundits believe that the CPI-M may taste defeat for the first time since its consecutive run of victories began in 1977. If that happens, it would be interesting to see how the CPI-M in West Bengal comes to terms with that defeat, how it resolves its leadership issues and whether it also shows signs of the weaknesses that the Congress and the BJP are already suffering from.
Whether in a democracy or in a dictatorship, it is strong leaders with vision who show the way and hold forth the brigade. What the current crisis in the main opposition party shows is that succession planning is vital to any organisation, be it a corporate or a political enterprise. The opposition currently suffers from too many aspiring leaders per capita, and perhaps provides credence to the saying that too many cooks spoil the broth. Perhaps, as a first step, the party could have one designated spokesperson than several ones with each one seemingly espousing their own cause.
Sir, this is very well written and sharp analysis of the root cause. The hallmark of a great leader is that he takes tough calls and has vision. Thanks. I liked it.
Sir,
Your piece seems to suggest that a strong leadership is preferable to a democratically elected leader. Sadly, the followers interpret that blind following is necessary for strong ledaership.
Men like Arun Shourie and Jaswant Singh emphasize on democratic process within the party and are criticized as rebels. Your writing should clearly condemn lack of democracy within political parties.
Content Guide
