I believe in every form of leadership or governance some amount of autocracy would always be there. You can’t do away with it. The percentage could vary say from 5% to 50% or say up to 100%. This is what would decide whether a government would be called autocratic or not. On the extreme end, you will have North Korea, and on the other end possibly the UK. Possibly this is where you would find the difference between Vajpayee and Modi. Vajpayee had the compulsion to carry the coalition partners along. Modi doesn’t. We do not know how Vajpayee would have behaved if he had the kind of majority Modi has. So even with the same kind of democratic set up the level of autocracy could vary depending on the strength of the ruling party, democracy within the ruling party and quality, and the strength of the 2nd & 3rd line of leadership.
India could be a democracy, but there is no democracy within the political parties. In BJP no election ever happened for the party president. There is absolutely no election in the BJP, not even at the district level. Vajpayee was always more powerful even when he was not the party president. Modi is always the most powerful leader whereas he was never the party president. In Congress time to time there have been elections for the post of party president. However, post-independence the power was mostly the Nehru-Gandhi family irrespective of whether they were president or not. You take any party in India, the picture is no different. The power is concentrated in a few hands. In CPM & CPI also the leadership hardly changed, you will see the same set of people for years together. Even in an organization like RSS, the leadership does not change so often.
Why does it happen? Are those few people specially abled? You see most political parties in India have been created by one individual with the help of other like-minded people or at best 2–3 people created the party and the leadership initiative was defined even within these 2–3 people. For example in BJP Vajpayee was the undisputed leader till such time he was politically active. Advani Ji never had it in him, otherwise Modi couldn’t have thrown him out. Do you think Modi could have thrown out an active Vajpayee? Indira Congress, the present-day INC was created by Indira after she was expelled from the original Congress in 1969. So the authority is held by the family. SP, BSP, TMC, BJD, NCP, DMK, AIADMK, RJD, YSRCP, TDP, SS, SAD, TRS, all the parties individual centric. It's because of their individual capability.
Now when a new party is formed, it's like the corporate houses, The leadership position and its power are defined in the part charter or the party constitution. My son has a small NGO, I drafted the MOA or the organization charter or the constitution defining the role, power, scope, etc. I have drafted it in a manner that the top 4–5 positions will always be within my family even if the election happens in a free & fair manner. The family will have the power to terminate any of the executive body members. Just imagine what kind of power Mamata or Sharad Pawar etc would keep in their hand. This amount of autocracy is required, or else you will not be able to keep the party alive.
Now this power accumulation of could be morally right or wrong, but can not be challenged even legally. Because they are drafted in such a manner that you will not find any legal loopholes. In a very rare case, a party could be hijacked. If Vajpayee Ji, Mamata, Pawar, or Indira has been successful it is because of their individual caliber, not because of the party. They created the party. All the stalwarts of the original Congress could not save the party, because they were not capable, because there was no able leadership. The same BJP couldn’t win back-to-back two-elections against a supposed weak PM candidate. The Janata Party didn’t survive because the power of leadership was not defined.
Morarji Desai never had the leadership capability. He was twice rejected for PM’s chair when he was in Congress. And finally, he was rejected by the Janta Party as well. Secondly, there was none with supreme leadership quality in the Janta Party or everybody wanted to be the leader. Today BJP is successful because the power center is controlled by Modi. Today Congress is surviving despite not being in power for 10 years because the power center is strongly held by the Gandhi family. Else BJP would have bought it or destroyed it. An organization can not survive with collective leadership or top leadership not having enough power.
You take any party, it is mostly known for its central leadership. BJP has to field Modi even for a municipal election. Whether it is a political party or a corporate house, their success entirely depends on the leadership. Definitely, these leaders have to have some extra power apart from their ability. Remove the leader the party loses most of its power. Do you think if Indira would have been there, then Congress would have been in such poor condition? Do you think without Mamata, TMC would be the same TMC as it is today? Do you think AIADMK is the party the same as it was when J J heading it?
Yes, I am an ardent supporter of democracy, even then I am saying this. As I have said Desai was rejected twice for the PM’s chair by other Congress leaders. Was it a conspiracy of the family? No. First time Shastri was made PM, even though Shastri was never in the race while Desai desperately lobbied to become PM. He was again rejected by the party's senior leaders and Indira was made PM. And finally, his government was pulled down again by his party colleagues in the Janata party. This is a clear-cut case of incompetency. Autocracy wouldn’t come or survive unless you are extremely competent. Today Modi Ji has autocratic power because he is capable, he is far more competent than others in the party to hold and accumulate power. He has reached the top coming from the grassroots.
Sonia has shown a similar ability. After Rajiv’s death, she had nothing in her hand. She was nobody in Congress. But she fought back with a strong leader like Rao and took back Congress in her hand. Despite all the abuse on her origin etc, she commanded Congress into back-to-back two victories, and even today holding full command. Yes, she is autocratic. At the top, you will mostly find an autocratic leader
Now this is at the party level, where autocracy is fine. But when it comes to the nation - India is a democracy. And even the most autocratic leader has to follow the rule of democracy. There I do not appreciate someone ruling in an autocratic way. The party could be yours, but not the nation. What is good for the party, need not be good for the nation. What is good for Gujarat need not be good for Karnataka. Amul growing may be good for Gujarat, but Amul taking over Nandini wouldn’t be good for Karnataka. Suppose Modi wants to be the lifetime PM, it will be good for him, but not for the nation. BJP would like single-party rule in India, it is good for BJP but not good for India.
At the party level, you could be a lifetime party supremo. A party like BJP may not hold any election even for once, it's not my concern. But I can not accept that for the nation. You have to face an election even if it is for the panchayat president. Not only facing an election or winning an election, you can not act autocratically in the elected position, no matter what. Because it is a matter of the well-being of 140 crore people. No doubt a CM or a PM has a lot of special power. But he or she is supposed to exercise that power in consultation with the team of experts and the team of ministers (more so the expert opinion), even though the final call would be of the PM or CM.
Running a state or nation is not like running a party or winning an election. Possibly there would be none who would know more than Modi Ji about winning elections. There he may not need any expert opinion. But when it comes to economy, economics, science & technology, defense, trade & commerce, international relations, foreign trade and so many other subjects where he is possibly not even educated. So there he can not be autocratic, he has to seek expert opinion.
Edit:
Someone has pointed out some valid points, which I am quoting verbatim -”but should have taken into consideration the desire to have absolute control over the institutions and do away with autonomy use them against opponents. That is where difference exists between a democrat and the dictatorship. Difference also exists about dealing with the other democratically elected entities, especially the governments in the states belonging to different parties. The way Delhi government is treated despite virtually controlling the assembly. The way you want to control MCD even after you lose elections. On such issues Congress party despite with all its flaws was not blatantly dictatorial as the incumbents.”
I agree with his views. After Indira Gandhi, no government ever tried such a dictatorship. And Indira Gandhi can not be a benchmark. And if she is to be treated as a benchmark, you have to match her on all fronts. She ruled in a different era. She was a little extraordinary in almost everything she did. She was the strongest nationalist - the only PM to defeat Pakistan convincingly on all fronts, annexing Sikkim, silencing China completely, making India a Nuclear power, Green revolution, Bank Nationalization, and White revolution. Secondly, Indira lived and ruled in an era where dictatorship was the order of the day all around. Today the world order has been changed. Days of Dictatorship is practically gone. Indira Gandhi declared an emergency at a time when possibly only a few nations could have raised eyebrows. Even she wouldn’t have thought of an emergency if she had been PM today.
As per NITI Aayog data, Indira created 66 PSUs and sold none. 2nd highest no of PSUs created by Nehru - 33 Nos. Even Vajpayee Ji created 17 PSUs and 7 privatizations. As against Modi Ji created none but sold 23. Yes, she used Article 356 as well as Emergency. But as I said Indira did everything a little extra. And she can not be a benchmark, and if not for the good part then definitely not for the bad part. Under the Modi government, we see maximum tussle with the Judiciary, and RBI, dilution of the RTI Act, tussling with the state government, even tussling with Milk Cooperatives, pulling down elected governments, and forming government through the back door.
No comments:
Post a Comment