The party chief will decide!
It was on 13 May, hardly a week ago, that the entire India came to know about Congress’ win in Karnataka. But it took four days or so to decide who would become the chief minister of the state. In keeping with democratic norms, after 13 May the elected members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) held a meeting. I guess, they must have been elated and thrilled to no end to return to the helm in the state after three and a half years. There must have been celebrations, congratulations, food and drink all around. But the actual purpose of the meeting, to select a leader, remained undone.
Habits die hard, and the elected MLAs duly placed this responsibility on the shoulders of the central leaders. It was as if the people had elected them to serve or be served, not to select leaders. There were the bigwigs in Delhi to do that job, so why should they take this unpleasant task upon themselves?
Actually, India alone can’t be blamed for this prevailing system of things. This applies to all the three big countries of South Asia who have learnt the lessons of democracy from the British — India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. This trend of in-house democracy of the political parties is so deep-rooted, that it will be hard to change. They may be forming and running the parties with democratic ideology, but staunch feudalism remains latent at the core. Wherever and whoever is deemed to be the king or the ruler, must be obeyed, no questions asked.
The elected representatives of the people cannot be wholly blamed, nor is the top leadership always responsible for this predicament. It’s like a political chicken and egg conundrum. It is always a relief to be able to shift the burden of responsibility on someone else’s shoulders. After all, those at the top have to take some decision or the other, while we remain in the good books.
Let’s take Congress’ victory in Karnataka as a case study and proceed with our discussion. Both the winning Congress leaders, Siddaramaiah and DK Shivakumar, vied for the seat of chief minister. But there was only one seat. Former chief election commissioner of India, Shahabuddin Yakoob Quraishi, had offered a solution to this over Twitter. He suggested that the new chief minister of Karnataka be elected by secret ballot of elected MLAs, not by decision of the party high command. This was a humble request for the sake of the party’s internal democracy. Most people responded positively to his tweet. Some even said this should be made compulsory. Some said the American system should be followed, with the candidate being selected by the lower rung members of the party. But everyone is well aware this is not possible. And it didn’t happen that way.
Finally, after four days discussion and debate, it was decided that the 75-year-old Siddaramaiah would be chief minister. The 61-year-old ‘disgruntled’ Congress leader DK Shivakumar would be deputy chief minister. It is common knowledge that in the Indian subcontinent version of British parliamentary democracy, ‘deputy’ is a vacuous word. Whoever is the head of government is actually the all-in-all, the all-powerful. In the annals of history, we place so many kings and emperors in the dock for their deadly family feuds for power. Perhaps Emperor Aurangzeb is the biggest example of such vendetta.
But coming to the 21st century, how many of us realise that there still are many who are no less than Aurangzeb as they hanker for the seat of power? Take Rajasthan, for instance. The two Congress leaders there, Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot, are unwilling to budge an inch from their tussle for the office of chief minister, and that too quite openly in front of the top leadership.
So why are the MLAs reluctant to actively take part in selecting leaders? The reason is simple — it is the onus of the chief minister to form the cabinet. In order words, if you vie for a place as minister in the cabinet, you cannot afford to incur the displeasure of the chief minister. And for those who do not manage a place in the cabinet, there is so much work to be got, so many posts to be held. So no way can you enter into his bad books. What’s the point if you cannot recover your investment in the elections, along with fringe benefits? In this game of give and take, it is best for the thing called democracy to remain restricted to the books. ‘Yes, minister’ is the name of the game.
In this ‘Indianisation’ of democracy, the top leadership also really isn’t keen on leadership rising up from below or gaining in strength. And down though the various twists and turns of history, most parties have become partial towards dynastic politics. Astute readers are well aware of this character and history of the subcontinent’s political parties. It will not be easy to emerge from this, even if one wants. The left wing parties or parties with a religious bent like BJP, may have been exceptions to an extent. Take BJP, for example. The party president at one point of time could take many decisions. That still may be true, albeit on paper. But as things stand at present, the party president cannot deviate away even a fraction from any decision taken by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. Mallikarjun Kharge is merely a token president of Congress. And this became all the more obvious when eventually Rahul and Sonia had to intervene to resolve the problem of selecting Karnataka’s chief minister. The same state of affairs prevails in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, all over.
Even in the dynasty-centric parties, the party chief is often helpless. As there is no democratic practice within the party, or at a local level either, no one wants to take on any responsibility. As a result, it is the party head or the head or government who has to take the decisions at the end of the day, right or wrong. They are obliged to do so. If the party is to be run, the leadership must be retained at all costs. There is no other choice.
So questions may well arise as to how far the democracy practiced for long in Europe or the western world, is actually functioning in the Indian subcontinent. This could be a subject of research for students of political science. Whatever name you may give it — hybrid democracy, authoritarian democracy, electoral democracy, closed democracy — this is the democracy that will function here. Imposing the western-style democracy on the psyche of the unprepared voter can be dangerous. And so that tradition continues. Perhaps that is how things will carry on. And so for the time being in the Indian subcontinental democracy, the responsibility of taking the final decision will remain in the hands of the party chief or the head of government.
Selim Khan: Executive Editor, Digital Media, Independent Television
