Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

The Sharad Pawar formulation is workable

Perhaps the most practical suggestion regarding the next general elections has come from Nationalist Congress Party president Sharad Pawar. The senior Union Cabinet Minister has a reputation of being one of the few no-nonsense national-level politicians — a person who is not given to unrealistic infatuation for individuals or ideologies and who knows the importance of working within one’s limits. In a recent interaction with the editors of the Press Trust of India, Mr. Pawar made the first serious and strategic formulation: the United Progressive Alliance should contest the Lok Sabha poll as a collective entity.

Since he left the party in 1999, Mr. Pawar has been a bee in the Congress’ bonnet. He has demonstrated a remarkable flair for political tenacity and ensured that the Congress cannot rule in Maharashtra without his support, so much so that the Congress leadership remains perennially in search of Maratha faces who “can stand up to Sharad.” He has set up his NCP shop outside the State, often distracting business and customers from the Congress supermarket. Though he is part of the UPA, he is not averse to putting in an appearance at L.K. Advani’s functions or paying a visit to Bal Thackeray; he likes to keep everybody guessing about his next move.

All the more reason his formulation should receive a critical appraisal. There has been no reaction to the Sharad proposal from the Congress, the principal UPA constituent. Given the Congress’ collective self-image as the only premier pan-Indian political organisation and its internal leadership matrix which thrives on exaggerated notions of the Nehru-Gandhi family’s hold on India’s political imagination, the party is not likely to appreciate Mr. Pawar’s suggestion.

Admittedly, the long-term interests of the Indian state require a robust political organisation capable of mobilising opinions, energies, loyalties and sentiments across the nation. It would have been most ideal had the Congress — or, for that matter, the Bharatiya Janata Party — been in a position to find resonance and support all over the country. That is obviously not the case. In fact, most sober political analysts are hard put to suggest that the two parties can improve their 2004 tally of 145 and 138. On the other hand, the fear is that the parties between them may not be able to command even a majority of the Lok Sabha seats. No doubt, the Congress will desperately like to recreate its glory of commanding parliamentary majorities but that dream cannot be fulfilled in the next poll, whether it takes place in November 2008 or April 2009.

Theoretically, it is still possible for the Congress to roll the gambler’s dice. It can go for broke: pitch the untested Rahul Gandhi as its prime ministerial candidate, abandon the UPA allies, hope that the electorate will share the global yearning for change in favour of the younger leadership, pit a 40-year old neophyte against the familiar and frayed 80-year-old Advani, ask for an unambiguous mandate to rule the country, unfettered by coalition partners or supporting allies, and hope to live happily thereafter. The advantage of such a bold move can be that the party may not be worse off, may even improve on its current score, and, if necessary, re-arrange the post-election friends into a coalition as per its preferences.

The fly in the ointment is that Mr. Gandhi has shown neither the requisite appetite for political power nor the potential for connecting with a young electorate yet. The reluctant Youngman remains torn between a brutally exacting public life and the comfort of privacy and decency. Nor has the Congress leadership done anything to acquire the organisational muscle to match such an exercise in unilateral daring. Also, the leadership has no stomach for adventurism; the party’s core group — the highest decision-making coterie — consists of some of the timidest and most tired and unimaginative minds.

The UPA is a post-2004 general elections invention. It has not coalesced into a political entity. The co-existence is sullen, without the joys of a consummated marriage. Even after four years of living together, the UPA has not had a political outing. There has not been even a joint rally of all constituents.

The blame for this perhaps has to be apportioned mostly to the Congress managers. Sharing power with others is a new and unnatural experience for them. The primal Congress instinct in May 2004 was to believe that now that it was ensconced in power at the Centre it had ipso facto recovered its electoral touch and, more important, recouped its organisational resourcefulness; came the February 2005 Bihar Assembly election, and the Congress went about pretending that Lalu Prasad’s Rashtriya Janata Dal was its primary political enemy. All the unemployed and rejected Congress “leaders” from Bihar descended on New Delhi to tell the Central leadership that the 2004 Lok Sabha sweep was possible only because of the Sonia Gandhi charisma and, therefore, there was no need to suffer Mr. Prasad any more. This state of misplaced collective euphoria prevented Ms Gandhi from playing the UPA leader; Ram Vilas Paswan broke ranks in Bihar. The very raison d’etre of the UPA was allowed to be frittered away. No organisational convergence could even be attempted. Incompatibilities of ambitions, egos, family pride and troubles combined to produce electoral disagreements and political dissonance. Meghalaya is the latest example of this souring of the UPA experiment.

Except for the annual ritual of a dinner, the partners have never put their heads together; the result is that on key governmental policies — like the proposed India-U.S. nuclear agreement — the partners have spoken in different voices, a grievous departure from the collective responsibility. Sharing the limelight and authority comes painfully to the Congress.

Given this four-year record of unfulfilled togetherness, Mr. Pawar’s formulation commends itself on many counts. First, it instantly resolves the Congress’ central dilemma: choice of the prime ministerial mascot. Under the Pawar formulation, the status quo re-constitutes itself. Manmohan Singh remains the prime ministerial mascot, Ms Gandhi the UPA chairperson, and Mr. Gandhi gets another breather to get his act together. Above all, Ms Gandhi remains the captain, third umpire as also match referee.

If the Congress chooses to go to the people as the leader of a UPA team, it renews its reputation as a coalition partner. This should be particularly reassuring to the middle classes which remain apprehensive of an untamed Congress running amok. If it is willing to live and let live at the Centre, it is possible for others to extend to it an honourable status in the States where it has ceded ground to others. Together, the UPA leaders can possibly take the Indian political system to a higher level of maturity and sophistication by revisiting the sticky and undefined rules of expansion and consolidation.

On their part, the UPA leaders will have to undertake the obligation to put their best foot forward, and not let the State-level partisans and their disputes overrun the national judgments and calculations. Collective but separate political prosperity is possible.

Moreover, the Pawar formulation can — and should — be an occasion to redefine, frankly and without rancour, the rules of the coalition dharma. If patronage has to be shared, the code of good governance will have to be emphasised. The partners and their nominees do not get a licence with a ministerial berth. The country needs to be reassured that coalitions do not come at the expense of probity and competence in public life.

When all is said and done, the UPA represents a very acceptable moderate face of the Indian political opinion. It can answer the nation’s need for a centrist, liberal, middle-of-the-path, plural and secular governing arrangement. If the UPA holds together, as per the Pawar formulation, it can bargain its way into an expansion: with Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal and possibly with the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh. Above all, a consolidated UPA group will be best suited to produce stable and purposeful governance in New Delhi.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

The question of Tibet
The Sharad Pawar formulation is workable
Identity and separatism: the politics of ethno-nationalism
Mixing politics with religion — U.K. style
A grim milestone in Iraq
Families paid the price
Corrections and clarifications
Welcome pay hike
Three holidays
Is it bonanza?
Impracticable
Pakistan politics

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu