As the Congress readies to elevate Rahul Gandhi to the post of the party president through a dummy electoral process in the first week of December, one does not know if the move would bring cheers to the party and partymen. Since his election as vice president in 2013, Rahul has been the de facto president. This election would be an exercise in making him the de jure president. One hopes he would understand the nature of his new responsibility and demonstrate better maturity—in the interest of his party and democracy.
Rahul’s public image is not as incredible as what one would expect from someone coming from the first political family of Congress. His aspirations are forward-looking, but his politics operates in back-gear. Many Congress leaders are out of reckoning for the post of the president just because the party has now accepted as truth, a myth that only someone from the Nehruvian lineage can keep it together. Surely, personality, not ideology, has won.
That Rahul himself had been cherishing this as a cardinal principle guiding his elevation does not hold well for the future of the Congress. Have Congress and Rahul accepted the 1960 End of Ideology thesis propounded by Daniel Bell? But a leader without ideology becomes unclear about his goals and, hence, appears directionless. That’s why the Congress has been losing state after state, either to the BJP or to the regional players.
The Congress’ fate now depends on Rahul’s leadership. Leaders usually have two kinds of well-wishers—those who form an impregnable wall around the leader and those who do not have easy access to the chief. The first group has a tendency to read the mind of the leader and fine-tune their advice to keep him in good humour to continue to enjoy benefits. Such people do more harm than good, both to the leader and the party. The second group of people would not speak to flatter him. They can be terse, unpalatable and disagreeable but, nonetheless, have the long-term health of the party in mind.
Rahul and many top leaders of several parties are not flattered by this variety and so, any sane advice goes down the drain. Congress is a party with historical advantage, but self-seeking and self-appointed well-wishers of the first variety have done great harm to the party whose political presence is constantly shrinking. Can Rahul reverse that trend? Will he be able to transcend the sycophantic ring and reach out to those who wish the party well?
As the leader of a national party, Rahul should focus on redesigning and revamping his team before going to the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. The Congress, in its foundational resolutions of 1885, had given direction to every Congressman to reach out to the people once a month. But instead, Congressmen chose to connect to power, corruption and nepotism. That cost Congress dearly. Most social groups and old Congressmen moved to other parties.
The first shocks were visible when Congress suffered defeats in Assembly polls in 1967 in Kerala, Madras, Orissa, West Bengal, Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab. This led to the formation of non-Congress governments in many states. Rahul’s grandmother Indira Gandhi did not learn lessons from that. Will Rahul too emulate Indira or shun negative politics? Will he try to become inclusive and restore that rainbow coalition that once formed the core of the Congress social base?
Rahul is yet to draw a strategy to connect to people, or devise a mechanism for Congressmen to do so. In several instances, Congress candidates do not get even one-tenth of the votes of the total number of its registered members in several booths. That speaks volumes about bogus membership in party. Can Rahul rely on that kind of party apparatus to mobilise electors?
Another irritant in Rahul’s style of politics is his excessive use of jibes, ridicules and anti-Modi rhetoric. Leaders have the right to project alternative policies on various aspects of governance, but ridiculing the Centre to a foreign or domestic audience does not always go down well with the people. Occasional humour is fine but Rahul cannot make it a substantive part of his politics without risking losing votes.
Rahul’s excessive jibes and ridicules may have two unintended consequences. One, he might be seen as escapist indulging in political negativism without briefing his audience about his own model of politics, policies and governance.
The Congress has been in governance for long and has surely done many things. But, people remember failures; they have not forgotten corruptions, the series of scams and rampant nepotism during the Congress rule. What is Rahul’s promise to the people on that issue? His competitor Modi has already won people to his side on the issue of corruption: more than three years of Modi’s rule and not a single scam! That could be Rahul’s biggest worry.
Two, Rahul takes the criticism of Modi to the level of a public trial. But the simple voters of India are very quick to distinguish between rational criticism and irrational allegation. Rahul is yet to grasp this reality; one false allegation may neutralise many of his right criticisms. He has not learnt to balance between talking about his own policies and the rational criticism of the Modi government, on one, and allegation politics, on the other. Can Rahul learn that, and how fast, may be the greatest worry of Sonia, Manmohan Singh and other Congress stalwarts.
Will Rahul make an ideological, organisational and rhetorical comeback? The chances are bleak at present. However, if he remains focused and defines his goals well, then he has the advantage of the support of his partymen. But for now, his politics does not sync with his role for the future.
Dr A K Verma
Director, Centre for the Study of Society and Politics, Kanpur
Email: akv1722@gmail.com