Can Rahul Gandhi revive the Congress ahead of 2019 Lok Sabha polls?

The coronation is imminent. In a fixed internal Congress “election”, Rahul Gandhi will soon be chosen unopposed as the next Congress president. That will make him the fifth member of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty since 1947 to head the Congress.

If this is not cringe worthy enough in making a mockery of democracy, Congress leaders show no sign of embarrassment. As pioneers of dynastic politics they are actually proud that other families have followed in their footsteps: the Pawars, Thackerays, Abdullahs, Karunanidhis, Yadavs, Patnaiks, and even several NDA allies like the Naidus, Paswans and Muftis.

Dynasts

Congress leaders smugly point to the scattered political dynasts in the BJP itself, ranging from Rajasthan chief minister Vasundhara Raje to ministers in the Narendra Modi cabinet whose fathers were ministers or MPs. While the scale and numbers of BJP dynasts are much smaller, the principle applies equally to them: dynastic politics is bad in principle and damaging in practice.

The world’s most advanced countries have long rejected political dynasty. There are no Churchill, de Gaulle, Thatcher or Kennedy dynasties. Two of the most reviled politicians in the United States today, President Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, are deeply unpopular at least partly because they are either products of a dynasty (Clinton) or brazenly promote assorted members of their family (Trump).

Apologists for dynastic politics argue that India’s dynasts are democratically elected and therefore legitimate, unlike dynasts in dictatorships or feudal sheikhdoms. This argument is disingenuous. India has a longstanding culture of feudalism. Deep-rooted poverty gives family-backed politicians an electoral advantage.

Indian dynasts use this advantage to ruthless effect, severely limiting the democratic choice available to voters. Culture and poverty collide to create a fertile breeding ground for feudalism. Other South Asian countries with similar cultural histories like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal also suffer large economic inequalities — a common feature in dynasty-led countries.

In India even supposedly rational political leaders bow deferentially before dynasty. In former President Pranab Mukherjee’s new book, The Coalition Years: 1996 to 2012, launched last week, he writes, bereft of a trace of embarrassment: “I returned with a vague impression that she (Sonia Gandhi) might wish to consider Manmohan Singh as the UPA presidential nominee. I thought that if she selected Singh for the presidential office, she may choose me as the prime minister. I had heard a rumour that she had given this formulation serious thought while on a holiday in the Kaushambi Hills.”

Note Mukherjee’s plaintive, hopeful words: “She may choose me as the prime minister.” Sonia Gandhi, who had never held a constitutional office before appointing herself Congress party president in 1998 by railroading Sitaram Kesri, “chose” prime ministers while Pranab Mukherjee and Manmohan Singh looked meekly and obediently on.

It is this sycophantic party Rahul Gandhi will inherit in the coming days. The idea is to give Rahul a year to establish his authority over the old guard (many of whom will deservedly be sidelined) and put together a cohesive campaign for the raft of state elections scheduled for 2018 before the Lok Sabha poll in April-May 2019.

Campaign

Apart from an unscheduled visit to a ladies bathroom, Rahul’s campaign swing across Gujarat last week was largely gaffe-free. Despite the Patidar factor and distress among farmers, the BJP is likely to win the Gujarat assembly election, though it will need hard, no-holds-barred campaigning by Modi himself.

Rahul’s minders know this and are trying to cut the BJP’s victory margin to just over 100 seats in the 182-seat assembly in order to change the mood in the four big states that really matter: Karnataka (which goes to the polls in April 2018) and Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh (December 2018).

If Rahul can keep the BJP’s victory margin in Gujarat below the 2012 figure of 115, the Congress has a good chance of springing a surprise in, especially, Rajasthan where anti-incumbency against Vasundhara Raje is building.

Statement

Rahul must also get credit for a statement he made in Gujarat which has been little noticed. Countering BJP president Amit Shah’s “Congress-mukt Bharat” war cry, Rahul said he doesn’t want a “BJP mukt Bharat” because India needs strong representation for people who support the BJP. He is of course right.

The last thing India needs is a one-party rule. We have had enough of the Congress’ unbroken 30-year rule from 1947 to 1977 (and overall for 55 of India’s 70 independent years) to not want any other party, the BJP included, to create a similar political monopoly in future. In a democracy, the only thing worse than dynasty is a monopoly.

Can the Congress provide the BJP with the two-party contest Indian democracy needs? Not until it changes its dynastic DNA. Rahul may have perfectly good intentions. But if he really cares about his party and his country, he must democratise the Congress and de-link his family from it.

That may alarm party loyalists who regard the Gandhis as the glue that holds the party together and ensures their own political longevity. But parties are resilient. The Congress will recover from a Gandhi-mukt future. With real internal reform, it could pose a challenge to the BJP in 2024.

Despite losing ground in urban India, Modi has enough momentum to carry the NDA to victory in 2019. But 2024 will be an entirely different matter. It will be the most open election in a generation.

(Courtesy of Mail Today.)