UPA II and Cong: The great divide
Bhaskar Roy
TNN, Jan 23, 2011
The sense of stasis that has gripped UPA II months before its second anniversary is a veritable midlife crisis. The sinking feeling is unbelievable looking back on the heady summer of 2009, when the Congress-led coalition romped home with a comprehensive mandate for a second successive term.
Unlike the first edition of the UPA, numbers were no longer a problem this time round. The Congress had managed to shed its painful appendage — a tainted and querulous Lalu Prasad and the interventionist Left. As a bonus, an internecine war broke out within the BJP as if to provide a perfect setting for UPA II. Incredibly the leadership let the big moment slip away and allowed the momentum to falter. Today, the government is caught in a web of its own mistakes and missteps. Half way through its term, the ruling coalition seems to have lost its way, unsure of its destination.
So what went wrong? At the heart of the current crisis is a mismatch between the government and the Congress party. The two seem to have different sets of priorities. While the party is busy fighting a series of crucial assembly elections around the country, the government is worried about the fate of the budget session in Parliament in the face of the BJP threat not to budge from its demand for a JPC.
The disconnect between government and party came into sharp focus at the recent Congress plenary, where even Rahul Gandhi had to make a plea for ministers to give 'a little time' to partymen and listen to them a lot more. Addressing the session in Delhi, the young leader unfolded his idea of India's real challenges. What hurts the country most is the issue of connectivity. Whether it is a marginalized tribal in Orissa or a professional in Bangalore—the problem for every common man is the opaque, convoluted system of decision-making. You are like the harried man facing trial in a Kafkesque world unless you have the right connections to the power centre.
Rahul Gandhi's avant garde speech— not fully comprehended by an audience fed on the red-chilli rhetoric of the politicians—was a subtle attempt to introduce the new generation of reforms, ie mainly effective and responsive governance. Drowned in the cacophony of competitive soundbytes over issues like the 2G spectrum allocations and irregularities in Karnataka, the young leader's agenda for an emerging India did not set off the kind of debate it should have.
If the connectivity issue offers a glimpse into the young leader's mind, perhaps he is already thinking in terms of political reforms which, simply said, would mean greater accountability on the part of the political class and end of the patronage culture. For the ruling party, the government is the vehicle for implementing its ideas. It is an accident of history that the movers of Congress politics are not the drivers of the government programme.
There is no visible rift between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Every issue facing the ruling establishment is discussed and thrashed out at the weekly meeting of the core committee, at which both are present along with a number of senior colleagues. Still, the government and the party appear to be two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that refuse to slot in well with each other. There is an invisible but perceptible gap.
This was not so when Congress returned to power in 2004, at the head of a coalition and thereby ending its long spell in the wilderness. The launch and effective implementation of the rural job programme testified to a perfect understanding between government and party. The spirited response to the Left's opposition to the nuclear deal was further proof both parts of the governing party were in sync. But the synergy visible between 2004 and 2009 is no longer apparent. There is a deficit, which urgently needs to be addressed if Congress would dream of UPA III.
Normally a ministerial reshuffle gives the government a boost, an instant fillip to ride out hurdles. Last week's reshuffle did not and did not raise the government's morale either. The Bihar debacle was a wake-up call. If Congress wants to seize the initiative once again it will have to ensure being in government is not an opportunity for some but truly a vehicle to implement its programme.
Even so, electoral compulsions admittedly have to be a major consideration for a political party. Political aspirations invariably centre around ministerial berths, which are viewed as an indication of weightage for particular communities, social groups or regions. Those picked for promotion or induction in the recent ministerial reshuffle are not necessarily the best and brightest in the party. But they largely represent two states where electoral stakes are high for the party—Uttar Pradesh and Kerala. Beni Prasad Verma, a 70-something Kurmi leader from UP, has been given the steel portfolio, not in recognition of a record of administrative efficiency but because of the importance of his caste's backing in the assembly elections due early next year.
Such adjustments affect the government's performance but are part of the political reality.
The sense of stasis that has gripped UPA II months before its second anniversary is a veritable midlife crisis. The sinking feeling is unbelievable looking back on the heady summer of 2009, when the Congress-led coalition romped home with a comprehensive mandate for a second successive term.
Unlike the first edition of the UPA, numbers were no longer a problem this time round. The Congress had managed to shed its painful appendage — a tainted and querulous Lalu Prasad and the interventionist Left. As a bonus, an internecine war broke out within the BJP as if to provide a perfect setting for UPA II. Incredibly the leadership let the big moment slip away and allowed the momentum to falter. Today, the government is caught in a web of its own mistakes and missteps. Half way through its term, the ruling coalition seems to have lost its way, unsure of its destination.
So what went wrong? At the heart of the current crisis is a mismatch between the government and the Congress party. The two seem to have different sets of priorities. While the party is busy fighting a series of crucial assembly elections around the country, the government is worried about the fate of the budget session in Parliament in the face of the BJP threat not to budge from its demand for a JPC.
The disconnect between government and party came into sharp focus at the recent Congress plenary, where even Rahul Gandhi had to make a plea for ministers to give 'a little time' to partymen and listen to them a lot more. Addressing the session in Delhi, the young leader unfolded his idea of India's real challenges. What hurts the country most is the issue of connectivity. Whether it is a marginalized tribal in Orissa or a professional in Bangalore—the problem for every common man is the opaque, convoluted system of decision-making. You are like the harried man facing trial in a Kafkesque world unless you have the right connections to the power centre.
Rahul Gandhi's avant garde speech— not fully comprehended by an audience fed on the red-chilli rhetoric of the politicians—was a subtle attempt to introduce the new generation of reforms, ie mainly effective and responsive governance. Drowned in the cacophony of competitive soundbytes over issues like the 2G spectrum allocations and irregularities in Karnataka, the young leader's agenda for an emerging India did not set off the kind of debate it should have.
If the connectivity issue offers a glimpse into the young leader's mind, perhaps he is already thinking in terms of political reforms which, simply said, would mean greater accountability on the part of the political class and end of the patronage culture. For the ruling party, the government is the vehicle for implementing its ideas. It is an accident of history that the movers of Congress politics are not the drivers of the government programme.
There is no visible rift between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Every issue facing the ruling establishment is discussed and thrashed out at the weekly meeting of the core committee, at which both are present along with a number of senior colleagues. Still, the government and the party appear to be two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that refuse to slot in well with each other. There is an invisible but perceptible gap.
This was not so when Congress returned to power in 2004, at the head of a coalition and thereby ending its long spell in the wilderness. The launch and effective implementation of the rural job programme testified to a perfect understanding between government and party. The spirited response to the Left's opposition to the nuclear deal was further proof both parts of the governing party were in sync. But the synergy visible between 2004 and 2009 is no longer apparent. There is a deficit, which urgently needs to be addressed if Congress would dream of UPA III.
Normally a ministerial reshuffle gives the government a boost, an instant fillip to ride out hurdles. Last week's reshuffle did not and did not raise the government's morale either. The Bihar debacle was a wake-up call. If Congress wants to seize the initiative once again it will have to ensure being in government is not an opportunity for some but truly a vehicle to implement its programme.
Even so, electoral compulsions admittedly have to be a major consideration for a political party. Political aspirations invariably centre around ministerial berths, which are viewed as an indication of weightage for particular communities, social groups or regions. Those picked for promotion or induction in the recent ministerial reshuffle are not necessarily the best and brightest in the party. But they largely represent two states where electoral stakes are high for the party—Uttar Pradesh and Kerala. Beni Prasad Verma, a 70-something Kurmi leader from UP, has been given the steel portfolio, not in recognition of a record of administrative efficiency but because of the importance of his caste's backing in the assembly elections due early next year.
Such adjustments affect the government's performance but are part of the political reality.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/UPA-II-and-Cong-The-great-divide/articleshow/7344906.cms
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét