Every election sees some dramas being staged before elections. Supporters of disappointed aspirants for a party ticket are known to engage in vandalism or even something more telling for the TV cameras. There are all-too-familiar accusations of senior leaders airdropping their cronies in constituencies and graver charges of parties selling tickets to the highest bidder-though this happens more frequently in ticket distribution for the Rajya Sabha.
This general election has already witnessed some short-running soap operas over party nominations. last Friday, lalu Prasad’s eldest daughter, accompanied by some cameras, rushed to the Delhi residence of “Uncle” Ram Kripal Yadav to persuade him to not quit the RJD in protest against the nomination for the Patliputra seat being given to her. In Varanasi, the beleaguered supporters of Murli Manohar Joshi have put up posters to create an impression that the good Brahmin is more in demand in this holy city than an interloper from Gujarat. And even in the ultra-democratic Aam Aadmi Party, there have been protests against Arvind Kejriwal and his hand-picked leadership for distributing party tickets without consultations with the local units.
Clearly there is a problem associated with ticket distribution that cuts through all political parties. There is a recognition that the present system isn’t entirely satisfactory and should be replaced by an alternative that is more mindful of the wishes of the constituency.
It is to Rahul Gandhi’s credit that he has included candidate selection in the package of reforms for the Congress Party. The praise is necessary because there is often a temptation to throw out the baby with the dirty bath water. Rahul’s credentials to be Prime Minister may well be suspect but that is not to say that every idea of his should be mocked. The system of primaries which Rahul has forced on a few constituencies has come a bit too late in the day and is unlikely to make any difference to the larger political culture of the Congress. As things stand, there are considerable flaws in the manner in which the primaries are being conducted. For a start, it has to be acknowledged that neither of the two mass-based parties has anything resembling a credible membership list. The membership enrolment drives that take place periodically don’t necessarily produce active members or even assured voters. By paying Rs 5, a person is no more a member of the Congress or BJP than a missed call makes some sucker an AAP ‘volunteer’.
This open-ended definition of membership in all political parties (apart from the Communist parties that maintain a rigid definition of the vanguard) has profound implications for the formation of a credible electoral college. The US has a system of registered Democrats and Republicans. Plus, primaries are conducted by the US equivalent of the Election Commission. The exercises have a special sanctity and there is a genuine measure of public consultation. This is certainly not the case in Britain where candidate selection is done by the office-bearers of the constituency party in the case of the Conservatives. In the labour Party, the bigwigs of the constituency party are joined by labour-supporting special interest groups such as local trade union officials. Together they select the local labour candidate. However, it has to be added that in both the Conservative and labour parties, a local decision can be vetoed by the Party HQ in london. Jeffrey Archer’s novel First Among Equals gives a vivid account of the drama that surrounds the selection process. The primaries in the US are expensive affairs and work against candidates who are cash-strapped. In Britain, a new problem has been visible since the late-1970s. A handful of determined and organised activists can easily derail the process by forcing the selection of a candidate who, while ideologically ‘pure’ has no real sense of how ordinary voters think and feel. Middle-of-the-road politicians are increasingly complaining that party activists are a bit too ideological and are hijacking political parties into rigid, ‘loony’ positions.
I don’t know if Rahul Gandhi is aware of the negative experiences of what superficially appears as the democratisation of party politics. If so, there has certainly been no indication in the few primaries that have been conducted by local Congress units. Clearly, the whole business of primaries is still a work in progress and much more fine-tuning will have to be done before a system borrowed from the US and UK takes root in India.
However, the overall trend doesn’t favour excessive consultation with the grass roots — at least not insofar as lok Sabha candidates are concerned. In the Trinamool Congress, for example, Mamata Banerjee has attached a premium on individuals who either have a pre-existing star value or are not too closely identified with grass roots politics — the very opposite of what AAP advocates. Mamata made it a point to distinguish between a parliamentary election and more local elections to panchayats, municipalities and even the Assembly.
She has a point. Candidate selection through primaries naturally favour localism and this makes it impossible for an otherwise well-suited individual to aspire to a lok Sabha. Primaries will make it difficult, if not impossible, for a Nandan Nilekani or even a Manmohan Singh to ever contest for a lok Sabha. True, the Rajya Sabha route is always available for such individuals. But it would be a shame if the lok Sabha becomes an exclusive preserve of individuals who, while adept at securing school admissions and getting a local drain repaired, are unable to contribute to issues that affect the whole country. Maybe the solution lies in parties creating the conditions for political participation to become more attractive for normal people rather than be limited to just those who are good at hustling their way into the decision-making process.