In parliamentary democracies, the relationship between the elected Government and the ruling party is calculated to be awkward and tinged with an element of tension. The activists of the party provide the foot soldiers during elections and without their dedication and perseverance, legislators would find it hard to get elected. Yet, once a Government has been successfully formed, the executive invariably acquires a measure of autonomy that creates a distance with the support base on the ground. What adds to the complication is the fact that in parliamentary democracies — unlike authoritarian states — the instrument of governance happens to be the permanent bureaucracy and not the political party. Trying to secure a meaningful role for party activists is one of the challenges a ruling party confronts and for which there isn’t any satisfactory solution.
Some of these issues will inevitably form the backdrop of the National Executive session of the ruling BJP in Allahabad this Sunday and Monday. Although elated by its success in Assam and its impressive vote share in Kerala — both in States where the BJP in the past considered weak links — party president Amit Shah will definitely be confronted by multiple complaints from local leaders about their lack of a role in central decision-making.
The facile conclusion that may well be drawn by the media is that this restlessness stems from an undercurrent of unease with the Prime Minister’s style of governance. Narendra Modi is a communicator par excellence and his ability to inspire ordinary voters isn’t in any doubt. But party activists — and this is true for all party activists, cutting across the political spectrum — also expect that the rewards of political office should be the reward of loyalty.
The elaborate patronage model created by the Congress in an era of statism has nurtured the expectations. In the decades it ruled India as the only party of consequence, the Congress created a political machinery that was geared towards dispensing state (and this included public sector enterprises) patronage to its loyalists. The coal scam that made news a few years ago and was a factor in the political decimation of the UPA-2 Government stemmed from the natural impulses of a party that never made a distinction between the Government and the party. For the Congress, the discretionary powers of the Government existed to benefit the party.
Nor was the patronage disease confined to the Congress. Having ruled India the longest since Independence, the Congress set the standards the other parties were expected to follow. The principle of it’s-our-turn-now has often motivated the activists of non-Congress parties who spent thankless decades in the Opposition berating the Congress system.
It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that barring those who have entered the political arena out of a commitment to ideas, the bulk of activists see political involvement in strongly transactional terms. Perhaps those in the Congress are motivated more by the transactional ethos than those in the left and the BJP who have alternative world views. However, each party has its share of individuals who see politics as a platform for personal advancement.
Modi is an unusual politician in many respects. His involvement in politics was an offshoot of his participation in the inner life of the RSS. But more than that, he is also driven by a rare sense of passion that stems from his deep attachment to the thoughts of Swami Vivekananda. The monastic selflessness that he espouses constitutes a confrontation with the patronage framework the Congress converted into political common sense.
Consequently, as Chief Minister he introduced a form of governance that lay in communicating directly with the electorate over the heads of the political brokers. As Prime Minister, he has attempted to replicate this system by eschewing patronage politics as far as possible. The results have also been predictable. Today in the BJP there are lots of restless cadres and small leaders who are asking the question: what is in it for usIJ
As party chief, Amit Shah has had to confront these challenges on a daily basis. Electoral politics has traditionally been based on a combination of the larger pull and local pressures. The role of local notables whose influence depends on their ability to receive patronage and dole out sops cannot be underestimated. Today, these notables are restless because the PM is attempting to change the rules of the game and make MPs and MlAs his eyes and ears but not his sub-contractors. The system is still at a fledgling stage and more than resentment, is causing confusion and bewilderment. In other parties, the shocks would have been greater but in the BJP, the RSS has existed as an indispensable cushion.
At the same time, the BJP is still in an expansionist mode and trying to enter spheres of life and areas where it had no worthwhile presence prior to 2014. A National Executive session is not the occasion when the blueprint for such a daunting challenge can be thrashed out. But it is an occasion when, amid the bonding of all State units, some of these issues can be internalised.
As I see it, the BJP is in the throes of many transformations: the expansion of numbers, the expansion of spheres of influence, the emergence of newer leaders to replace the veterans and the responsibilities that come with being the party of Government. Those looking for concrete decisions are likely to be disappointed. But those in search of emerging trends may well find that Allahabad will be the place to assess a party that is constantly evolving, yet without compromising its fundamentals.