|
|
|
|
In the case of India, as we celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of our independence, it is pertinent to ask to what extent the practice of democratic elections has been accompanied by the development of democratic practices within political parties. Electoral democracy has its own logic, its requirements of campaign financing, and the centralisation tendency that it engenders, unless curbed. The Congress party, founded in 1985, ranks among the oldest in the democratic world. For a long time, Jawaharlal Nehru managed to distance himself from the financing aspect of party functioning, leaving it to trusted colleagues to take care of the party coffers. His willingness to accommodate authoritarian state leaders provided they delivered is well documented, and Pratap Singh Kairon was a notable example. This arrangement collapsed when these organisational leaders ganged up as the Syndicate and Indira Gandhi broke free. Her style of functioning, based on mistrust of all but a few, has been a lasting legacy for the Congress party. Free and fair elections were provided for through an independent Election Commission, which would regulate contests between parties. An elaborate procedure for registration and recognition was devised, and slowly the accounting practices of parties were brought under scrutiny. Constitutional recognition of sorts came with the Anti-Defection Act, which went into the internal functioning of parties and attempted a via media between the vote of conscience and the need for discipline, the enforcement of which was naturally entrusted to party command structures. But the question of whether party organisations were themselves rooted in democratic legitimacy was left in the unregulated sphere, difficult as it was to monitor anything beyond procedural propriety. The existence of intra-party democracy is therefore in the realm of the traditions, culture and practices of individual parties. Debate and disagreement, notes former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard, "is life, it is called democracy. Unity is a slogan, it is a decorative word. Democracy means permanent conflict; it means how to manage disagreement." The suppression of disagreement or dissent within parties in the name of unity is a frequent occurrence. But whether unity is imposed after a free debate within the party, or whether it is proclaimed as an imperative at the outset to quell debate, makes all the difference between democratic and undemocratic functioning. Indian political parties have developed their own rituals and rites of passage, with party annual conventions being less deliberative and more darshan oriented. While they do perform useful functions of generating bonds of solidarity, they are no substitutes for democratic functioning. Cadre based organisations like the communist parties have a better structured consultative process in which the principle of democratic centralisation ensures that decisions thus arrived at are binding. The BJP is on the other hand confronted with the problem of an independent and often militant cadre with which it has strong umbilical links. Controlled as it is by a fascistic support structure, the RSS, it has to manoeuvre skilfully to avert the total takeover of its political agenda by the RSS which would sabotage its efforts to expand its electoral base. Other parties that have emerged in independent India in various states have tended to be personality-driven and cult-oriented. The parties of Tamil Nadu and Andhra, the DMK, AIADMK and TDP, are outstanding examples of this trend, which is however much more widespread in other states than is generally imagined. The rise and growth of political families is another significant development, as party after party falls back on the wives, sons and daughters of its leaders to renew itself. Parties need constant rejuvenation and youth wings have been traditional catchment areas. Nepotistic practices tend to undermine the attractiveness of political careers for fresh entrants, as access to the top seems restricted to a charmed circle. As one looks back at the way in which the Congress party has evolved over the last 60 years, the period when its working committee was the high command from where all important decisions flowed seems very distant. The consultative and deliberative processes which went into party policy decisions were marked by a collegiality, which was none the less real despite Nehru having the final word. It was replaced by a culture where none dares speak his mind without first ascertaining which way the leadership is inclined, for fear of being accused of the ultimate sin, lack of loyalty. Factions within parties based on ideological differences to be sorted out through debate give way to coteries built around personal loyalties instead. While factionalism can be to some extent an indicator of healthy divergences and differences of opinion, coteries only generate crony networks and promote undemocratic ways of managing disagreement. How then do we reconcile democracy with the undemocratic functioning of political parties? The choices offered in elections are often the outcome of oligarchic selection procedures. In his farewell speech to the nation, President APJ Abdul Kalam warned of the dangers inherent in the capture of the political process by "decision makers with small minds." Hard-nosed political calculation can generate cynicism and even contempt for the views of others. Crony networks bank on the assumption, often verified, that public memory is notoriously short and has a very limited attention span. What is often cited in defence of indefensible decisions is the nebulous concept of "ground reality" based on assumptions of what the ordinary voter is concerned or not concerned with. It is also used to dismissively denigrate the voices expressed through emails and text messages, as being the prerogative of the "chattering classes" and therefore of little consequence in the final outcome. Such parties therefore further dig themselves into trenches defended by only the loyal and the faithful. The Congress party is a notable example of this trend. Inner party democracy takes many forms and can manifest itself in diverse ways. The ultimate objective is to be as inclusive and representative as possible, keeping in mind the inherent propensities of party functionaries to filter information as it moves upwards. Therefore the first stage is in the selection of party functionaries, where some element of democratic functioning is necessary, if the next stage of distribution of party tickets for elections is not to be totally rigged. Parties can also introduce gender sensitivity in their organisational structures without waiting for any legislation mandating quotas. Finally, the representation of all the three levels of what is after all a multilevel federal system is of the utmost importance if democratisation is to take root in the polity. Rajiv Gandhi is reported to have said that while his grandfather had put in place the world’s largest democracy, he had also installed the world’s least representative democracy. Panchayati Raj was intended to remedy this imbalance. It would be ironic if this deepening of democracy is not simultaneously reflected in the functioning of parties, with a premium on the representation of new leaders emerging from the third tier of the federal system. Fortunately, the new generation of political leaders in the Congress and Communist parties has a fair share of converts to this ongoing democratisation process, and a willingness to listen to voices other than those of the coterie of advisors who are self perpetuating. Regional parties, with a few notable exceptions, have yet to devise safeguards against virulent infighting around contending personalities, and tend to view grassroots democracy as a threat to be countered by "Fan Clubs". One notable variant of democratic recruitment of cadres is the BSP, which has succeeded in recruiting a vast army of volunteers drawn from the lowest rungs of society, who act as its eyes and ears. The channels for the flow of information remain relatively unclogged, even though decision making at the highest levels remains oligarchic. Another party which has shown remarkable resilience and programmatic flexibility is the Shiromani Akali Dal, due in part to the devotion of its cadres, despite periodic factional blood-letting. In sum, the range of choices offered to the electorate at the time of elections is not the only indicator of democracy having become truly representative. In our first-past-the-post system in which the winner takes all, the processes through which these candidates emerge is of great significance. Sonia Gandhi renounced the office of Prime Minister to devote herself to managing the Congress party. Whether its democratisation was part of this agenda remains unclear. While the Election Commission can do so much and no more in its monitoring of party functioning, it is ultimately pressures within the party alone which can remedy the sclerosis that seems to be setting in for some of the old national parties. As they lose ground in state after state to parties driven by state-specific agendas, new strategies of rejuvenation will need to be devised. The deepening and strengthening of democracy, making it truly representative in the sense Rajiv Gandhi intended, passes through the democratisation of the internal functioning of parties. On this sixtieth anniversary of Independence, many explanations have been offered for the remarkable resilience and robustness of its democratic polity. How does one reconcile the undemocratic elements in the functioning of its parties with their overall contribution to making democracy work? The answer lies in the politics of accommodation and consensus which binds the political class together, despite their party affiliations. It is a bond forged on the electoral battlefield which overrides other considerations and creates a commonality of interests which make it possible for Government- Opposition relations to be conducted within mutually agreed parameters. Democracy is ultimately the gainer, even if representative democracy still seems a distant dream. The writer is Professor and former Pro Vice-Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University |
|
|
|
|
Most
