Modi’s personalised campaign

S Nihal Singh

WITH the crucial election for the Uttar Pradesh Assembly past the half-way mark, the conflict between Mr Narendra Modi the BJP’s  street fighter, and the PM of the country has taken on a sharper edge. Mr Modi is no respecter of conventions, but it was a sound convention that for Assembly elections the PM makes a symbolic speech, leaving it to others to abuse opposition parties.

Mr Modi’s decision to be the chief campaigner in UP, as in other Assembly elections, flows from his single-minded devotion to rule the most important state in the Hindi heartland and in the process augment the party’s strength in the Rajya Sabha. Apart from abusing opposition leaders, Mr Modi has introduced a communal tinge to the discourse by suggesting equal electricity supplies for Hindu and Muslim festivals.

Mr Modi’s thrust has largely been in decrying the leading opposition figures in a vocabulary the common man would understand. The law and order situation in the state leaves much to be desired and the PM aimed the ruling Samajwadi Party. And he had choice words to say in idiomatic Hindi on the alleged deficiencies of individual opposition leaders.

This raises a major dilemma for the Prime Minister fulfilling his responsibilities as the country’s leader. Surely, a PM’s role is to unify the country taking the best of everyone. But his taunts and digs at opposition leaders will remain in public consciousness long after memories of the election campaign have receded.

During his intense campaigning in UP, Mr Modi has ranged over a variety of issues, from demonetisation to development. But the development theme has often been given second place to invectives. Is it a sign of desperation that no insult is out of bounds to win seats? UP’s Chief Minister and leader of the Samajwadi Party, Mr Akhilesh Yadav, has proved a doughty campaigner, taking Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi under his wings, as it were.

Indeed, the dilemmas presented by Mr Modi in running the country and insulting opposition leaders are many. To begin with, the efficacy of a leader in rallying the country at a time of crisis is greatly reduced. In a parliamentary system, leaders belong to the majority party and their loyalty in the first instance is to the party, but that presupposes primary loyalty o the country. A PM belittling the leaders of the opposition, admittedly in campaigning, is an unwelcome intrusion in the healthy running of a democracy.

The moral of the story is that some conventions are good and need to be cherished. Apart from BJP president Amit Shah, there are a host of capable rabble rousers in the party who can fly the BJP flag in Assembly elections. Nobody objects to Mr Shah claiming all the virtues in the world for his party, but a Prime Minister compromises his position by becoming a partisan to paint the opposition black.

Perhaps the problem lies in Mr Modi’s concept of governance, which tilts to the presidential form, instead of a parliamentary kind. In his view, it is Modi ki sarkar that is fighting the UP election, and all elections. Believing that it was the ‘Modi magic’ that won the BJP its victory in the 2014 general election, he has personalised every subsequent election at state level.

The fallacy in this argument is that what happened in 2014 may not be repeated nearly three years later. Inevitably, the initial sheen has worn off nearly three years later and the compromises a government — any government — has to make in the process along the way shine an unattractive light. It was at a meeting of party leaders with the then speaker of the Lok Sabha that led Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee to indicate his preference for a presidential form of government. Mr Modi’s own style has left no room to doubt that he endorses his ailing leader’s view. But a highly personalised form of government is a problem in a country as diverse as India.

Indeed, the time has come to put the presidential form of government on the table. Let it be debated far and wide, instead of being brought in by stealth. If the symbolism of replacing Mahatma Gandhi by Mr Modi at the spinning wheel on the official Khadi calendar were not enough, Mr Modi’s taking over the UP election campaign is a telling sign of his intentions. In the meantime, the party must make a compact with its mentor, RSS, on the contours of a projected presidential system.

The other side of the coin is that, depending upon the UP election result, Mr Modi will have to own up his responsibility for greater glory or downturn. The BJP has gone to great lengths to put its best foot forward; certainly, Mr Shah has been assiduous in his devotion, first in selecting candidates, and in electioneering. Perhaps in giving the billing he has to UP, he has magnified his party’s desperate need for victory.

Much is tied to UP elections because the next stage of the edifice being built for the BJP requires a run of successes, and Mr Modi has given so much time and effort for the cause that a setback would sit ill on the ceremonial Rajasthani turban he is fond of wearing on ceremonial occasions. There is time yet to to make more election speeches.

At one level, Mr Modi takes to campaigning like a duck takes to water. At another level, governing the country unhindered by electioneering must come as a relief to an administrator will a plate full of problems. He must also be wondering how long the effect of name-calling opposition leaders will take to wear off.