What you see isn't what you get

The British added an esoteric word toIndia's political vocabulary - 'dyarchy'. Conceived by a classically educatedofficial, the name conjured up systems of governance in ancient Greece and Rome.And it justly earned its share of infamy in the lexicon of independentIndia.The reason was that while formal control of some non-politicaldepartments (such as education and agriculture) were ceded to loyal Indiansunder dyarchy, real control remained in the hands of the British Viceroy and hiscohorts. The essential problem with dyarchy is that it creates unaccountablepoles of power, while the formal authority - which will be held responsible ifgovernment policy goes wrong - can't do much to change it. That's why dyarchy isa bad principle of governance, justly ridiculed by nationalists.Butwhy this foray into history? Unfortunately dyarchy was not just practised by theBritish, it left a deep impress on political styles in the subcontinent. Its use- and attendant ill effects - continues to the present day.Take the BJP, which cannot give up its fealty to the unelected RSS. It cannot, therefore, swerve away from Hindutva, which hobbles it politically. India is too diverse and heterogeneous for Hindutva to have mass appeal, with the exception of stray moments such as the Ram Janmabhoomi movement in the early 1990s. That moment cannot be captured again. But the BJP is unable to make the transition to a modern, right wing party as it is stuck to traditionalist positions, thanks to the remote control wielded by the RSS sarsanghchalak and his cohorts.Essentially the same problem is replicated on the Left.Within the CPM, the unelected Politburo lays down the line for electedgovernments to follow. That's why Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, who used to run agovernment, can only refuse to attend official meetings and sulk on thesidelines while the CPM sarsanghchalak (aka its general secretary) determinesthe course of the party. That's why the Left faces a survival crisis, unless itcan abandon obsolete Marxist dogma and re-engineer itself as a modern socialdemocratic party or group of parties.The Congress isn't far behind. Sonia Gandhi piloted the Congress to victory in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, but refused to accept the prime ministership to near-universal acclaim. Thus was born what was thought to be, at the time, a clever political strategy. Since the Congress lacked a clear ideology the Gandhi family itselfcould be its core, the cement that made the party cohere. This entailedshielding Sonia and Rahul from government decisions, so that if those decisionsbombed, they wouldn't have to take the heat. The strategy required the Gandhisto hold influential positions in the party, but not in government. It alsorequired them to speak little, and make only the most populist pronouncementswhen they did. In case government policies should misfire, or simply to coverall political bases, ministers and party bigwigs should be the first ones tofire salvos at the government before the opposition got a wordin.This strategy, however, has several downsides. And it's only nowthat those downsides are becoming clear. It creates a sense of drift, as no oneappears to be in charge. If the buck passes endlessly and government itselfmines the opposition space then the question arises, who and where is thegovernment? The second, related downside is that it undermines the position of the prime minister. That's why there's a near-universal perception that the PM is weak. Take the case of Digvijay Singh last Sunday, saying that he would like to see Rahul Gandhi as the PM. Astonishingly the statement - by the general secretary of the Congress party - makes no reference to the fact that the current prime minister of the country is also from the Congress. Apart from heightening the already overwhelming impression of drift, imagine what it does to Manmohan Singh's position. It's not surprising that party spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan had to step in and squelch the rumour that Singh was about to be unseated.Instead of shooting from the hip, though, it would helpif the Congress were to announce an orderly transition of power. It coulddeclare, for instance, that while it fully supports Manmohan Singh through therest of UPA-II's tenure, Rahul Gandhi would be its candidate for PM in the nextLok Sabha elections, when Singh would need to retire for health reasons.Rahul would have youth on his side and therefore a chance to rallythe youth of the country, its fastest growing demographic. Besides, Rahul's (orSonia's) standing for PM would have the enormous benefit of ending dyarchy inthe party. Its movers and shakers would then be directly accountable to theelectorate, and in a position to marshal all the resources of the party ifelected to power - an essential condition for good governance.If theCongress were to declare a prime ministerial candidate, the BJP would be underpressure to end its internal leadership squabbles and follow suit. And then itwould be up to the people of India to choose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what youget) is not just good for computer software, it works even better inpolitics.