05 January 2014, 06:11 PM IST
Who would have thought it? it actually seems that the 2014 elections might turn out to be a battle of ideas, at least at the national level. It is another matter that the elections might well be decided on the basis of what happens regionally, but for the moment it is important to acknowledge that something new is afoot. For what we are seeing today, is not merely a choice between political parties or individual leaders alone, but a contest between different kind of political imaginations.
The outsider in this process, is ironically the party that has come to power in the last two elections. A victim of the hubris that is a consequence of its structure, the Congress can see the writing etch itself syllable by syllable on the wall, and finds itself unable to react, trapped as it is in its own narrative. Used to cobbling together majorities by working the spaces between voter constituencies and using the magnet of the family to create a sense of comfort and familiarity, the Congress has become a party of those whose only belief lies in the desirability of coming to power. Paying ritual obeisance to the dynastic leadership allows its members to huddle together in a weak imitation of coherence and hoping that eventually power will come their way. Over the years, the Congress lacks any inner core of belief, and indeed has come to a point where even the idea of having one is a faint memory. Tired evocations of inclusiveness and secularism, repeated with a transparent absence of belief have taken the place of any worldview or a desire to use politics as a transformational force. Rahul Gandhi's efforts miss the point altogether. The problem is not the lack of a grassroots organisation or with internal processes but the absence of the central engine of belief. What does a Congress worker buy into, what grand idea or cause, apart from the prospect of bettering his or her own life?
The dilemma of the Congress becomes underlined when seen in the context of the emerging political narrative at the national level. The BJP as a party, has over the years come to resemble the Congress, with little to distinguish the bulk of its representatives from those of the ruling party. But in the persona of Narendra Modi, it has someone that has energised a significant section of the country by promising change in a way that is believable. Modi believes above all in himself, and by implication in a strong decisive central leadership that is intent on delivering effective outcomes to the electorate. His implicit vision is a technocratic one- the world is seen as a series of projects that come with a list of deliverables and deadlines. In a political context where such determined attention to getting things done is rare, Modi comes through as a doer, and to use a Bush-ism, a decider. It is not very clear as to what exactly his economic philosophy is, but it is clear that he has a top-down view of progress, and is focused much more on delivering whatever becomes a priority. The choice of priorities and the factors that govern it remain a grey area, and seems to be aligned to the interests of groups that are dominant in society.
What Modi offers is a counterpoint to the growing sense of fracturing that the political system seems to be experiencing. In all spheres of life, economic, political and social, a sense of an imploding centre with a resultant loss of certainties is being felt by a citizen unused to such rapid change. In Modi, sections of India see a charismatic leader who pulls it all back together and restores some kind of order. This order is impatient of too much nuance or marginality, but delivers to the mainstream view of development. Under the label of progress, Modi is promising a reduction of complexity, and a return to simpler, more certain times.
Kejriwal makes no such cosy promises. The AAP promise is not about a glorious outcome- it views politics not as a transportation vehicle to a pre-determined and desirable destination but as an instrument whose main objective is to invite messy participation. He restores to politics the idea of fidelity -to what people want. His main contribution so far has been to imagine politics as being distinct from power. In this vision, politics is about a continuing process of engagement, and not a series of discrete destinations. Here the distance between people and politics is sought to be reduced, and in doing so politics becomes an everyday practice, full of local events and constant engagement, rather than an act of governing from afar. Corruption is a sign of the decay of the system which has stopped serving those it is meant to and started being used purely for personal gain and hence needs to be fixed for reasons administrative more than moral. Corruption particularly of the everyday kind, renders the implicit contract between the electorate and its representatives null and void since its make the vote worthless as currency- the voter gets nothing in exchange for it.
Arguably, both belief systems are flawed- in the case of Modi the dangers of believing in the opaque certitudes of someone whose abilities to listen and include are suspect are all too clear and have been more than adequately documented. In Kejriwal's case, there is the fragility of an experiment that has loaded itself with so much self-righteousness that it could collapse under the weight of its own pretensions. But both offer more than what the Congress does, which is a shame because India still needs a Congress-like party. Only, it needs one that believes in something other than a craven need for monarchic leaders.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
The return of belief
Dengan url
http://osteoporosista.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-return-of-belief.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
The return of belief
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar