Democratic leaders should trust Bernie

Politics is always most successfully played as a game of addition, not subtraction. For some reason, however, the Democratic Party establishment thinks the rules have changed.

Borrowing a page from GOP front-runner Donald Trump, the Democratic leadership seems determined to belittle Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, which means belittling his large political following.

Instead of being gracious winners -- establishment favorite former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the likely nominee, barring the unpredictable -- Democratic leaders are labeling Sanders a sore loser. They want him to suspend all campaigning or, at the very least, stop criticizing the former first lady. They insist his continuing the race only helps Trump.

I know from insurgency campaigns. I was the campaign manager, as well as chief cook and bottle washer, for African-American Democrat L. Douglas Wilder’s historic 1985 insurgency in Virginia, which pulled down the “No Blacks Need Apply” sign that had been on the door to statewide office in the South.

The Democratic Party establishment belittled us and worked to block Wilder’s unprecedented nomination for lieutenant governor at Virginia’s state convention. It took his anti-establishment independence personally. But the leadership failed to consider the message it was sending to Wilder’s legion of supporters. We outfoxed the party leaders, so they were saved from finding out when Wilder won on Election Day.

Yet, the party leaders nev- er learned from this. They worked hard, this time behind the scenes, to block Wilder’s 1989 race for Virginia governor. He won, anyway.

When the 2016 presidential cycle started, the Democratic establishment viewed Sanders as a quixotic candidate. He had long been a thorn in its side -- a “democratic socialist” who accused elites in both major parties of rigging the economic and political systems against working-class families. Democratic leaders were certain the heavily favored Clinton would crush the 74-year- old Brooklyn native.

So the establishment adopted a new rosy scenario. It depicted Sanders as the perfect liberal foil to help candidate Clinton build a “centrist” image.

Polls showed Republicans had virtually conceded the African-American vote when they nominated Senator Barry Goldwater, who had voted against the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. As the summer Democratic National Convention approached, LBJ knew he had the political leeway to reject further political demands being made by younger African-American activists.

But LBJ understood political math. He knew that in order for Martin Luther King Jr. to keep his troops united in the fall -- and ready to rally behind the Democratic ticket -- the civil rights leader had to be a winner, not a loser.

So LBJ confided in King what he planned for AfricanAmericans if he won the election. When younger black activists insisted on confronting LBJ, King could then tell them of Johnson’s promised passage of the historic Voting Rights Act and the War on Poverty. With such unprecedented victories within reach, King could not be defied.

Now, of course, Sanders is no King. But LBJ would have understood that the Vermont senator is iconic to his supporters. These voters agree with Sanders’ arguments that the U.S. economic and political systems do not offer a level playing field for all Americans. From my own experience, I know this: Sanders needs to be seen as continuing to fight for principles in order to remain the moral leader his troops demand.

In politics, perception morphs into reality. Sanders and his backers rightly see themselves as winners. They may have lost the nomination because Clinton has won several million more votes. The leadership apparently assumes it has the whip hand against Sanders -- largely because its advisers point to polls that indicate the Vermonter’s supporters will eventually fall in line behind Clinton to defeat Trump.

LBJ had a far bigger lead over Goldwater than any poll now gives Clinton over Trump. Yet, Johnson still reached out to find common ground with his critics. In 1964, the Democratic Party establishment would never have tried to humiliate Sanders, much less his supporters. It understood the politics of addition.

The Democratic convention in July must have one overriding goal: showcasing unity. True, Sanders is unlikely to be the choice for vice president. But he must remain central to any real Democratic unity. Sanders has spent a lifetime saying he could be trusted to make the right, not the expedient, choice.

The Democratic establishment must trust him to do it. The latest sting operation by a media group exposing the involvement of big amounts for elections to the Rajya Sabha provides further evidence of electoral malpractices by politicians and influential money bags to purchase berths to the Upper House. In fact, the revelations solely go on to exhibit the role of money muscle in the polls and how the rich and affluent are able to strike financial deals to get into Parliament.

Money indeed is an important component in politics. However, it is not a mere coincidence that an increasing number of people including many who represent the corporate world or have used means other than their political skills, have procured entry into the prestigious portals of Parliament. It is nobody’s case that corporate luminaries should not be in Parliament, but if unfair means are used to get elected, it is certainly a cause of immense concern.

Big business houses have always played a major part in Indian politics. Till the late 1970s, a certain industrial house had wide spawning clout in political circles. Subsequently, as the years rolled by, new players entered the arena, thereby gradually replacing the original ones. At one time, the corporate world was content playing its games behind the scene. However, there are many ambitious business leaders who now aspire to be part of Parliament. Indira Gandhi enjoyed an exceptional rapport with many industrialists. She was, nevertheless, careful and cautious in not encouraging them to either join politics or for that matter was averse to be publicly seen in their company. In the early 1980s, a doyen amongst industrialists was desirous of being a member of the Rajya Sabha. He expressed his aspiration to her through her political aide, who was curtly told by the then Prime Minister that he could be given an additional licence or permit, but she would not give him a passage to the Upper House. The industrialist, however, persisted with his request and his case was subsequently pleaded by Rajiv Gandhi, who was doing his political apprenticeship under his mother. Indira Gandhi stood her ground and refused to give in an inch to her son’s insistence. At this point another aide of the Prime Minister intervened to convince her that in order to prop up Rajiv and send a message that he was the upcoming leader, it was essential to accept his advice in regard to the industrialist. Reluctantly, she agreed, but put forward a condition that the gentleman would not be the Congress candidate, but would have to file his nomination as an Independent. The party could thereafter give him the surplus votes to get elected.

Over the years, the scenario has changed and many industrialists and corporate honchos openly lobby for seats for themselves or their nominees. Vijay Mallya’s controversial election to the Rajya Sabha and his saga is now a widely discussed topic not only in political circles but also elsewhere.

Many years ago, consequent to the ruling of the Apex Court, the rules governing the eligibility to the Rajya Sabha were modified. Initially when the Constituent Assembly had envisaged the bicameral system for India, the Rajya Sabha was visualised as the Council of States to strengthen the federal structure of the country. In order to be a member, a candidate had to be a voter in that particular state.

The idea was that a domicile would be more protective about his state than someone who was brought from outside. The norm was different from that of the Lok Sabha, where a voter from any part of the country could contest the election from anywhere. This practice continued till it was challenged in the court, which made the eligibility conditions except the age criteria similar to that of the Lower House, meaning that a resident of India and a registered voter could contest for Rajya Sabha from any state of his liking.

This clause, in all probability, was made so as to eliminate declarations by nominees regarding their domicile status from a state other than their actual place of residence. For instance, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh proclaimed to be a resident of Assam to enable his election from there and even furnished the proof of his address.

Previously, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat was once elected to the Upper House from Madhya Pradesh. In the latest instance, P. Chidambaram will now enter the august house from Maharashtra while M. Venkaiah Naidu, who was a member from Karnataka during his third term, would now represent Rajasthan.

The political foxtrot, in a way, has defeated the original concept of the Upper House as visualised by the fathers of the Constitution. In the Congress, till P.V. Narasimha Rao’s time, a person defeated in the Lok Sabha would by no means be sent to the Rajya Sabha. Rao refused to accommodate Devendra Dwivedi, his key adviser to the Council of States post his defeat from Varanasi.

This was a norm set by Rajiv Gandhi. However, the Congress broke this established convention when it sent Oscar Fernandes, Shivraj Patil and P.M. Sayeed to the Upper House even after they had been vanquished in the electoral arena.

Unfortunately, the Rajya Sabha polls provide an opportunity to many fixers and wheeler dealers to exploit the situation when political parties are unable to send their nominee due to the shortage of votes. Money plays a massive role and it is therefore the duty of the Election Commission to ensure that malpractices are checked. Between us.