A lecture the ANC should listen to
The ruling party must take note of what the Indian National Congress can teach about complacency and the erosion of historical support
A N UPCOMING lecture by India’s former minister of trade and commerce, Anand Sharma, could prove to be a cautionary tale for those who govern, especially those resting on their liberation struggle laurels.
Sharma’s party, the Indian National Congress (INC), has much in common with the ANC. Both were leading players in their country’s struggles for independence. And both were significant governing parties post-independence, or postapartheid in the case of the ANC, with the INC having the added sheen of being associated with Mahatma Gandhi.
Sharma, who is now the deputy leader of the INC in the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of the Indian parliament, will speak on the shared experiences of these venerable liberation movements and the challenges they face in governing pluralistic democracies.
There were many who, when India achieved independence in 1947, thought Congress would rule until the Second Coming. However, Sharma and his colleagues of the INC (now in opposition) have seen the fortunes of his party rise and fall and now, after the 2014 elections, face virtual annihilation. In contrast, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that swept to power in those elections has seen its electoral fortunes rise over the past three decades. In 1984, it had just two seats in parliament; whereas in the 2014 elections, it garnered 52% of the seats – 282 out of 543 members of the Lok Sabha.
Its victory was significant not only because it prevailed, but because this was the first time in decades that a party had attained a majority on its own, without having to enter into an alliance with other parties. Congress’s defeat was staggering: it plummeted to 44 seats last year from 206 in the 2009 election. Anand Sharma, India’s former trade minister, represents a party that has gone from liberation to crushing electoral defeat.
That Congress won the 2009 election was largely owing to support gained from the Left.
The popular welfare measures it had put in place, at the insistence of its Left allies, ensured its success. This managed to offset the corruption and economic mismanagement narrative surrounding the Congress government.
Until last year, the BJP’s rise was owing to an alliance with regional parties and the BJP’s liberal use of Hindutva – a particularly virulent form of Hindu chauvinism. The growing pervasiveness of this narrative is particularly poignant in light of the 2002 massacre in Gujarat state, then governed by Narendra Modi, that saw 2 000 Muslims murdered in violent uprisings.
Professor Radhika Desai, a leading progressive Indian academic specialising in India’s Left, described the severity of Congress’s loss last year as “probably unintentional overkill: no sensible capitalist class wants to destroy an alternative party of capital, least of all a still quite serviceable one with historic associations”.
The regional parties, referred to as the provincial propertied classes (PPCs) have come to play a significant role, according to Desai: “The PPCs originated in cultivator middle castes. Capitalist development transformed them into capitalist farmers and then, as they acquired the urban and industrial interests, into capitalists pure and simple.”
Until they were trounced at the polls, it was always assumed that Congress could attract the marginalised voters – the so-called scheduled castes (SCs) or Dalits, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. Historically they accounted for almost six out of every 10 Congress voters.
Yet last year saw its traditionally strong base among the SCs crumble. The BJP, in spite of its “Hindu narrative” has successfully brought a significant percentage of these groups into their fold. It even managed to get 8% of the Muslim vote.
Consciousness
“The BJP has been able to both forge a political consciousness among the Hindus as Hindus and also extend that consciousness to large sections of the SC and ST (scheduled tribes) communities.
“In contrast, the Congress has failed to transform the SC-ST-Muslim communities into a conscious political community”, writes Prof Suhas Palshikar, an electoral analysis specialist who has worked on the NES (National Election Study) 2014.
Desai describes Congress’s present political predicament as being caught “between the electoral base among the poor and its desire for the approbation of the upper and middle-caste Hindu propertied groups”.
And, argues Desai, given the BJP’s ability to attract the upper layer and later the fickle middle layer echelons of society, “shouldn’t Congress then take the next logical step and become the authentic party – politically and programmatically – of the poor and the minorities: to rally the constituencies of the Left as a counter to the BJP’s successful organisation of the Right?”
The Congress-led government’s implication in corruption was bad enough. The apex of the corruption was scandals around the allocation of the 2G spectrum (telecommunications) and construction deals during the Commonwealth Games.
It also reached into the lives of every ordinary Indian, whether it involved small vendors having to pay a bribe to the constable on their street or peasants losing their land to commercial farmers.
Worse still was the inability of Congress and the Left generally to realise the power of the anti-corruption campaign – as Nivedeta Menon of the School of International Studies of Jawaharlal Nehru University described it, corruption has the emotional charge of “salt” of the famous Salt March: “It touches everyone, and it highlights the oppressiveness of the state.”
A successful mass-based, anticorruption movement, using tactics reminiscent of Gandhi’s satyagraha, had emerged by April 2011. The Left tried to dismiss it on spurious grounds such as the connection of the movement’s leader, Anna Hazare, with the right-wing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Instead of working with the movement, the government reneged on promises of anti-corruption legislation.
Commentators have pointed to a raft of other factors that have contributed to Congress’s drubbing at last year’s polls: its apparent poor handling of the national economy in contrast with the successful handling of the Gujarat economy by Modi, leader of the BJP; Rahul Gandhi’s relative youth and lack of experience compared with Modi’s decisiveness; and Congress’s dependence on dynastic rule – while Indira, Rajiv and now Rahul Gandhi have no direct link to Mahatma Gandhi, the Congress has found it useful to keep one of the Gandhis at its helm. This reliance has been criticised and exploited by its opposition.
Another factor, which should raise red flags for the ANC, is what Palshikar calls “the awkward bifurcation of governmental power and party power”. It had been suggested that although Manhoman Singh had been appointed prime minister, there was always contestation with the Congress HQ, which is reigned over by the Gandhis. This led to two centres of power.
Sharma will speak on the topic, “The Indian National Congress and the ANC – shared experiences as freedom movements and the challenges of governing pluralistic democracies”.
Abba Omar is the director of operations at the Mapungubwe Institute. Sharma will speak at the University of Johannesburg on Friday.