bout de papier, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2014) — Summer 2014 // Été 2014, pp. 7–8
Note de la redaction : Dans un monde où la démocratie semble de plus en plus vulnerable, il est d’autant plus important de comprendre son evolution dans la plus populeuse des démocraties, l’Inde. La récente election en Inde a pose deux énigmes pour l’observateur non averti : l’effondrement apparent du parti du Congrès après des generations de pouvoir au pays; et l’avènement d’un parti Nationaliste hindou dirigé par un homme possédant des antecedents de politique sectaire suffisamment troublants pour avoir soulevé des questions au sujet de l’avenir meme de la démocratie laïque en Inde. L’Inde a-t-elle vraiment change? bout de papier offre deux
The idea of political dynasties suffered a devastating blow at the hands of the rationalist philosophers of the 18th Century Enlightenment. They argued persuasively that political power should be enjoyed by those who could acquire it on the basis of merit, competence and demonstrated abilities. To confer it on the basis of an accident of birth was simply irrational and a throwback to tribalism. This conviction slowly but surely won the day in the Western world. In many European countries the shift was from powerful monarchies to constitutional monarchies, in which the king or queen reigns but does not rule. This was the case in Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries and the Benelux countries. In other European countries monarchical forms of government were replaced by republican forms. This was true of France, Germany, Russia, Italy and Austria. By the middle of the 20th century the idea of political dynasties was almost totally dead in the Western world, with a couple of notable exceptions being the Bushes in the United States and the Papandreous in Greece.
In Asia, however, the idea is anything but dead. In supposedly socialist or communist countries like Syria and North. Korea, the Assads and the Kims carry on from generation to generation (enough to make Karl Marx turn in his grave). This is true also of a number of supposedly democratic countries where the sons or daughters, wives or widows, brothers or sisters of former leaders hold sway. This is the case in Bangladesh, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. It was also the case until recently in Pakistan, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Nowhere, however, has the phenomenon been more in evidence than in India. There the Nehru- Ghandi family has dominated the political scene for over 60 years.
At the head of the Congress Party, India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru came to office in 1947 and remained prime minister for the next 17 years. After a brief interval, he was succeeded by his daughter Indira Gandhi who was in office for a total of 15 years. She in turn was followed by her son Rajiv Gandhi who served as prime minister for five years. When Rajiv was assassinated in 1991, many insiders in the Congress Party urged his widow Sonja Gandhi to throw her hat into the ring. She very wisely declined thinking that an Italian born former airline stewardess with no political experience was unlikely to win a general election. She did not, however, withdraw from politics and was eventually chosen to be president of the Congress Party, a position from which she exercised considerable influence; she was widely viewed as the power behind the throne over the last ten years of Congress rule. In the most recent general election, the Congress Party was once again led by a member of the family, Sonja’s son Rahul. And during the campaign he became heavily dependent on the vote-swaying capabilities of his sister Priyanka. “All in the family” is the title of an old sitcom, but it might equally be applied to Indian politics since independence. But is the story now over?
The results of the latest general election, held in April and May of this year, represent what can only be described as a disaster for the Congress Party. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has come to office with 282 seats in the lower house of the Indian parliament. Congress secured only 44 seats, by far its worst are at least four significant factors which came into play at the national level.
Many Indian and foreign observers have put the emphasis on the numerous corruption scandals, involving sectors as varied as mining and telecommunications and implicating senior ministers and government officials. But then corruption is nothing new in India. In a book published 15 years ago, Professor Paul Brass of the University of Washington wrote: “What exists in India is pervasive, systematic, structural and graded corruption running from the bottom to the top of the political order. Few are exempt from it, untouched by it, immune from it — from ordinary villagers to prime ministers of the country.” Put another way, the Indian electorate is thoroughly inured to the phenomenon of corruption and the recent scandals are unlikely to have played a decisive role in the outcome of the election.
Another and probably far weightier factor is the current state of the Indian economy. As finance minister in the early 1990s, Manmohan Singh was the principal architect of an ambitious programme of reforms which helped to overcome decades of economic stagnation and launched India on anew path which led to its being seen as one of the major “emerging economies”. However, as prime minister over the last 10 years, he has been repeatedly stymied in his efforts to implement further necessary reforms. Opposition to reform has emanated from within his own Congress Party, from the parties in his coalition government, from small business and from labour unions. His inability to overcome that opposition has led to his being portrayed as a weak and ineffective leader. While that portrayal may be somewhat unfair, what is certain is that India’s economic performance has declined sharply in the last three years or so. The rate of economic growth is only half of what it once was, the value of the currency has decreased significantly, investment levels are down and inflation is on the
rise. All of this has had an impact on ordi- I nary Indians in terms of the cost of living
and employment opportunities. Discontent on this score was palpable during the recent election campaign.
A third factor was the emergence on the Indian political scene of a new star, Narendra Modi. The newly minted leader of the BJP and until recently chief minister of the state of Gujarat, Modi created something of a sensation during the election campaign. He came across as a charismatic and self-assured political leader. What is more he projected himself as an effective economic manager on the basis of the successes he had achieved during his 12 years in office in Gujarat. And Indian voters appear to have lapped it up, choosing to overlook his longterm association with extremist Hindu nationalist movements and his complicity in a 2002 massacre of some 2000 Muslims in Gujarat. Modi offered serious political and economic change, and the electorate made him Prime Minister.
If the victory of the BJP was spectacular, the defeat of the Congress Party was even more spectacular. The once mighty and dominant Congress now holds less than eight per cent of the seats in the Lok Sabha. This dismal result can be explained in good part by the fourth major factor which came into play during the campaign: the lacklustre performance of the party leader Rahul Gandhi. Reporting on the election campaign in early May, The Economist noted that: “Nobody in Congress was enthused by their own man; party workers privately grouch that Mr. Gandhi is aloof, absent and happier fiddling with games on his phone than meeting voters.” Put another way, he is totally lacking the fire in the belly required of politicians intent on winning elections.
What is more, he comes across as both elitist and paternalistic, fatal flaws in a
party leader. He turned out in the end to be a total dud.
The results of the election do not necessarily spell the end of the Congress Party. After all, the BJP has come to power while securing only 31 per cent of the popular vote due to the vagaries of the first past the post system, all too familiar to Canadians and Britons alike. Should Prime Minister Modi and the BJP decide to pursue a divisive Hindu nationalist agenda, Indian voters may well decide in due course that they prefer the politics of the centrist and secular Congress Party. But if the Congress Party is to experience a rebirth, it will need to develop a new leadership allowing the last scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty to fade into the background.
Louis A. Delvoie is a retired Foreign Service officer and Fellow at the Centre for International and Defence Policy at Queen’s University, Kingston. A graduate of Loyola College, the University of Toronto, McGill University and the National Defence College of Canada, he served as Ambassador to Algeria, Deputy High Commissioner to the U.K. and High Commissioner to Pakistan. He was also DG for International Security and Arms Control at DFAIT and ADM (Policy) with DND. After retiring he became Adjunct Professor at Queen’s University and RMC. He has authored many op-eds for the Kingston Whig-Standard on foreign policy and defence issues.
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2014) — Summer 2014 // Été 2014, pp. 7–8. Read the rest of this issue →
