      |
A Congress leader compared Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's insistence on introducing foreign direct investment (FDI) in the retail sector to his firm stand on the Indo-US nuclear deal issue in 2008. A minister even said, in what was reminiscent of the PM's "so be it" quote that expressed his exasperation with the Left parties on their opposition to the nuclear deal, that if a Parliament session had to be sacrificed for the sake of opening the retail sector to FDI, then "so be it".
However, as the turn of events has shown, the situation now is not what it was in 2008. In the nuclear deal issue, Manmohan was backed to the hilt by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, and he managed to save both his government and the nuclear deal. Cut to 2011: in the face of all-round opposition to FDI in retail, the Prime Minister chose to make a strong case for the decision at a recent Youth Congress event attended by Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, who, in sharp contrast to 2008, have maintained a studied silence on the issue.
As final arbiters on the disputes within the Congress, their decision to keep quiet has only made critics of the FDI decision more vocal. It has been left to Manmohan and his cabinet colleagues to try and save the situation. Right when Manmohan wanted to demonstrate that his government was not stuck in policy paralysis and was on track with reforms, his credibility and standing as a decision-maker have taken a further beating.
The proposal to open the retail sector to FDI had been discussed and approved by the Congress core group before it was taken up by the Union cabinet. However, Sonia's distancing from the issue was unmistakable. "One can infer that there is something wrong," said political scientist Rajeev Bhargava. "Things were happening pretty smoothly in UPA-I. But in UPA-II, there is a drift and the opposition is taking full advantage of it."
The distancing of Sonia from the decisions of the government has in fact been one of the biggest distinguishing features of UPA-II from UPA-I. From 1980 to 1989, and then from 1991 to 1996, the Prime Minister and the Congress president were the same person. In 2004, Sonia nominated Manmohan as the Prime Minister. She put in place an arrangement wherein she would be the political authority of the ruling dispensation while Manmohan took care of governance and administrative matters. That way, she ensured that her left-of-centre approach would guide policy-making.
Doubts about the efficacy of the arrangement were proved false. Sonia handled the UPA politics meticulously. She mediated between the government and the supporting Left parties. Whenever political direction was needed in matters of governance, she extended support. At times, though, there were complaints from within the party that she was focusing too much on governance issues and less on organisational matters.
The National Advisory Council (NAC), headed by Sonia, wielded considerable power and gave directions to the government on big ticket initiatives such as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and Right to Information Act. Its emergence as a parallel policy-making body, ensuring that the aam admi agenda was not forgotten, worked in favour of the Congress in the May 2009 general elections.
Just before the elections, Manmohan, responding to the opposition's attacks that he was constrained by Sonia, said she has taken care of the "heavy burden" of the party while allowing him to focus on running the government. "I am not constrained by the fact that the Congress party's management is looked after by Mrs Gandhi," he told the Financial Times in an interview. Sonia's involvement in governance led to friction on occasions. But the arrangement, despite its inherent flaws, worked at the time of UPA-I.
On the other hand, UPA-II has seen Sonia detach herself from the day-to-day working of the government. The Congress president intervenes only when there is a big issue involved and her intervention becomes indispensable—like, for example, giving a push to the Food Security Bill or sorting out the controversy generated by Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee's 2G note.
Gandhi's aloofness has resulted in party members openly criticising Manmohan and his government. The "constructive opposition", as some Congress leaders termed their attacks, had a pained Manmohan complaining to the Congress core group about the lack of support from his party colleagues in crucial times, such as when the Supreme Court sought an affidavit from him on the 2G spectrum scam.
Signs of trouble had begun to appear in 2009, when Sonia shot off letters to the Prime Minister expressing her disagreement with many government plans. With no big ticket aam admi programmes—except for the Food Security Bill—on its agenda, the NAC, it appears, is not as proactive as it used to be. Its disagreement with the government over the Food Security Bill and the Communal Violence Bill has only resulted in the proposed legislations getting delayed. The government had also not accepted the Lokpal Bill as recommended by the advisory council.
The government's decision to ignore many of the NAC's recommendations has been criticised within the Congress. "The Prime Minister and his ministers are responsible for implementing programmes," said AICC general secretary Shakeel Ahmed. "And the principle and guidance come from the Congress president."
The pulls and pressures of the Congress have also been visible in Manmohan's cabinet reshuffles. He has had to make compromises and shelve his plans to remove non-performers in the Union cabinet. The two cabinet reshuffles in UPA-II have only ended up in ministers moving from one building to another.
At the second anniversary of UPA-II, the mood was far from celebratory. Bogged down by attacks on several fronts, the government was struggling to project a picture of confidence. When Manmohan presented the report card for the year gone by, he spoke of the suggestions made by Sonia and Rahul. But in being politically correct as per the workings of the Congress, the Prime Minister was inadvertently revealing the chasm between his administrator-CEO role and the political leadership of the country.
"In the Indian parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is supreme, along with his council of ministers," said BJP's Siddharth Nath Singh. "The Constitution has made them responsible for governance and accountable to Parliament and, therefore, to the people. No extra-constitutional authority without accountability should exist, as that would harm governance."
Corporate bigwigs have written more than once to Manmohan, underlining the urgent need to shake off the policy paralysis that has gripped the government. The move to allow FDI in the retail sector stemmed from the need to change the perception that the government was stuck in action. That the government chose this particular reform, which was bound to run into immense opposition, is puzzling. Even as the Union cabinet cleared the proposal, a political gameplan to push through the opposition was missing. Consultations with the BJP and its allies were given a go-by in the urgency to step on the reforms accelerator.
Of late, the delinking of the political authority from the top post in the government has only added to the lack of decisiveness in the ruling dispensation, especially with regard to critical issues. This was more than evident in the government's handling of the Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev episodes. Manmohan's limitations on account of his not being the political authority were exposed when Sonia went to the US for treatment and the government floundered to find political solutions to the civil society campaign against corruption.
Partymen blame the government for sullying the Congress's image. "The Congress being the largest party in the government, the performance of the government reflects on the party," said Ahmed. "However, it is very difficult for a person who does not hold any executive office to monitor day-to-day developments in the government. For policy matters, as Congress president and UPA chairperson, she does give inputs. But for day-to-day work, it is the government which will be seen as the main place of execution."
Experts point out how the working of the party has become individual-centric under Sonia. In the absence of any clear decision-making hierarchy, there was bound to be confusion on who would take the call in her absence and whose instructions were to be obeyed. Infighting within the Union cabinet has only worsened the leadership crisis.
Sonia's gradual withdrawal is also marked by Rahul stepping in and taking initiative. It was at his direction that the Union textiles ministry announced the package for handloom weavers. The government is also working towards implementing quotas for minorities, as the issue is crucial to Rahul's plans to reclaim Uttar Pradesh in the Assembly elections next year. However, Bhargava feels that Rahul, too, is contributing to the current state of confusion within the Congress, as it is not clear whether he is prepared to lead the party or not.
The priorities of the party and the government are now different. While the party wants the Food Security Bill to be expedited, the government wants to focus on fiscal consolidation. On the Naxal issue, Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram has said that he has only a "limited mandate" to act against the menace.
Both Sonia and Rahul have spoken of ministers not paying enough attention to partymen. "In UPA-I, Manmohan felt indebted to Sonia Gandhi for nominating him the Prime Minister. But after the 2009 elections, he believed that the second term to the UPA was on his positive mandate and not because of Sonia Gandhi alone," said Siddharth Nath Singh.
Manmohan is now concentrating more on foreign policy. He has been on visits abroad even while Parliament has been in session. Sonia, on the other hand, has now chosen to focus more on organisational matters than issues of governance. Preparing the party for the crucial UP elections and 2014 general elections are her priorities. From an odd couple in 2004 who managed to get along and make the UPA work smoothly, Sonia and Manmohan now seem to have become a couple at odds.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment