Crises can become moments of opportunity for those who can decipher the root cause and are willing to remedy it. The 2019 Lok Sabha election results unravelled the deep crisis within the Congress party. This has led to many calls for a reorganisation of the Congress party. While there are disagreements about how this reorganisation should happen, there is a consensus that the party needs to become more democratic and have a more significant grassroots presence. The rejuvenation of the party, they say, has to begin from below. Once the party has reorganised itself, the argument goes, it would lead to the emergence of independent leaders, who will inspire the masses, and the Congress will get back to its winning ways.
While we agree that the Congress party indeed needs an overhaul, the ‘organisational rejuvenation’ argument is frankly a stretch for two reasons. First, the link between a party’s organisation and its electoral success is grossly overestimated. Second, even if there is a positive relationship between the two, party organisation building does not happen in thin air – it needs a glue that binds the various components of the party on the ground, especially when it is out of power.
The role of organisational variable in determining party fortunes is greatly exaggerated. The Congress has had both spectacular successes with virtually no organisation and electoral failures with the same level of organisation. Congress won the assembly elections in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, and competed hard in Gujarat with a sclerotic organisation locally and dynastic leaders at the top. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has always had an active organisation backing it – the Rashtriya Swayamevak Sangh (RSS) and its various affiliates. But, neither the size of the RSS nor its reach has expanded as dramatically as the vote share of the BJP has expanded in the past few years. It strains the imagination to believe that the BJP made massive inroads in West Bengal and Odisha in this election, or its success in the northeast in the past few years is because of its superior local organisational skills.
Also read: Congress today doesn’t need a leader or an election win, it needs an ideology
Many regional parties in India, even some of the larger ones, do not have robust local organisations. They too are dynastic. They have continued to perform relatively better than the Congress and haven’t declined as much. In a comprehensive study of party decline in Eastern Europe, Elisabeth Bakke and Nick Sitter show that a strong organisation with many members is far less important than commonly believed.
Parties fail and die because of splits and because they lose their raison d’être. The Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) in Maharashtra, and the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) in Andhra Pradesh are led by politicians who were all part of the Congress party at one time. They see no ideological differences between themselves and the Congress.
Supriya Sule, whom we interviewed, remarked that the Congress and the NCP had similar views on many issues. This, we believe, is the crux of the problem. The Congress does not have a vision or an ideology that distinguishes it from many regional parties. What, after all, is the real ideological difference between the Samajwadi Party and the Congress, especially when we compare that difference with the ideological gap between the SP and the BJP, or the Congress and the BJP?
In our view, the Congress’s decline and its prospects for future electoral success lie in whether it can develop a compelling vision for India, a vision that clearly distinguishes it from the BJP and the regional parties. The Congress’ current crisis has all three elements that mark party decline – organisational atrophy, absence of credible leadership and an unclear ideological vision. We suggest that the Congress would be better placed if it prioritises re-defining its ideological programme over other factors. Why? Because vision enables both, the process of organisation building as well as the emergence of leadership. It is the ideological vision that makes foot soldiers toil hard. And when a leader presents an articulate picture of ideological vision, she enthuses the cadres and inspires masses.
Also read: BJP is in power because only one Congress can rule India at a time
One may ask then how did the Congress party perform well in some states in the past few years? After all, it did not offer any new vision. The Congress may keep doing well in certain states, but nationally it would not be able to pose a challenge to the BJP in absence of an alternative vision. In a national election, the opposition cannot merely rely on people’s dissatisfaction with the incumbent. For instance, the BJP’s 2014 win must not be attributed solely to the unpopularity of the UPA government alone. Among other factors, it was also driven by Narendra Modi’s ability to offer an appealing alternative vision to the voters.
The first order challenge that the Congress now faces is neither the organisation nor the leadership, but what does it stand for, and how is it different from the BJP? The BJP under Narendra Modi has successfully incorporated the ‘pro-poor’ agenda. A voter will be hard-pressed to distinguish the BJP and the Congress on their pro-poor stance. Modi’s personal appeal and the success of the BJP in addressing some of the daily inconveniences faced by citizens through massive welfare programmes have given the BJP an edge in appearing more people-friendly.
The Congress may cry hoarse (and may be legitimately for some) that the BJP has repackaged many of its schemes. Be that as it may, the fact remains that today, a voter cannot definitively say that the BJP or the Congress is more committed to the poor. This issue is off the table. The Congress can also legitimately complain that the BJP’s schemes do not work on the ground. Yes, may be, but the Congress itself has little credibility on delivering a government that performs. Is soft Hindutva an answer? Not really. Many have pointed out that playing second fiddle to the BJP on the ideological platform owned by the party is not an electoral strategy that can win votes.
Also read: Rahul Gandhi’s resignation can kill Congress, make India a one-party country
The Congress party has a challenging task ahead. The Congressmen and women must ask – who are we, and what do we stand for? And, does what we stand for resonate with India’s diverse citizens? It needs to present an active, visible, and viable alternative vision to the BJP, not a vision that is shared by many regional parties. It must ask itself what do Indian citizens who have not voted for the BJP (or may have, but still feel uncomfortable in identifying with the party) are looking for. Can the party fulfill those aspirations? More importantly, the Congress must not outsource the articulation of this ideological vision to its sympathisers within the civil society or academia, much like what happened to the party’s mobilisational efforts on critical issues in the past few years. The articulation of vision has to come from within the party. Only then it will be reflective of larger public sentiment, else it would resonate only within liberal elite circles.
The crisis in the Congress, which got accentuated with Rahul Gandhi’s resignation, presents the grand old party another opportunity to re-define itself and in the process re-organise the ideological space of the Indian party system. Focusing too much attention on the party’s organisation is just avoiding the tough question.
Pradeep Chhibber and Pranav Gupta are at the University of California at Berkeley, US. Rahul Verma is a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research. Views are personal.