<p>The electoral outcomes of recent Assembly elections in the Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal besides Puducherry necessitates the organisational reforms in the Indian National Congress (INC, now on Congress) for its resurrection in the national politics. This has become imperative in the wake of dissenting voices by some of the senior leaders advocating similar changes in the party.</p>.<p>The increasing political defections within the Congress is raising many questions on the party’s revival and its role in the governance of the country. No doubt, the party is suffering from twin problems— (i) crisis of leadership, and (ii) dilution of ideological commitment. Set in this backdrop, it is essential to analyse the contributing factors of the Congress’ declining role in the country’s politics and its implications on the party’s credibility.</p>.<p>A closer analysis of the poll results in the four states and in one Union Territory (Puducherry) reveals some interesting insights for the Congress and to its internal democracy. The party failed in all the states except in Tamil Nadu where it shares power with DMK as a junior ally. The biggest setback is in West Bengal where the party could not able to open its account at all. Even in Kerala, where the party has 15 MPs, it failed to gauge the advantage of the anti-incumbency factor. In this scenario, there are certain lessons to be drawn to revive the Congress in terms of ideology, internal democracy, and institutional and leadership aspects.</p>.<p>The party contested in 317 constituencies in all the four states and in Puducherry. It won 70 seats – that is, 22.08% of the total seats - the highest being in Tamil Nadu. Here, the party contested in 25 and won in 18 seats. Apart from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, in Assam it could not be able to mobilise the voters’ support in spite of the strong anti-incumbency factor in the wake of anti-CAA and NRC protests in the state.</p>.<p>Given these numbers, the Congress has to introspect deeply how it did fall from a strength of 145, 206 seats in 2004 and 2009, to 44 in 2014 and 52 in 2019 Lok Sabha elections. This is a big variation for any political party, especially the party with 134 years of existence with the role in the national freedom movement. The loss of 154 seats just in the span of 10 years for a party with 136 years of political history indicates that there must be some missing link with and within the party.</p>.<p>The party has to widen the social base by increasing the diversity in terms of ticket distribution to walk the talk of its secular nature. It must make sincere efforts to regain the trust and confidence of Dalit voters. The dilution of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) law is the single biggest factor for the Congress gain in 2019 assembly elections. The rising attacks on Dalits, adivasis, women and religious minorities by the right-wing groups give prospects for the Congress’ commitment to the secularism. Among 181 seats reserved for SC/ST candidates, the Congress has increased its number to 108 from 42 in 2013-14 assembly elections in these three states. Similar is the case with giving tickets to the women candidates.</p>.<p>Second aspect is the practice of internal democracy within the party. Late party leader Arjun Singh once made a comment, “Earlier, there were many opportunities to contribute to the decisions, and even major decisions of the Congress were taken after going through the process of consultations and people used to accept it. But now this has fallen into a bit of disarray...” The lack of internal democracy is the cause of concern which emerged in the recent turf in choosing the chief ministerial candidate in Rajasthan. In 1999, the A K Antony panel report suggested recommendations for reforming the party’s internal decision-making process.</p>.<p><strong>Unchanged nature</strong></p>.<p>This has asked the need to devolve the powers of decision-making authority from the clutches of high command. However, the way the decisions have been taken in the recent assembly elections informs the unchanged nature of centralised decision-making process within the party.</p>.<p>This connects to the factor of the nature of leadership of the party. The decline of the party’s structure was severe when Indira Gandhi suspended the internal democratic process. Later on, Rajiv Gandhi tried best with his leadership abilities to revive it. Since then, Sonia Gandhi has taken over the charge. However, it must be noted that the “party’s membership dropped from nearly 40 million in the mid-1990s to under 20 million at the beginning of the 21st century”. The party does not have the confidence or capability to build consensus over building alternative leadership with the people having grassroots connections as suggested by the Antony panel.</p>.<p>Political parties are the institutional mechanisms which connects people to democracy. The expansion of party from capital cities to smaller towns, districts with a strong cadre through organisational restructuring is the need of the hour. A party basing upon a single man leadership does not augur well for the organisation as well as for the democracy. The electoral outcomes in Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan in 2019 indicated populist schemes played a role in attracting the voters, especially the farming community.</p>.<p>The challenge with the populist schemes is that in case the party fails to deliver on these election promises, then it may cost hugely not only in terms of electoral outcomes but also to the credibility of the party. The heavy reliance on the populist schemes is counterproductive especially when it comes to regional aspirations. The party would do well by focusing on the necessary institutional reforms to build and develop an alternative leadership through decentralisation rather than emphasising on populist schemes to attain power in the states. These are critical for the party to resurrect in the upcoming Uttar Pradesh assembly elections and in the national politics and governance.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is PhD Fellow, Centre for Political Institutions, Governance and Development of Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru)</em></p>
<p>The electoral outcomes of recent Assembly elections in the Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal besides Puducherry necessitates the organisational reforms in the Indian National Congress (INC, now on Congress) for its resurrection in the national politics. This has become imperative in the wake of dissenting voices by some of the senior leaders advocating similar changes in the party.</p>.<p>The increasing political defections within the Congress is raising many questions on the party’s revival and its role in the governance of the country. No doubt, the party is suffering from twin problems— (i) crisis of leadership, and (ii) dilution of ideological commitment. Set in this backdrop, it is essential to analyse the contributing factors of the Congress’ declining role in the country’s politics and its implications on the party’s credibility.</p>.<p>A closer analysis of the poll results in the four states and in one Union Territory (Puducherry) reveals some interesting insights for the Congress and to its internal democracy. The party failed in all the states except in Tamil Nadu where it shares power with DMK as a junior ally. The biggest setback is in West Bengal where the party could not able to open its account at all. Even in Kerala, where the party has 15 MPs, it failed to gauge the advantage of the anti-incumbency factor. In this scenario, there are certain lessons to be drawn to revive the Congress in terms of ideology, internal democracy, and institutional and leadership aspects.</p>.<p>The party contested in 317 constituencies in all the four states and in Puducherry. It won 70 seats – that is, 22.08% of the total seats - the highest being in Tamil Nadu. Here, the party contested in 25 and won in 18 seats. Apart from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, in Assam it could not be able to mobilise the voters’ support in spite of the strong anti-incumbency factor in the wake of anti-CAA and NRC protests in the state.</p>.<p>Given these numbers, the Congress has to introspect deeply how it did fall from a strength of 145, 206 seats in 2004 and 2009, to 44 in 2014 and 52 in 2019 Lok Sabha elections. This is a big variation for any political party, especially the party with 134 years of existence with the role in the national freedom movement. The loss of 154 seats just in the span of 10 years for a party with 136 years of political history indicates that there must be some missing link with and within the party.</p>.<p>The party has to widen the social base by increasing the diversity in terms of ticket distribution to walk the talk of its secular nature. It must make sincere efforts to regain the trust and confidence of Dalit voters. The dilution of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) law is the single biggest factor for the Congress gain in 2019 assembly elections. The rising attacks on Dalits, adivasis, women and religious minorities by the right-wing groups give prospects for the Congress’ commitment to the secularism. Among 181 seats reserved for SC/ST candidates, the Congress has increased its number to 108 from 42 in 2013-14 assembly elections in these three states. Similar is the case with giving tickets to the women candidates.</p>.<p>Second aspect is the practice of internal democracy within the party. Late party leader Arjun Singh once made a comment, “Earlier, there were many opportunities to contribute to the decisions, and even major decisions of the Congress were taken after going through the process of consultations and people used to accept it. But now this has fallen into a bit of disarray...” The lack of internal democracy is the cause of concern which emerged in the recent turf in choosing the chief ministerial candidate in Rajasthan. In 1999, the A K Antony panel report suggested recommendations for reforming the party’s internal decision-making process.</p>.<p><strong>Unchanged nature</strong></p>.<p>This has asked the need to devolve the powers of decision-making authority from the clutches of high command. However, the way the decisions have been taken in the recent assembly elections informs the unchanged nature of centralised decision-making process within the party.</p>.<p>This connects to the factor of the nature of leadership of the party. The decline of the party’s structure was severe when Indira Gandhi suspended the internal democratic process. Later on, Rajiv Gandhi tried best with his leadership abilities to revive it. Since then, Sonia Gandhi has taken over the charge. However, it must be noted that the “party’s membership dropped from nearly 40 million in the mid-1990s to under 20 million at the beginning of the 21st century”. The party does not have the confidence or capability to build consensus over building alternative leadership with the people having grassroots connections as suggested by the Antony panel.</p>.<p>Political parties are the institutional mechanisms which connects people to democracy. The expansion of party from capital cities to smaller towns, districts with a strong cadre through organisational restructuring is the need of the hour. A party basing upon a single man leadership does not augur well for the organisation as well as for the democracy. The electoral outcomes in Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan in 2019 indicated populist schemes played a role in attracting the voters, especially the farming community.</p>.<p>The challenge with the populist schemes is that in case the party fails to deliver on these election promises, then it may cost hugely not only in terms of electoral outcomes but also to the credibility of the party. The heavy reliance on the populist schemes is counterproductive especially when it comes to regional aspirations. The party would do well by focusing on the necessary institutional reforms to build and develop an alternative leadership through decentralisation rather than emphasising on populist schemes to attain power in the states. These are critical for the party to resurrect in the upcoming Uttar Pradesh assembly elections and in the national politics and governance.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is PhD Fellow, Centre for Political Institutions, Governance and Development of Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru)</em></p>