In good health, Dr Manmohan Singh was dismissed by his critics as a 'weak' prime minister; in sickness, he is acknowledged as being indispensable to the ruling UPA.

That no single individual has been asked to fill in for the prime minister as he recovers from a heart surgery may reflect the insecurities of the Congress leadership, but it also does suggest that Dr Singh is now regarded as more than just first among equals.

And yet, when in around six weeks time, the prime minister is back on his feet, there is every possibility that the Congress and the UPA will have little time for Manmohan the campaigner in the run up to General Elections 2009.

For some strange reason, the Congress party has been reluctant to project the prime minister as an electoral asset. During the Karnataka elections in May 2008, for example, Dr Singh addressed just one election meeting, that too a closed door meeting confined to Congress workers in Bangalore. In the November 2008 elections, a few posters did spring up reminding the voter of the prime minister's important role in piloting the Indo-US nuclear deal.

But again, he wasn't a key campaigner, that role being confined once again to the Rahul-Sonia duo.

Part of the reluctance stems from the prime minister himself. As a self-confessed "accidental politician", Dr Singh has been distinctly uncomfortable with the demands of electoral politics. Perhaps, the defeat to Vijay Kumar Malhotra in the one Lok Sabha election he contested still rankles.

If middle class South Delhi chose to reject him then why should he now embrace the challenge of proving himself to be a vote-catching politician?

Someone needs to remind Dr Singh and his party that 2009 is not 1999. Dr Singh will be entering the Lok Sabha elections as only the second Congressman outside the Nehru-Gandhi family to have completed five years as prime minister.

Even if he has not been formally anointed as the UPA's prime ministerial choice, he does carry with him the considerable weight of his office. The Congress's rank and file may remain trapped in dynasty, the nation is not quite so susceptible, which is why the much-hyped Rahul era must wait its turn.

Moreover, while the soft-spoken Dr Singh may be ill at ease in large public gatherings, elections are more than just about fiery speeches.

There is, in fact, reason to believe that the Indian voter, especially in middle class urban areas, is searching for a meritocratic chief executive-like leader who will provide a calming influence, a compass to an uncertain future (witness the rise of Sheela Dikshit).

Trapped between a fear of being laid off and the threat of another terror attack, the urban voter is looking for someone who can guarantee a measure of economic and physical security.

This is where Dr Singh as a proven economic reformer has a unique opportunity to reach out to a large and influential constituency, to give them a sense of direction in times of financial worries.

This isn't just about reassuring Indian business, but also reassuring the aam admi. During the Hindustan Times leadership summit three months ago, Dr Singh made an able attempt to chart out a course of action that would sustain an eight per cent growth rate.

Unfortunately, the fine words have not been translated into the clear-headed decisions that are so desperately needed to energise the economy.

Perhaps Dr Singh hasn't been given the autonomy a chief executive needs to take the tough decisions, or is simply too fatigued to impose his writ on the coalition. If every move - be it insurance FDI, banking reform, pension deregulation, agricultural commodity pricing, public sector divestment - becomes a process of political compromise, then a certain lethargy is bound to filter through.

Moreover, how does one explain that critical infrastructure ministries like surface transport, telecom and power are headed by non-performing ministers unless its simply a case of obliging powerful political interests?

So far, Dr Singh's seeming lack of a mass base has been held against him. When you are a technocrat politician in a democratic set-up, then there is a certain dependence on the vote-gathering politicians that creeps in. It also builds a certain diffidence, heightened perhaps in Dr Singh's case by his genteel, non-combative working style.

And yet, if Dr Singh desires to transform himself into a mass leader in election season, then he could take heart from the British prime minister Gordon Brown.

Virtually written off politically a few months ago, Brown is the rising star in a global economic meltdown.At the heart of this turnaround has been Brown's strategy of bank recapitalisation - having governments provide capital to financial institutions in return for a share in ownership -- a bold, imaginative move designed to reinforce public confidence in a faltering economy.

In fact, the parallels between Dr Singh and the British prime minister are uncanny. Both are distinguished former finance ministers. Both inherited economies in a crisis, and both turned them around by making reform their mantra. Both benefited from education scholarships and started professional life as academics. Neither Dr Singh nor Brown can be described as natural, charismatic politicians by any stretch of imagination.

Both have worked in the shadow of others in public life: Dr Singh was first seen as Narasimha Rao's able minister, today he is positioned as Sonia Gandhi's prime ministerial appointee. For a decade, Brown's achievements paled under the magnetism of then prime minister Tony Blair.

In a way, both Dr Singh and Brown have almost preferred to be the number two men, politicians more comfortable in policy-making positions than being pushed into the cut and thrust of democratic politics.

And yet, accidents of history have catapulted them into leading their countries. Brown became prime minister only when Blair faltered in Iraq and gave up power. Dr Singh too is a beneficiary of similar self-renunciation.

Had Sonia Gandhi not heard her inner voice in the summer of 2004, Dr Singh would have remained a faithful cabinet minister. It has taken an economic crisis for Britain and the Labour party to truly 'accept' the leadership of Mr Brown and see him as an electable politician. The question now is, will the Congress party follow suit and have the courage to project the one individual who might just be their trump card this time?