How dictators run the government in a democracy
If you think a week is a long time in politics, just forget it. In India, it can take just a few hours for a zero to become a hero and vice versa. On the morning of Wednesday 14th of March, Dinesh Trivedi was a relatively nondescript minister in the Manmohan Singh Cabinet, elevated to the post of Railway Minister through the munificence of Mamata Banerjee. By that evening, he was the top trending name on Twitter and was even being eulogised on national media as a new age reformer! By midnight though, it was clear that the ever-smiling Dineshbhai, a Kolkata-based businessman-turned-Trinamool factotum, was set to earn a more dubious distinction: the first Railway Minister to lose his job within a week of presenting the Railway Budget.
Trivedi may well see himself in rather grandiose terms as a modern day Bhagat Singh who put the nation before his self, who forsook his chair for principles even when there are no prizes for martyrdom in politics. The truth, however, is that if we are to view Trivedi as the minister who 'sacrificed' himself in an attempt to reform the Railways, we might lose sight of the rather more insidious trend that has crept into our politics. The Railway Minister fiasco reveals less about the travails of our reform process but more about how our political parties and governments are structured and decisions are taken.
Let us get this right: Trivedi did not lose his job just because he sought to raise passenger fares: he was shunted out because he dared to go ahead with a policy decision without consulting his party 'supremo' Mamata Banerjee. In other words, Mamatadi wanted the Railway Budget to be decided in Kolkata and not in the Union Cabinet. By raising fares, Trivedi was not just seeking to bring desperately needed financial rationality to the Railways but, worse, was seen to be challenging Mamata's authority. And that in a party with a 'supreme' leader is simply unacceptable.
It is this culture of the party 'supremo', where a single individual's whims will determine all decisions, which threatens the very basis of democratic politics in the country. There is almost no party in the country - with the possible exception of the Left and the BJP - which are not run like sole proprietary or family firms. The result is that decisions are often arbitrarily 'imposed' by a ubiquitous high command rather than arrived at through meaningful consultation.
Mamata's party is a classic example of this syndrome. Trinamool is Mamata, and Mamata is Trinamool: she is the vote-catcher, the chief minister, the party president, all rolled in one. Defy her and risk exile. Accept her supremacy and you can hope to survive. Call it democratic dictatorship but the party clearly is a one-woman show with no space for dissent or debate.
Supplant this authoritarian approach on a coalition government and it can strike at the very root of the cabinet system and executive responsibility. A Railway Budget approved by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is being nullified because it doesn't suit an individual who sees herself as an extra-constitutional authority with veto power over decision-making by virtue of the fact that she controls 19 MPs on whom the future of the government is dependent.
Nor is this the first time this has happened. In 2007, in UPA's first avatar, Dayanidhi Maran was removed as Telecom Minister on the express instructions of DMK 'supremo' K. Karunanidhi because of an alleged family feud. Moreover, the NDA which claims that the Trivedi episode reveals the timidity of the Manmohan Singh government would do well to remember that in 2002, when Atal Behari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, Suresh Prabhu was forced to step down as Power Minister because Shiv Sena 'supremo' Bal Thackeray insisted on his resignation (the allegation, never proven, is that the Thackerays were displeased that Prabhu did not 'contribute' ministerial 'benefits' to the party coffers). The fact that he was one of the brightest and best performing NDA ministers could not prevent his exit.
What this suggests is that coalition governments have been structured in a manner to deliberately undermine prime ministerial authority over his Cabinet. It is one thing to see the Cabinet as necessarily representing all coalition partners. It is quite another to allow it to reach a stage where coalition partners can 'blackmail' the Centre and pick and choose portfolios. The DMK, for example, believed that it had a 'right' over the Telecom ministry which is why an A Raja was retained as Telecom Minister in 2009 even though, as subsequent events have shown, the Prime Minister was not unaware of the goings-on in Sanchar Bhavan. In UPA-II, the Trinamool too feels that it has the right over the Railway ministry and just who should be the country's Railway Minister.
This is why the time has come to draw a lakshman rekha if India's experiment with coalition governments is not to end up destroying the Cabinet system. Yes, a Prime Minister must consult his allies and recognise the limitations of a fractured mandate. But a Prime Minister must also insist on retaining the right to decide on portfolio distribution and not 'outsourcing' the task to respective party chieftains. Policy decisions again cannot be taken at party headquarters but must be taken in Cabinet meetings. This, of course, requires the Prime Minister to recognise the power of his office rather than simply look to survive in power.
Yes, this is easier said than done but leadership is ultimately about taking risk rather than being status quoist. Dr Singh has spoken recently about biting the bullet. Bullets can kill but they can also carry the halo of glory and martyrdom. If you need further proof, ask Dinesh Trivedi.
More about Rajdeep SardesaiRajdeep Sardesai is the Editor-in-Chief, IBN18 Network, that includes CNN-IBN, IBN 7 and IBN Lokmat. He comes with 22 years of journalistic experience during which he has covered some of the biggest stories in India and the world. Prior to setting up the IBN network, he was the Managing Editor of both NDTV 24X7 and NDTV India and was responsible for overseeing the news policy for both the channels. He has also worked with The Times of India for six years and was the city editor of its Mumbai edition at the age of 26. During the last 22 years, he has covered major national and international stories, specialising in national politics. He has won numerous other awards for journalistic excellence, including the prestigious Padma Shri for journalism in 2008, the International Broadcasters Award for coverage of the 2002 Gujarat riots and the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award for 2007. He has won the Asian Television Award for best talk show for the Big Fight on two occasions and his current flagship show on CNN-IBN, India at 9, has been awarded the best news show at the Asian awards for the last two years. He has been News Anchor of the year at the Indian Television Academy for seven of the last eight years and won more than 50 awards in this period. He has also been the President of the Editors Guild of India, the only television journalist to hold the post and was chosen a Global leader for tomorrow by the world economic forum in 2000. An alumni of St Xavier's College, Mumbai, he has done his Masters and LLB from Oxford University and has also played first class cricket for the Oxford University team. He has contributed to several books and writes a fortnightly column that appears in seven newspapers.
- + The striking similarities of Modi and Indira's politics
- + AAP and the business of Delhi-centric news
- + Both 1984, 2002 a blot but conviction better in Gujarat
- + Cometh the anti-establishment neta
- + Can Arvind Kejriwal avoid a repeat of the 1989 VP Singh phenomena?
- + India is changing and it's in the positive direction
- + Arvind Kejriwal-AAP success has many lessons for Rahul Gandhi
- + Kejriwal and Modi: Agents of change promising too much, too soon
- + Don't ban opinion polls, but bring in a code of conduct for pollsters