Over the last month or so while the
cases of the Chinese virus show small signs of abatement, factionalism has
reared its head across political parties across the states. The Congress is
facing challenges to its Chief Ministers in Punjab and Rajasthan. In Punjab,
there are multiple factions that are clamoring for replacement for existing
Chief Minster Capt. Amrinder Singh. In Rajasthan, Sachin Pilot group is
queering the pitch for the Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot. Meanwhile Gehlot is demonstrating
counter show of strength. There are reports of factional fighting in Jharkhand
and Karnataka. BJP too is not immune from these fights. From Bengal where they
are facing murmurs of dissent partly due to state pressure, they are
experiencing factional troubles in different states. They replaced Chief
Minister in Uttarakhand, there were reports of fights in Uttar Pradesh.
Karnataka is no stranger to factional fights in the BJP and currently
witnessing one more round of such infighting.
The factional fights per se are not
unusual. In the West, political parties often are umbrella or a banyan tree for
various shades of opinion to co-exist. India had one such banyan tree in the
Congress pre-1947. Even after 1947, for a fairly long period Congress continued
to be a party that accommodated various shades of grey. Over a period of time,
the ideology gave way to personal loyalties. BJP has been ideologically
coherent and has accommodated personalities who subscribed to different shades
of the same ideology. There are people who are in favor of extreme degree of
Hindutva while there were and are quite a few who subscribe to moderate
Hindutva. In fact, it was the tensions between these two groups, and the fact
BJP’s choice of falling between two stools led to the disastrous decade of
2004-2014. The Janata Parivar too was itself in its various forms in the 1970s
and 1980s till perhaps the late 1990s was a conglomerate of various factions
generally rooted in state and caste coexisting for the benefits of economies of
agglomeration.
The barriers of entry and exit were
relatively smooth till the Anti-Defection law came into existence. Parties
could be formed and split easily which became difficult. After the 2002
amendment, it has become virtually difficult to split parties. Moreover, many
regional formations have developed their independent identities and thus
unlikely to surrender the same when the return to the original form becomes
very difficult once the surrender happens. Therefore, factionalism is relatively
lower in regional parties all of which are dominated by personalities. The leadership
is undisputed and to those disagree it is either accept the reality or leave
the party. The same does not hold good in varying terms in the national parties.
For varying reasons, there would be many people accommodated in various
positions and at least at the state level would have ambitions at seeking top
positions. In the Congress, the central leadership is relatively settled
barring a split, something that cannot be ruled out in the current context. BJP
is seeing a settled question at this moment.
In the state unit, when the
factional fights emerge, there is a possibility of cracking down if there
exists a strong central leadership. A central leadership often emerges to
mediate and formulate a compromise. At times it might result in replacement of
Chief Minister, some other occasions it might result in ministerial reshuffles
or expansions, there would be reshuffles within the organization on some other occasions
while there would be stick in full flow on certain occasions. In the current
environment, these might work in the states where BJP is in power. Yet, in
states where Congress is in power, there would be difficulties in formulating
compromises without being damaged politically in the process. To the BJP with a
strong central leadership, the dissidents might be kept on a leash. Yet to the
Congress leadership which itself is struggling with discontents it would be
very difficult to resolve the issues at the state level. For instance in
Punjab, the Capt. Amrinder seems powerful and is no mood to accommodate the
dissidents. The dissidents are determined to have their way irrespective of the
long term damage. The leadership which is relatively weaker would find it
difficult to resolve the issue and perhaps at the end would result in the party
getting split. It then becomes what game theorists would call minimax strategy.
The same fate awaits in Rajasthan.
Ashok Gehlot over a period of time has become more powerful and isolation of
Pilot is complete. At this moment, it is unlikely that any change would be
acceptable to Gehlot. He would be determined to finish the challenge of Pilot
once for all. The other states are witnessing the discontents encouraged by the
helplessness of the High Command in these two states. The issues in states like
Karnataka might get resolved but for the weakness of the High Command. To add
to the woes is the fact that Congress is extremely weak and hardly in a position
to challenge Modi in 2024. It is more likely that a non-Congress front might
challenge Modi more effectively than the Nehru-Gandhi family. To many of the
party leaders at the state level, it would be an indication of the prospects of
their own future. Sachin Pilot would more likely think of defection if not
getting adequately recognized by his party. The same would hold good for many
leaders in Punjab who might look to Akalis or AAP. In fact at some level, the rise
of farmer protest can be viewed as Capt. Amrinder’s agenda of preemptively
preventing the BJP from gaining the foothold in the state and closing the
options to the dissidents.
Factionalism is inherent to politics
and political parties. There would be multiple power centres at various levels
and they would seek in upstaging the other. The motivations of factional
leaders would be very different from the high command and the motivations of
the workers would be different from the faction leaders. There would dichotomy in
the conflict and thus there would exist agency costs. It would be erroneous to
view factional fights from the perspective of splits but they do have a
potential for damaging at least one election cycle if there were no remedial
interventions. In fact, that damage to one electoral cycle is what the
dissidents too want without exception.
Comments
Post a Comment