Why blame coalition dharma?

First, the TV news channels quoted AICC general secretary Rahul Gandhi as stating that if the Congress-led UPA coalition government could not tackle national problems like rising prices as decisively as Indira Gandhi did, it was because of the compulsions of coalition politics.

Then, when asked at a press-conference on February 16 about the reappointment of A Raja as telecom minister in 2009 despite the allegations of corruption, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh indicated that he had to accept the DMK supremo M Karunanidhi's choice since "compromises have to be made in the interests of coalition politics".

No one from the Congress has as yet satisfactorily answered the question of why, in the interests of good national governance, the Congress could not have applied the leverage it had in Tamil Nadu where the minority DMK government is in power because of the support of Congress MLAs.

The question is not as simplistic as it sounds. And the answer need not be complicated. The DMK supremo is also the chief minister of Tamil Nadu. Despite his advanced age, Karunanidhi is the undisputed leader of the party that rules in Tamil Nadu under his chief ministership. And everyone is aware of that. The Congress, however, is a party where its supremo has appointed the Prime Minister.

And so, we have a PM who has to periodically look behind his shoulder to check whether his decisions are in tune with the wishes of the party chief. It was this grey area which was fully exploited by the former home minister who made it abundantly clear that his primary loyalty was to the party chief and who continued to run the home ministry despite a series of terrorist attacks which culminated in 26/11.

Over a period of time, the party leadership got comfortable with a situation where it had the best of both worlds. The PM was accountable, but not the ultimate decision-maker. The party supremo could overrule the PM but was not accountable. The courtiers in the party played along for their own benefit.

Those who claimed to be loyal to the party leadership kept pointing out to the high command the advantages of the supremo distancing herself from unpopular decisions which could always be attributed to the 'politically naive' PM. At the same time, credit was fully taken in the name of the party leadership for the success of any policy.

This deliberately schizophrenic approach came to the fore as and when results were announced for elections in states. If the Congress did well, it was inevitably attributed to the supremo's leadership. If the Congress fared badly, it was attributed to the party image being affected by the scams perpetrated by alliance partners in the Manmohan Singh-led coalition government.

The basic problem is that the Congress is not a party which develops leadership at the top. It is a party which excels in developing second-rung leaders who will never pose any kind of challenge to the numero uno and her successor in the family. Outside the first family, Congress leaders are good number-two types who excel in anticipating and carrying out the wishes of the supremo and her potential successor.

When it comes to leaders from outside the first family, their motto could contradict the Avis slogan to say, "We may be number-two but we try harder not to be number-one"! Congress CMs generally make it a point not to take crucial decisions but to seek the 'enlightened' advice of the supremo who cannot be aware of the problems in each state and by the time a crisis erupts, it is usually too late to do anything about it.

When the crisis reaches a point of no return, the old CM is promptly jettisoned - call him Rosaiah! - and a new CM is appointed through a standardised almost ritualistic ceremony of the MLAs saying they have full faith in the supremo's leadership and will accept whoever she appoints.

There is a lesson in all this. Instead of blaming the compulsions of coalition politics for the mess the Congress finds itself in, Rahul could perhaps look more closely at the functioning of the party. When setting out on his next talaash (Hindi for search) for future leaders on college campuses, Rahul could ponder on how to empower the existing party leadership at all levels. Merely talking of what his grandmother did as PM is not enough.

Much has changed since the time of Indira Gandhi. She never, for instance, had to contend with a 24-by-7 TV channel news-cycle where each and every sin of commission or omission of those in power is immediately highlighted.

Imposing an Emergency on the country and the media is no longer an option! The complicated condition the Congress finds itself in is reflected in headlines like "PM/Sonia face leadership test". In any other democracy, the headlines would say "Obama approval-ratings fall" or "Cameron faces crisis"!