Spotlight
‘Resort Politics’
MAKING & UNMAKING PARTIES
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
“Resort Politics” is reported to be back
in Tamil Nadu with 19 MLAs owing allegiance to a particular leader in the
AIADMK being lodged in a hotel in Puducherry to insulate them against changing
sides within the party. This is second phase of this type of politics in the
State which seems to be spreading fast. Gujarat Congress also early this month
resorted to this “Resort Politics” before the Rajya Sabha polls.
The coming together of two warring
groups of the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu is making prime national news, overtaking in
its nuances similar intra-party politics elsewhere which is really amazing. Call
it political drama, dance, theatric politics, filmy stunt, circus, tamasha, or magic show -- it betrays
the speed with which different facets of political relationships can shine and
fade in a parliamentary democracy.
Actually, two politically active parties
in the country are presently undergoing turmoil and transition that will have
significant impact on national politics. Despite their restricted presence
geographically, their current electoral strength makes them weighty components
worth acquiring to one’s side in the politics of alliances.
One is Janata Dal (United) under Nitish
Kumar, Bihar Chief Minister, and the other AIADMK which got split practically
into three parts under three heads, one of whom was the present and another
former, and the third aspiring Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
Both parties deserve the nation’s political
attention equally though the reasons are widely different. In Bihar, where the Mahaghatbandhan against the BJP-led NDA
was formed and tested successfully, has also been broken shattering the hopes
of some parties to pack off the BJP in 2019.
In Tamil Nadu, the political vacuum
created by the untimely demise of its CM Jayalalitha, a unique political
personality has raised hopes of the defeated parties for a better future. Even
the BJP, virtually having no strong electoral support in the midst of
politicians groomed in “Dravidian” political philosophy, sees a ray of light to
set foot in Tamil Nadu at least indirectly by its politics of influence and with
its concrete development agenda, constructive reforms, and good governance for
all.
While the case of Tamil Nadu is one of
in-fighting within a party, the development in Bihar started as a crack in a coalition
government growing into a bigger crack within a party. As such, both have had
significance for State politics as well as for national politics.
The JD (U) -- one of the prominent
players of alliance politics -- is a faction of the Janata Dal formed in 1988
by merger of Janata Party factions -- Lok Dal, Indian National Congress (Socialist)
and Jan Morcha under the leadership of VP Singh. Many other parties then
opposed to the Congress were brought into its fold -- Telugu Desam Party, DMK,
and Asom Gana Parishad -- to form the National Front. It defeated the Congress
under Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 and formed the government at the Centre with
“outside” support of the BJP and CPM-led left Front. But, this government fell
in November 1990 due to internal factions. Chandrasekhar who formed the
government with Congress support also failed when the Congress withdrew
support.
The Janata Dal, however, resurrected in
1996 and led the United Front government at the Centre which had two Prime
Ministers in quick succession – H D Deve Gowda and IK Gujral -- and lost power soon
with the withdrawal of “outside” Congress support. The party again split in
1999 when a faction extended support to the NDA and ended in the formation of Janata
(Secular) under Deve Gowda.
At this juncture, Sharad Yadav faction
of the JD, Lok Shakti, and Samata party which were opposed to supporting the
NDA merged as JD (United). It failed to earn a national perspective and disintegrated
with the formation of Biju Janata Dal in Orissa, Rashtriya Janata Dal in Bihar,
and JD (Secular) in Karnataka along with continuance of the JD(U). The break-up
is a result of territorial split as well as leadership rivalry both of which
underlie the making and unmaking of political parties in India.
The AIADMK was clearly an outcome of
leadership struggle in the DMK after the passing away of its undisputed leader,
C N Annadurai in 1969. MGR’s queries to Karunanidhi regarding financial matters
of the party as the treasurer provided an immediate issue. He built mass
following in no time and swept the election within a very short time thus
establishing his personal charisma. The parent DMK and the offshoot ADMK had no
ideological differences except in their choice of allies which in any case has
nothing to do with ideology or policy.
Instances of party splits by ideology,
however, are not unknown, but rare in India. The earliest of course was in the
oldest party, the Indian National Congress between Moderates and Extremists
leading to the historic Surat Split in 1907. In 1923, another split between
“pro-changers” who wanted to contest elections and enter legislatures and
“no-changers” who wanted to continue Non-Cooperation led to the formation of
the Swaraj Party in 1923 out of the Congress. In 1939, All India Forward Bloc
was formed by Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose; in 1951, Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party as formed
by Acharya Kripalani; in 1956 came the Indian National Democratic Congress
under Rajaji; in 1959, the Swatantra Party came up. The list is longer and most
founders were prominent Congressmen.
Within State units, the Congress has
been facing different kinds of group politics under rival local leaders
although Congress seems to be averse to building State-level leadership and
strengthen organisational federalism. The result is emergence of several
parties like the Tamil Maanila Congress, YSR Congress, Haryana Jana Congress,
Chhattisgarh Janhit Congress, Trinamool Congress, National Congress Party and
so on.
Another major ideological split happened
in the Communist Party in 1964 resulting in the birth of the CPI(M) out of the
CPI. In 1969, accusing Marxists of
“Revisionism”, a group formed the CPI (Marxist-Leninist).
In Tamil Nadu, the Dravidian Movement
experienced a decisive split between those who wanted to continue as a
non-political movement under Periyar EVR and those in favour of joining
politics and forming the DMK as a political party under Annadurai. Both are
still alive and the section that remains a movement has maintained considerable
political influence.
Ideology faded away yielding place to
the rise of personality and leadership politics in the post-independence era.
The Congress provided the lead by affecting the great 1969 split. The group
playing the role of the divider came to be known as the Indira Congress and
later as Congress (R) when it came to power. Some breakaway groups of parties
chose to distinguish their party with the tag of the leader.
Concentration of power in a few hands or
a small group appears to be a common strategy of many political parties –
national or regional. Lack of inner party democracy is sure to pave way for
splits like fragmentation of a joint property. Concepts like “political heir”,
offices like “permanent general-secretary”, substitution of nomination by leaders
for election are unhealthy practices that cannot but lead to fusion and fission
of political parties. In-fighting in political parties happens in any country. But,
it cannot be allowed to total degeneration of the party system. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
New Delhi
23 August 2017
|