First the facts and what little is known in the public. We are told that Gopinath Munde has expressed his unwillingness to meet the Central Leadership after resigning from all party posts including the post of General Secretary. Since then we are also told that Mr. Munde? had conveyed his sentiments to party leaders in the state assembly and the council, Eknath Khadse and Pandurang Phundkar respectively and they would attend the meeting with the Central Leadership. And then we are told by Mr. Nitin Gadkari, Maharashtra BJP President
He (Munde) seems to be unhappy over the appointment of Madhu Chavan as Mumbai party chief although it was decided in consultation with more than 80 leaders of the city unit, and the decision was taken by a committee consisting of Ram Naik, Bal Apte and Ved Prakash Goyal
We are also told that 50 of 54 MLAs in Maharashtra are backing Mr. Munde.
Without getting into the merits of Mr. Gopinath Munde’s greivances with the way the BJP is functioning, it is clear the BJP has an uncalled for crisis on its hands.
If the media reports are anything to go, the bane of High Commands has come back to haunt the BJP. The party system in India is unique in its centrally controlled command structure despite all the lip service to federalism and decentralisation.
In stark contrast if one looks at the Party system in the United States, the national leadership is usually irrelevant and mostly reduced to playing a co-ordinating role. It is a tribute to grass-roots democracy that routinely new leadership replaces the old and there practically is no High Command.
So what holds the Party together one may ask ?
Its the platform stupid !
Its not to say that all is perfect with this model of inner party democracy and usually there are those who will break ranks to deviate from the Party Platform. But then that is the essence of bi-partisanship. Rather than deadlock that we routinely see in our hung assemblies and parliaments, this system with its loosely enforced “whips” has no undemocratic laws of the “Anti-Defection” kind.
Its this freedom to occassionally break ranks while mostly sticking to the Party Platform that sustains the Party system.
Coming back to the BJP’s Munde crisis.
Offstumped Bottomline:?Irrespective of the merits of the greivance, the “Right” democratic principle that ought to be applied here is that the Mumbai City Chief must be elected by Mumbaikar members of the BJP and not appointed by either New Delhi or by Maharashtra. High Commands of both the State and Central kind are an anachronism in this day and age of grassroots democracy. Something for both Mr. Munde and Mr. Rajnath Singh to reflect on.
Filed under: Uncategorized
[...] Offstumped Bottomline: Irrespective of the merits of the greivance, the “Right” democratic principle that ought to be applied here is that the Mumbai City Chief must be elected by Mumbaikar members of the BJP and not appointed by either New Delhi or by Maharashtra. High Commands of both the State and Central kind are an anachronism in this day and age of grassroots democracy. Something for both Mr. Munde and Mr. Rajnath Singh to reflect on. [...]
Yossarian… I agree with you….This larger then party figures cause a lot of heart burn and fool the general public.
MY suggestions is why not hold primaries….Mumbai BJP must hold primaries amongst its party members and supporters to elect their city chief.
Hi Yossarin,
Have you noticed lately the change in IBN’s stance. This channel which till recently seemed like UPA’s advertisement site, has now started criticizing Congress and even communists. This recent post from Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai was a nice surprise.
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/rajdeepsardesai/1/50921/aaj-ka-arjun.html
Sumit.
i agree …sir…in a country of more than hundred crore …we need atleast 1% people in active politics..n atleast0.01% i.e. one lakh fairly known leaders…. whereas today we have only a handful… this has to change…we need parties to run similar to governments….with wider participation …n wider representation… n wider limlelight…for all the desrving leaders of the public
The differences you point out, Yossarin, also have to do with the differences in the AGE of a democracy. The polity of US is almost completely bipolar – conservative and liberal (in all shades – sometimes overlapping across party lines). This is why, Ralph Naders and Ross Perots cannot create a third platform (although they come tantalizingly close to garnering 15-20% of the votes in rare cases).
In India just getting another party to be on par with Congress took us 45 years since independence. If we look around in India almost ALL others are parties (excluding Congress, BJP & CPM) revolve around 1 person -Mulayam, Lallu, Mayawati, Jayalalitha, Deve Gowda, Mamata Banerji, etc. Ideologically, there is hardly any difference between Lallu & Mulayam. This is also true about many other single-person parties – we will be hard pressed to talk about about what priciples and values differentiate these parties.
So, I would venture to say that the current political situation in India is the inevitable evolution process that India has to go through before it (hopefully) evolves in to a 2 (or at the most) 3 party situation over time. For the party to be nothing but a platform, there needs to be a political base that votes primarily for the platform and secondarily for the leaders of the day. As long as most of the reagional / state level political partes are individual-based (and NOT platform based) there is nothing that stops them from changing their platforms to suit the political weather of the day.
The trick for BJP is to figure out how to create a permanent platform that is large enough to accommodate multiple shades while still differentiating itself from Congress. Nepotism, pseudo-secularism, criminalization of politics, corruption, and lack of development are the areas in which BJP has attempted to differentiate itself. It needs to find many more such avenues through which to reach the hearts of people.
I am not implying that the attitude of “trickle-down high command” should prevail. In the end, “mass leaders” should be the outside face of a party supported by “excellent organization men” that mesh well with the “mass leader” and both should be bound by the “platform / values” that they profess. Atalji – Advaniji combination of the past 40+ years is the best recent example that comes to mind. Shivaji Maharaj – Jijamata – Ramadas Swami is another example from four centuries ago. If 60+ elected officials from BJP sided w/ Gopinath Munde and hardly any w/ Nitin Gadakari, then that speaks volumes. If Nitin Gadkari cannot gather 5000 people with him being the main speaker but Munde can get 50,000+ to show up, then there needs to be no contest as to who is the boss here. If Munde is to be held accountable for the results of the Loksabha and Vidhan Sabha elections, he also needs to be given a significant say in selecting the team he wants.
In fairness to BJP, it is only in BJP that local stalwarts like Narendra Modi, Gopinath Munde, Vasundhara Raje can thrive. So, BJP is not anywhere close to the kind of “High Command” structure that Congress has but can certainly fine-tune intra-party democratic norms further using this event as a wake-up call.
You are comparing apples and oranges. There’s vast difference between western democracy and ours.
Ours was thrusted from top unlike theirs. The ideological platforms and methods to voice opinion etc., in US and west have crystallized over several decades, with an educated population to boot.
Gopinath Munde is not deviating from party platform here. His party, rather his brother-in-law, brought him up to prominence because of his caste amongst other things.
Feudal politics of loyalties to clans is still pretty much a dominant aspect of party organizations. Munde is a product of just such a system.
Munde has no vision, has been dejected since his friend’s death, is insecure without Mahajan’s benign shadow navigating him, and is just postponing his inevitable decline.
That he snapped over a petty issue speaks for his monumental incompetence.
To sum it up, he doesn’t have an ounce of Modi in him and is unfit to take upon responsibilities that leaders in his position should be raring to lap up.
Two opinions–
1) If Nitin Gadkari cannot gather 5000 people with him being the main speaker but Munde can get 50,000+ to show up, then there needs to be no contest as to who is the boss here.
2) he doesn’t have an ounce of Modi in him and is unfit to take upon responsibilities that leaders in his position should be raring to lap up.
What about people like me who have no idea whats happening in Maharashtra? Which one should they go with?
“What about people like me who have no idea whats happening in Maharashtra?”
Does it matter?
I too don’t know how able Gadkari, the other player apparently, is vis a vis Munde, but at the least he appears to be playing the game the right way, by not escalating what seems to be an administrative issue into a matter of prestige.
By throwing tantrums in raking up the caste issue, Munde just betrayed his petulance and inadequacy. That he had to summon his peers in resolving what is seemingly a turf war reinforces the impression of him being a sniveling loser.
The question for people of his state or party is whether they want such a person to lead them in the future? I wouldn’t.
Hi
The basic problem as has been rightly pointed out is total lack of inner party democracy. The ‘high command’ has reduced one of the greatest party in the Indian history to a party of sycophants. BJP will go the same way if doesn’t preserve its internal democracy.
Also, respective party state presidents and their administration should be given relevant freedom so that the policies and decisions reflect the interest of the state unit, not just the central leadership, which might be removed from the state issues in many cases.
Just when we had begin to think that the BJP was getting its act together for the 09 General elections and burying all the differences at the National level, we start hearing rumblings at the state level. After the discontent in the Karnataka unit over ticket distributions, the Munde controversy was something which ought to have been nipped in the bud before it became a full blown affair.
Between the two leaders, its really difficult to say who is the better one. Munde has been a former Dy CM in the Sena-BJP govt, but that could be more because of 1) his being Pramod Mahajan’s relative and 2) his caste background. I have heard Nitin Gadkari’s interviews and have found him to be fairly pragmatic, articulate and reasonable in his views.
Of course, I guess the final choice would have to be on the basis of who is the bigger crowd puller – or better still – the bigger vote-puller!
Munde has everything.Massbase,caste,money,courage and confidence too.Mahajan Munde was fie combination.Munde was safe with his brother in law no 3 at delhi.
All know how smooth Advani V/S Vajpeyee in BJP is.After Vajpeyee climbed down as P. M.Mahajan was isolated in party by Advani lobby.Munde too paid price.Munde feared that after Mahajan he too would be unsafe.And hence timely attack is the best defence .He knows his importance to party in view of comming general polls.This Malharrao Holkar type move is typical Munde.He also knows that shocks to be followed more shocks.He knws how Khurana or Uma were taken in but were shown teeth .He is now more aggressive and in touch with congress as he wants to have safety as age is to his side.He knows rules of game too.Seeing condition of Bhujbal he shall ot join NCP as he had checkmated Pawar once.Mahajan too had fooled Pawar by pulling him out of Congress once.Actually for Advani Pawar is more valuable as he can damage congress both pre and post polls. As such in Advani’s bJP,Mahajan Munde were devalued to woo Pawar more.
Politics in Maharashtra now is interesting as both pawar and Munde are playing hidden Chess as both are masters of political chess.
Munde episode has really commenced now.