Political succession: the common problem

Businesses and political parties face a well-known problem: succession. Neither always manages to fix it smoothly but businesses do a much better job than political parties.

This is particularly true of post-colonial countries. They are still very young politically.

India is not an exception. It’s not very surprising, therefore, that when you sit down to think about it, the Congress and the BJP, not to mention all the regional parties, are faced with identical succession issues today.

Indeed, the BJP and the Congress both have to start thinking about who will succeed Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi, respectively. Modi wins elections but is ageing. Rahul Gandhi is much younger but loses elections.

After Jawaharlal Nehru’s death in 1964, the Congress managed its succession by copying monarchies or what a British historian once described as “one rotten egg after another”. The BJP hasn’t faced the problem so far but will whenever Modi decides to retire.

Congress supporters, or more accurately family retainers, will say there’s no immediate problem because Rahul Gandhi is still in his mid-50s. But he is also politically incompetent and the least likely to lead the Congress to a parliamentary election victory.

This limitation makes it imperative that the party replaces him. It won’t but assuming that it does, it will look no further than his sister. That’s what it’s become: a monarchy.

But will that solve the post-1989 problem of it losing parliamentary elections? After all, it has been unable to win 273 seats in 1989, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019 and 2024. That’s nine general elections. What more proof is needed that it needs to replace the Gandhi family?

But can it is different from will it? And that’s the problem: there’s no mechanism to replace it. The party’s own constitution makes it impossible.

Another unanswered question is whether the party, for whatever reason, is loyal to Sonia Gandhi or her children and is that loyalty transferable. Time will tell.

After Modi who?

The BJP was formed in 1953 as the Jana Sangh and then renamed Bharatiya Janata Party in 1980. Two men, AB Vajpayee and LK Advani ran it till 2014 when Modi took it over.

Once again two men are running it — Modi and his close friend, Amit Shah. There’s nothing to suggest that they have put in place a credible, formal structure for succession. Orchestration of support can’t be a substitute for a proper process of succession. It’s a recipe for ineffectiveness.

As things stand, it looks as if Shah has the wind in his sails. But he may not be as acceptable to the rank and file as Modi was. Nomination may not work to the party’s advantage.

The Congress has faced this problem many times in its 139 years and thrice in the last 65 years — in 1966, 1978 and 1998. It split twice as a result, once in 1969 and again in 1978. In 1998, it locked up its president in the bathroom to make way for Sonia Gandhi. It was a succession by coup.

It’s unlikely that the BJP will split if there are two contenders for leadership after Modi hangs up his boots. But the party must at least consider the possibility.

That would be the prudent thing to do.

In such matters, the past isn’t always a good guide to the future. This is true not just of India but many other countries as well, especially in South Asia.

A heretical thought

I have always been of the view that the country will benefit if the Congress and the BJP merge. In a way this process has already started with lots of Congress politicians switching over to the BJP.

On its part, as so many people have pointed out, most of the BJP’s policies have resembled Congress policies and are edging closer. Thus, policies-wise, it’s a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Where they differ is on the political use to which the Muslims can be put. The Congress uses them in a certain way and the BJP uses them in a certain way. That’s all the difference between them.

A large number of ordinary Congress politicians privately agree with the BJP and a large number of BJP politicians privately agree with the Congress. This kind of convergence is actually a sign of the maturity of our democracy.

These are two parties no longer divided by ideology but by leaders. That’s ok, too, provided the leaders are chosen, and not either nominated or inherited.

In politics, the process is more important than the outcome.

After Jawaharlal Nehru’s death in 1964, the Congress managed its succession by copying monarchies or what a British historian once described as “one rotten egg after another”.