It has long been superfluous to make the point that the Congress does not function as a democratic organisation should. It has not held organizational elections for almost two decades; it does not allow anything like an internal debate on important policy issues; it does not even observe its own rules when it suspends or expels dissidents. Strictly speaking, therefore, no one is entitled to speak or act in the name of the Congress. The same is, of course, true of many other political parties. But that is a separate issue which must not be raised in an attempt to legitimize the decay of democracy in the country’s premier political organisation because on the health of the Congress depends greatly the future of democracy in India. This raises the question whether there is another source which confers legitimacy on the ruling party and what is that source, if indeed there is one.
The answer is in a sense obvious. The Congress leadership derives its legitimacy from its electoral mandate. The Indira Gandhi faction became the true heritor of the Congress flag after the split in 1969 as a result of its electoral victory in 1971; and after the second split in 1978 it repeated its performance in 1980. Mr Rajiv Gandhi derives his legitimacy not only as Prime Minister but also as Congress president from the landslide triumph of December 1984. The two offices, of course, do not need to be combined in one person. We ourselves have argued for their separation. But there can be no doubt that so long as inner democracy is not restored in the party and so long as the party leadership at various levels is not the product of such a restored democratic process, the Congress president would continue to owe his position to the Prime Minister.
If Mr Rajiv Gandhi derives his legitimacy from the electoral mandate, it follows that the Congress Parliamentary Party is a more important body than the All-India Congress Committee. This is so self-evident a proposition that the reader must wonder why it is being made at all. The reason is simple. The logic must extend to the state legislature parties which is not the case. In plain terms, while the AICC should have no right to meddle in the selection or removal of Congress chief ministers, it exercises that right. It has not only removed Mr Harideo Joshi as the chief minister of Rajasthan when he still enjoyed majority support among the Congress legislators but also has appointed Mr Shiv Charan Mathur as his successor, though he (Mr Mathur) did not command majority support. There have been similar cases of arbitrariness in the past. But then they at least used to be covered up effectively. Mr Rajiv Gandhi’s set-up is not able even to maintain pretences.
