Attempt to Understand Why Congress Lost badly

Unlike in the past, the comprehensive loss in a national election (this time that of the Indian National Congress or INC) has not received as much attention it probably should have received. Instead, the debate centres around the failure of a few leaders.

Undoubtedly, there is no doubt that being in power for 10 years arrogates a party and persons in power. However, critics of the Gandhi's miss one critical thing: the fundamental nature of INC. Congress has always been (since the Indian National Movement) a kind of sum parts make up the whole sort of party. It is quite loosely knit unlike other parties like say TDP, YSRCP, TRS, BSP, etc. This is not to claim that Sonia and Rahul are like Mahatma Gandhi or any of the leaders before the 1970s. 

1. Wrong Central Representatives 

All the wrong leaders from Delhi controlled the levers of power in the States. 

Avoiding names and without giving too many examples, it is clear that the Delhi bosses' were a disaster not because they were bad for the party leaders but because the voters found their statements repulsive. Central observers are a boon when they can build bridges with the local factional leaders. A salient characteristic of an election is that they are won or lost because of the voting behaviour of independent undecided voters - most of them make up with their mind in the last 15 days in the run up to the elections. Moreover, research in psychology proves that the most recent experiences are the most important in the behaviour of a person. A middle class voter was invariably put off by their statements and flip flop on a number of issues. Basically, the statements of these leaders in the last 15 days were shocking for their lack of political finesse. 

2. Congress has indeed lost the communication channel - not only with the Voters but with its own grass root organisation. The disconnect was remarkable. In the past, there was this two way channel that communicated the thinking at the grass root level to the leaders and vice-versa. This was one of the reasons for its success in 2004, at least in AP (an important state that helped them come to power and stay in power: in 2014 out of 42 states they managed to get 2 seats). Reviving this is probably going to be their only chance for recovery. I saw this problem clearly in AP and read about this even in VIP constituencies. 

3. Congress has to bury its paranoia of the YSR (their AP leader who helped it win two elections) phenomenon: The rise of YSR and the revolt of his son (Jagan) seems to be the greatest fear that continues to haunt Jagan. YSR's rise was accompanied by a systematic decimation of local level leaders of the party- expect those who were loyal to YSR. Before his rise, each district had a number of strong congress leaders - each one acting as a check on the other.Often there were many more than two: example Krishna and Guntur had more than four. Each leader would win his seat and the seat of at least another two or three seats in the district or they would have no chance of even a berth in the ministry. There is a need for congress to go back to such a state. It is because of such a large base of leaders that INC could survive the onslaught of TDP. The rise of TDP posed a formidable challenge because it was able to rework the socio-economic and political relations right down to the village level. 

Fast forward to 2012-14: Congress has at best one or two leaders in each state. I doubt if there are any strong congress leaders in the districts. So lack of alternatives mean that people who dislike a congress leader have no option but to move to another party. Moreover, one state level leader means that there is no incentive for people to think about the local issues in an elections. It becomes a referendum on policies on which local level leaders have no control. A 'good' local level leader has a good chance of convincing people in his/her segment that a vote for them will mean accessibility over larger issues. 

4. Congress has lost the fighting ability to go for a all or none kind of battle: Ten years in power has arrogated a lot of local leaders. So much so that they thought that they can buy votes. They forgot the simple logic: people take money but end up voting for whomever they like. Once inside the polling booth there is no control over the voting process - unless the booth itself is captured. That is why the rigging specialists in the 1990s were so successful. In contrast and in the past, leaders like YSR had it - clearly visible in the manner in which he decimated the major opposition in the state. Fast Forward to 2014: look at the candidates put up by INC in Telengana against TRS chief and other strong TRS leaders - they stood no chance of even getting their deposit. Tragically, some congress leaders seem to forget this is part of the problem - that is why one of them actually says that because INC did not have tie up with TRS they lost. The first question that the persons who offer such solutions should be asked is: Why should INC cede space (especially after granting statehood)? Strategically, ceding space by an alliance should be the last option - not the first. The party seems to have inverted the logic of an alliance. Unfortunately, for INC, unless they regain such an ability they don't stand a chance - Modi seem to have certain similar qualities like YSR like going full throttle after opponents. 

5. Congress' old habit of creating formidable opponent in the hope that it can align with the opponent is an old habit AND combine that with the fact that INC does not seem to understand that an alliance should only be a temporary phenomenon that should given them breathing space that can be used to recovery: In every state where they have gone into an alliance, the congress has gradually given up space and has gone into a decline. 

6. INC was in a hurry to claim that it had changed with the times. So its answer was to bring in bureaucrats and technocrats into the ministry and the party. Running a party is different from running the government administration/apparatus, especially the Congress party. Take the case of UIDAI and its head. It under scores an important historical reality in India: Business leaders, however successful. rarely make good politicians and vice versa. In this particular case, the ethos of a software company is the exact opposite of a party like INC. Then, there is the case of Aadhaar (dealt later in this post). I am sure INC lost more votes than it gained due to that scheme. I think Aadhaar number will be of great use for the banks and other businesses but, will not go down well with the voters. 

7. Importantly, INC lost simply because they did not understand the socio-economic change that they unleashed. Hence, they did not know how to deal with the consequences. Fundamentally, i think there is a major change. In the past, rising economic hardship would mean the rise of the left parties; 2014 seems to indicate that it could have inaugurated the process of the rise of the right wing parties. I wonder why? 

I doubt if any other government will ever or can ever give so many subsidies to its citizens. Yet INC lost! Why? One reason ascribed and, partly correct, is that while giving individual benefits they did not look at other important aspects like Infrastructure. I think there is some merit, especially when it comes to water and related issues. 

Entitlements also mean that there will demand for other things - a consequence of policy. Examples abound:

 

a) Case of education. It put millions of kids into school. But, in 10 years as they grow older the party did not have an answer to the demand for jobs or quality higher education. 

(b) Related aspect putting millions into schools also changed the composition of labour force: it could not answer critics who said that NREGA rather than migration or education affected the labour force. 

(c) There is a process of informalisation that is taking place in a number of areas: The party had no solution for this other than financial inclusion. Financial Inclusion is a good policy intervention but it went on at a snail's pace. 

(d) Take the case of the SHG movement. The SHG movement started in the TDP regime but it was during the 10 years that INC ruled that it exploded. The party gave huge benefits to its members. I doubt if anybody can give more benefits. Yet, the party could not take advantage. I wonder if the party is asking why it could not do so?

(e) The whole emphasis on Aadhaar was completely misplaced. Aadhaar is a good idea but bad politics - especially the way the enrollment was carried out and the manner in which the Oil companies tried to implement it. Unfortunately, LPG is not the preserve of the middle classes and the rich. In places, like AP, thanks to politics of the last 15 years a lot of people have a gas connection, at least officially. Literally, lakhs of people had a problem with transfers, etc. Each person who had to visit the gas agency more than once is unlikely to have voted for the INC. 

Another dozen such issues including indebtedness, destruction of rural industries, lethargic way in which government structures functioned, etc can be blamed for the loss. 

To cut a long story short, the comprehensive loss can be explained by adding up at least some of the above and other reasons. The last reason is the role of media. Media issue could have been dealt with them if INC had the mechanism to collect feedback - something that it had in the past and disappeared after 2010.

Time for the party to ask relevant questions, if it has to remain in the reckoning in 2019. Five years is a long time in politics so no point speculating about the future. Better option for the party will be to seriously look at why it lost the elections and if it can objectively answer the questions. This is essential because, unlike during the period 1999-2004, their opponent is more formidable.