Modi’s lucky to be PM in transition era of regional parties; will it last long?

The recently reconstituted Parliamentary Board of the BJP has a clear Narendra Modi stamp on it. Many observers have noticed in the ouster of Nitin Gadkari, an RSS favourite and the a cabinet minister who sometimes spoke out of turn, and the non-inclusion of Yogi Adityanath, an assertion by the prime minister that the party is his to steer.

Does this mark the dominance of a single leader in the BJP, not just in the present, but also moving forward? It’s too early to say; but the BJP’s past has seen tugs of war between leaders rising through the ranks. This always led to clique formations within but, rather paradoxically, also ensured a supply of fresh leadership for the party over the decades.

In the heyday of LK Advani, the need to project an acceptable face for allies made Atal Behari Vajpayee the party’s face. Vajpayee then steered the party as its most acceptable leader. Vajpayee tried to stop Narendra Modi in his tracks after 2002 but failed, largely because Advani backed Modi.

Also read: Bihar 2024: BJP oozes confidence, but numbers raise pertinent questions

Once Advani failed to lead his party to a win in 2009, Modi rose within years to become prime minister in 2014. Advani’s innings ended. Modi brought Amit Shah to Delhi to be the second-in-command. Yet, this dream run of Modi saw a tacit challenge with the rise of Yogi Adityanath in Uttar Pradesh. Adityanath had his pound of flesh in the last one year, but Modi has for the moment ensured that he does not make it to the top decision-making body of the party.

These tugs of war make the leadership of the BJP something akin to the corporate world: companies fight it out, some perish and some become key players. This has set the BJP apart from its rivals – mostly individual or dynasty centric parties – both, at the Centre and in the states.

The only cadre-based parties apart from the BJP are the Communist parties, and they are no longer electorally relevant except in Kerala, where the BJP itself is irrelevant.

The leadership question is centrally linked to party structures. Most regional parties came up either opposing the Congress or splintering it – a phenomenon that has persisted and grown since 1967, when the pan-Indian hegemony of the Congress was first challenged.

There were leaders who rose from the 1970s to the 1990s as powerful regional adversaries to the Congress. They also evoked either regional pride vis-à-vis the Centre or caste assertion. This is what eventually created a multi-party democracy in India by the 1990s. There were now two national parties, the Congress and the BJP, and a host of regional parties.

Organisation over family – BJP’s success mantra

However, there was something ironical happening in these past decades, the significance of which is all too apparent now in hindsight. The BJP was gradually emerging as the only contestant that could potentially access a large leadership pool, because its core principle was the organisation and not a family.

The Congress had turned dynastic, celebrating the Nehru-Gandhi family above everything else. The regional parties were either person-centric – be it the BSP, the AIADMK or the TMC – or family centric, like SP, RJD, NCP, Shiv Sena, the INLD or the RLD.

These parties have a structural problem. They are formed by a charismatic leader and come to believe that the leader’s personality is their capital. They don’t try to think like a collective of political workers wedded to a single worldview. In some cases, the charismatic leader remained a magnetic but atomistic figure and in others, the son or daughter of the leader succeeded him. Political inheritance provides an electoral edge to the leader for some time, and this makes party workers celebrate the ‘first family’ of the party to win elections.

However, this short-term formula is dangerous in the long run. For, while a cadre-based party has thousands, or even lakhs, of workers from which a leader may emerge every few decades, even if after an internal tug of war, the leadership talent pool of a family-based party is confined to just three or four people at a time, sometimes even one. Pedigree may not make one astute. It may not offer a sharp political sense or the art of political communication with the masses.

 Modi’s lucky with his timing

Modi is prime minister at a rare moment – an advantage not enjoyed by Vajpayee. The charismatic founders of each regional party are either dead or too old. Modi stands at the moment of transition in the leaderships of most parties. And, in many cases, the transition isn’t smooth, offering the BJP a chance to replace the regional parties.

Tejashwi Yadav is still trying to succeed Lalu Prasad in terms of appeal. Akhilesh Yadav is still no match for Mulayam Singh Yadav, who is now too old. Jayant Chaudhary is no match for his grandfather Chaudhary Charan Singh. ‘Who after Sharad Pawar?’ is a question the NCP faces. There is no evidence that Ajit Pawar or Supriya Sule match up to his stature.

Also read: Modi’s critique of ‘Opposition freebies’ unfair, he needs to turn gaze inward

The structural flaw became obvious in the case of Uddhav Thackeray. He wasn’t an astute organizer like his father Bal Thackeray, and could not keep his flock together. The Sena split vertically and he lost power. Eknath Shinde, with backing from the BJP, could in one stroke jeopardise the political career of the Thackeray family.

Chirag Paswan also found running a party a very hard task, and could not keep his flock together the moment his father and LJP founder Ram Vilas Paswan was no more. Chirag’s uncle, Pashupati Nath Paras, split the LJP. The astute political sense of Ram Vilas Paswan passed away with him.

Naveen Patnaik is the only dynast who has carried forward his father Biju Patnaik’s legacy. But he, too, is old now. ‘Who after Naveen?’ remains a valid question in Odisha. With the elevation of Odisha-born Droupadi Murmu as President of India, the BJP is already looking at replacing the BJD after the Naveen era in the state ends.

How long will the one-man show last?

Family-based parties apart, there have been individual-centric parties. The BSP has declined steeply after Mayawati lost her touch. After the death of Jayalalithaa, the AIADMK split. This has for the moment put the DMK in a position of advantage, as we don’t know whether the official AIADMK can challenge MK Stalin, son of the late M Karunanidhi, any time soon.

As fate would have it, most of these difficult transitions are happening at a time when the BJP under Modi is in expansion mode. And these difficult transitions may indeed have helped it expand and deepen its reach.

The BJP is right now associated with one man, Narendra Modi. But its history shows that the party’s structure never lends itself easily to one man in the long run. Only time will tell whether this changes in the future but Modi certainly is sparing no effort to this end.

(The writer is a columnist and media educator.) 

(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)