Chalking out a new plan

A few weeks ago, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee gave a clarion call to opposition parties to unite and act quickly. She also appealed to the judiciary to take steps to safeguard democracy. Sonia Gandhi, the interim President of the Indian National Congress, is also attempting to bring unity among the opposition parties in India. A few days ago, Rahul Gandhi also endeavoured in this regard. Opposition leaders, since 2019, have lamented the way the present government has been pursuing its course of action which is detrimental to the nation and its ethos. The government is being fervently opposed by the opposition parties that very often submit petitions collectively to the President of India. The opposition, however, fails to work collectively along a common perspective. Every political party is struggling to bring order in its own organization. All the opposition parties, of course, have a common agenda to defeat the Prime Minister in the ensuing elections. Why Narendra Modi has to be removed from power has to be explained convincingly to the people of India in the language of the masses. That is not happening. When Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister, the agitation organized by Anna Hazare was effectively used by the Narendra Modi-led BJP through organizing meetings in different parts of the country; Narendra Modi addressed most of these rallies. Through his effective communication skill, he reached out to the masses and a new perception was created among the people against corruption. With this argument in the backdrop, Modi pushed the development ideas as his agenda for action. Perfectly, he put it in a development politics framework and, as a result, he reached out to the masses and eventually won the election. The perception against corruption has been kept alive to date. His continuous and virulent attacks on the opposition parties, on the plank of corruption, continue to tarnish the image of opposition parties. The narrative of development and corruption, coupled with the security of the nation on account of Pakistani interference, helped him to come to power again in 2019. The opposition parties relied on attacking Narendra Modi whereas Modi-Shah clearly assessed the weaknesses of all the political parties and acted accordingly. To some extent, they stuck to the promises in their manifesto. Hence, the opinion created among the masses about opposition parties by the BJP, and their evolved strategies to expand the party, coupled with systematic political actions, have weakened the opposition parties. In this context, bringing opposition to unity is a huge strategic task. It needs more strategic actions instead of accusing Narendra Modi. Bringing opposition unity should not be aimed at removing Modi. Modi is not so big as the nation. Nation and the people are more important than the leaders and the parties. Narendra Modi could not be dismantled by mere joining together of the opposition parties. Hence, by merely attacking Modi, opposition parties cannot win over Modi. They have to win the heart of the masses by bringing an alternative agenda and implementing attractive programmes. The same has to be taken to the people through a trustworthy leader who can keep the opposition parties together. By aiming for the Prime Minister post or pushing the party from the state to Centre and merely attacking Modi will not yield any result. The globalization era has corrupted the leaders and parties, and coming out from that syndrome is a big challenge for many of the parties that had been in power during the era of globalization.

There is yet another danger the parties are facing on account of political marketing agents like Prasanth Kishore. The moment the parties invite political marketers, virtually, it gives a sense that the parties have lost the values of leader ideology and the strength of the cadres. Electioneering is being done in a market mode by market agencies pushing the parties' works to the background. It really undermines the value of democracy. It also undermines the primacy of the political parties. The leaders have to stand on their own and their ideas, ideologies and programmes instead of advertisement companies. Bringing opposition unity can be done by a leader, not by a company and its CEO. It is a dangerous trend in democracy. The opposition leaders have to meet and chalk out an alternative agenda on development and give a fitting reply to the question on corruption. This is the need of the hour.

Each and every political party in the opposition camp should introspect its journey and reposition itself in the new context in terms of political ideology and programmes. It has to be understood that the opposition unity without the Indian National Congress will be mere paperwork and not a realistic idea to win the elections in 2024. In the same way, the Indian National Congress cannot remove Modi without the support of the major regional political parties. Coming together of the Indian National Congress and regional political parties is possible only through dialogue as differences are vast among the parties. All the political parties have moved away from their ideological framework in the process of economic globalization. They have not contextualized themselves to face globalization.

To help the nation and the people, opposition parties have to initiate a dialogue to come together through a new ideological framework and chalk out new programmes. This ideological framework has to be taken to the people as Modi did in 2014 through an effective communication strategy. Their efforts should give a sense that the opposition is not to oppose Modi but to help the nation through an alternative path. If all speak in one voice on issues related to development, corruption and leadership, people will believe that opposition parties are for the nation and the people. Otherwise, it will be a non-productive exercise and will not bring any substantial change in the course of politics in India at present.

The writer is a former Professor and Rajiv Gandhi Chair for Panchayati Raj Studies, Gandhigram Rural Institute. Views expressed are personal