Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa’s ability to survive all sorts of crises has baffled many. History suggests that chief ministers in the past had not survived challenges which were of much smaller in magnitude than the odds that Yediyurappa has been fighting. What then makes Yediyurappa come out unscathed every time? The general impression seems to be that it is nothing but his good luck. How else can a chief minister, not particularly known for any great political acumen, stay afloat despite facing unprecedented corruption charges and having a large number of foes within his own party?
However, to say merely that Yediyurappa has been lucky is saying nothing really politically. If good luck is to be understood as a coincidental constellation of factors in his favor, then what are these factors and how are they arraigned to his advantage, not once but repeatedly. In reality, what explains Yediyurappa’s good luck is a sad story of a larger political crisis of which the tentacles are spread beyond state politics. Behind the survival of Yediyurappa lay dead or dying some elements so vital to the health of a democratic polity.
The grand patriarch of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), L.K. Advani, for example, recently bemoaned in Chennai that he was unhappy with Yediyurappa’s style of functioning. Even before that there were reports that Advani wanted to see Yediyurappa’s back but it was for the first time Advani spoke against him in public. Advani’s open indictment came across somewhat like the lament of aged parents who are helplessly trying to rein in a wayward grown-up son. True that Advani’s writ does not run large in the BJP and that Yediyurappa has cleverly “cultivated” a few BJP national leaders who back him to the hilt. Yet the fact that Yediyurappa could not be shaken despite the justified discomfort that his continuance has caused to the leader who once personified the party itself shows that Yediyurappa has grown more powerful than the party. This is not an indicator of the strength of Yediyurappa’s leadership but a clear indicator of the weakness of the BJP as a national party.
One can argue that some BJP national leaders are backing Yediyurappa because they are concerned that the party would lose a major source of funds and face the prospect of a split in Karnataka should Yediyurappa be shown the door. If this is what has held back the national leadership from acting against Yediyurappa it only goes to show the pitiable position to which the BJP has been reduced to - that it has to depend on a single regional leader for its financial and organizational strength. More or less similar arguments were advanced in the early 1990s when the then Congress Chief Minister of Karnataka, S. Bangarappa faced serious dissidence and charges of corruption. But, after the initial dilly-dallying Prime Minister and Congress President P.V. Narasimha Rao acted decisively and replaced Bangarappa with M. Veerappa Moily. This, despite the fact that in the early 1990s the Congress at the national level stood weak having to manage a wafer-thin majority in the Lok Sabha and in the absence of a member of the Nehru clan to hold the party together. In contrast, the weakness displayed by the BJP in showing a regional satrap like Yediyurappa his place is symptomatic of a substantial decay in the national character of a so-called national party. This is bad not just for the BJP. The crumbling party structure, whichever the party may be, is a threat to the stability of democratic polity itself.
The second factor which worked in favour of Yediyurappa has been the very nature of the intra-party dissidence against him. People say Yediyurappa could buy dissidents with money. However, Yediyurappa is not the first in trying to quell dissidence by using his money power or resorting to various other methods of appeasement. None of them succeeded but Yediyurappa did because the dissidence that Yeidyurappa had to contend with was of a different quality. Political dissidence is essential to democracy. The nature of leadership available to the dissidents and the causes of dissidence are barometers of the quality of politics and emerging political leadership. The dissidents who were apparently baying for the blood of Yediyurappa did not have a cause. On two or three occasions when the dissidence seemed intense, it emerged that it was not real political dissidence but smalltime blackmailing tactics adopted by a few MLAs. In the bargain, Jagadish Shettar became a minister and the Chief Minister’s Principal Secretary was shunted out. In the very recent case, nobody knows anything about the deal that was struck between Yediyurappa and his detractors. Compare this to the kind of dissidence that Bangarappa, Veerappa Moily or J. H. Patel had faced. In the case of all these chief ministers the dissidents had a clear cause. Bangarappa’s detractors relented only after a leadership change and in the latter cases, people came to know how and why the central leadership was able pacify the dissidents. In comparison, the State BJP lacks even a good dissident who can save the party. The absence of dissidence when the state of affairs in a party needs it delivers a death blow to democracy and tends to strengthen the feudal and dictatorial tendencies within elected governments.
Finally, Yediyurappa also owes his good luck to a weak principal Opposition Party - the Congress. Never before in Karnataka’s history has a principal opposition party had so many ready cannons to fire. Yet the Congress does not seem to be even barking enough, let alone biting. Again a parallel can be drawn between the current situation and the Bangarappa regime (1990-1992). At that time the BJP had just four members in the Assembly but the party had mounted such a fierce battle against Bangarappa alongside the Congress-dissidents that the joint efforts left the people convinced that Bangarappa should go. In contrast, the present Congress leadership in Karnataka, despite a good strength in the Assembly, seems to have outsourced its responsibility to JD(S) leader Kumaraswamy whose hard work has so far failed to convince the people. Possibly Kumarawamy’s own record of breach of trust is too recent for people to forget. All in all, the Opposition is in a shambles. This is a far more serious threat to democracy than all of Yediyurappa’s corrupt deals put together.
Narayana A is working as a researcher in the field of “ICTs and Development” in a Bangalore-based private university after a decade’s stint in journalism
Comments
Add new comment