Retributions  

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The Obama revolution needs protection from its followers

Remember V P Singh? India’s former prime minister swept the 1989 general elections riding on wide-spread revulsion against corruption, nepotism and cronyism of the Rajiv Gandhi government. He promised to deliver a clean administration and represented a clean break from ”politics of old”. He build a grand coalition in which BJP and the Left worked together, forgetting their differences in pursuit of a larger goal–removal of an unpopular prime minister. Singh’s campaign was build largely by channeling the hopes and aspirations of the young and he positioned himself as the leader of the middle–both in ideological and class terms. Sounds familiar?

We all know what happened next. In the very act of assuming prime ministership, Singh betrayed himself. He cut a deal with Devi Lal leaving out mercurial Chandra Shekhar who never forgave him for what he saw as the great betrayal. Assuming his post as the next great hope, Singh practiced the politics of divide and rule–the same kind he had once riled against. His disparate coalition fell apart but not before Singh had uncorked the genie of Mandal Commission in a last desperate hope to cling to power. V P Singh lasted a total of eight months and left his county in a worse position than he had found it.

Or we could go back even further into Indian history. Jaiprakash Narain promised sampoorn kranti–total revolution. He mobilized students and the middle class and the promised a new direction for the country. He won the elections and then watched–a broken, helpless man–as his followers squabbled publicly for the spoils of office. His total revolution did not even last a full term in office! In no time, Indira Gandhi was back in power and the only legacy of Narain’s struggle is perhaps the multitude of ”Janta” parties.

Prime ministers and presidents fail all the time. But when revolution fail, it leaves disillusioned followers in its wake.  The Indian middle class soured with politics after the failure of Janata experiment, and its distrust with politics was almost complete after V P Singh’s short reign. Now, even as the middle class has burgeoned in numbers, it takes almot no interest in the political process. ”All politicians are bad” seems to be accepted wisdom. Despite its growing numbers, the middle class does not matter because it believes so.

But the failure of revolutions–the politics of change–is not only a failure of leaders; it is as much a failure of the followers. It stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the democratic process–simply put, democracy does not lend it self to revolution. A written constitution, multiple sources of power, a system of checks and balances and periodic elections ensure that no man–howsoever brilliant, well-meaning, and popular–can fundamentally alter the nature of a country. Sure, countries change directions but the process is slow rather than spectacular, punctuated by multiple small battles rather one grand war. It took India 40 years to discard it failed socialist model and the contestation of ideas continues to this day. As it should.

Millions have embraced Obama’s call for change. His soaring rhetoric has inspired so many who, perhaps hitherto, thought they had little at stake in American politics. For that, Obama deserves unstinted praise. He he has targeted the same demographics–midlle class, students e.t.c–who had once embraced India’s change leaders. But his almost cultish and fanatical following may yet be his undoing. If they are unable to distinguish between rhetoric and policy; if they can truly believe that one man–even if so inclined–can change Washington; if they think America’s foreign and domestic policy discourse can be fundamentally reordered by Obama, or if they see their redemption in Obama’s rise, or fail to understand that hope and change are tactics for winning elections–not an agenda for governance, then Obama will fail. Not because of his intrinsic de-merits, but simply because of heightened expectations. No man–especially in a democracy–can ever meet them.And if that leads to disillusionment with the political process, America would be so much poorer for it.

It is a not a cynical view of politics– it is a realistic view. Perhaps, it means that followers of this school view political rhetoric with amused cynicism. However, it also ensures that they remain invested in the political process; they understand its limitations as well as its importance.

Barak Obama may have a successful presidency. Considering the debris of the last one, that seems almost pre-ordained. He may make a great president. We all wish he does. But the success of his presidency would be as much a measure of his ability to deliver as it would be a measure of his supporter’s ability to temper their expectations.

And yes, if he fails, do remember that politics of a nation is far more important and far bigger than one man.