The art of political management

Modern management is not confined just to business; it’s entering the portals of institutions and the whole system of governance and administration, and, more curiously, the realm of politics.

True, the notion of management is traditionally present in every system of governance, but, in recent years, particularly after capitalism grew into the post-capitalist mode of production, it underwent a metamorphosis of sorts. While competing with traditional socialism, a new brand of managers emerged in the global arena. India and parts of its political front changed, too, and in this process, Sonia Gandhi emerged as one of the most successful managers of politics and power.
World-class management needs a culture of crafting, the ability to assess the consequences of each step that one takes. Management keeps one on a chessboard, minute after minute. A chess game manager (not a player) should first train himself to think more and talk less. Like the art of silent suffering, the art of management also requires the strength to be silent. The West has a tradition of management with a consciously cultivated culture of silence in building one’s personality. Amartya Sen characterised it in one of his books, saying “Indians are argumentative”, but, in my view, without much thinking. India, even now, has not developed a culture of deep thinking, and the skill to articulate that thinking in a few words. We are not yet a nation of serious thinkers. Silent reading of our surroundings — including books, of course — is not part of our culture. Our writing is not yet a mature theoretical and analytical kind of writing. It’s imitative (of the West) and explanatory.
Let me take up two examples of deployment of the high “management” skills of Mrs Gandhi after the 2009 elections and the formation of the UPA-2 government. The first is the management of the major crisis that erupted after the sudden death of Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, almost immediately after the election (in September 2009) in Andhra Pradesh. Even while his body was lying in state, his son Jagan Mohan Reddy staked his claim to succeed his father as the state chief minister, much against the will of the Congress high command. The KVP-Jagan team was said to have mustered the support of 150 MLAs. If Jagan were to become the chief minister with 33 MPs from Andhra Pradesh under his thumb, he would have become a bigger headache for the UPA than any other chief minister in the country. All the ministers and MLAs cared little for the officially installed chief minister, K. Rosaiah. More than the Rayalaseema and costal Andhra ministers and MLAs, the Telangana ministers and MLAs were loud supporters of the Jagan-KVP combine. It was to overcome this gathering storm that the hungerstrike for Telangana statehood by K. Chandrasekhar Rao, home minister P. Chidambaram’s December 9 statement, the Andhra revolt followed by the December 23 statement and finally the so-called Telangana movement were worked out. “Soniamma is for Telangana” became the slogan of the Telangana Congress and Telangana Rashtra Samithi. They spread all sorts of lies about her plans, but, true to her style, she never spoke a word about it till now. Because now, Telangana stands “managed”.
In the process, K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao and Jagan’s uncle Vivekanada Reddy were won over. No minister and MLA from Telangana could ever meet Jagan and KVP because that would have been seen as an anti-Telangana act. Most of the Seema-Andhra ministers and MPs remained in the Congress fold because the very issue had changed. The issue had shifted from “Jagan as chief minister” to Samaikhya Andhra and separate Telangana.
Meanwhile, Shankar Rao, a dalit MLA, fired a salvo, and the case of Jagan’s disproportionate assets went to high court. Now, Jagan is in jail with just 15 MLAs. If he had become the chief minister in 2009, it is safe to assume he would have carried the state with him and won the next Assembly polls also. The Congress government at the Centre would have been in a mess, and 2014 would have been a much bigger mess for the party.

Second, managing Mamata Banerjee — and Pranab Mukherjee himself. Mr Mukherjee was never content with what he got. He was everything except the Prime Minister for the last eight years. It appears that he wanted to be the Prime Minister and nothing else. Mr Mukherjee is skilful, both in creating problems and in solving them. He speaks, but he knows what he speaks. Mrs Gandhi “managed” him so that he could manage the UPA-2 till he agreed to be a rubber stamp at Raisina Hill. Their relationship was that of deploying skills and counter skills, but Mrs Gandhi always “managed” him.
“Managing” Ms Banerjee was, in a way, more difficult than “managing” Mr Mukherjee, because Didi had people behind her. It also appears there is some kind of an “understanding of misunderstanding” between the so-called brother and sister. The last of their trials was the attempt to turn Dr Manmohan Singh into a rubber stamp, so that Mr Mukherjee could become the power stamp. But, Mrs Gandhi again “managed’ it.
Ms Banerjee was verbose, as she is a street fighter. Mrs Gandhi is neither a street fighter nor verbose. She seems to think more, of course, and talk less. In fact, no Indian politician of her stature has talked so less. Now she has created a situation wherein both Mr Mukherjee and Ms Banerjee have to renegotiate their “understanding of misunderstanding” and be content with Rashtrapati Bhavan, wherefrom no delivery of special packages is possible. The issue at stake was not simply of “the first Bengali President”; the issue at stake was of “the first Bengali Prime Minister” also. That was the first and best option for both Mr Mukherjee and Ms Banerjee. But Mrs Gandhi has “managed” it all so very well. But for her great management skills, there would have been a major crisis.
All of Sonia’s management skills would have been challenged by Congressmen/women if she were not able to win votes for them and had not sacrificed power when it came to her. Therein lies her strength.