It deserves to be clearly stated that India under the Congress-led UPA Government is facing serious governance deficit which is adversely affecting the country. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has failed to evolve appropriate policies to curb the rising food inflation, which has hit the common man hard. The Ministers have offered phoney excuses to escape their responsibilities. All assurances that the inflation will come down have proved to be wrong. The Congress looks clueless and directionless in dealing with the problem of rising food prices.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi have also failed to counter effectively the allegations of corruption and misrule. The Winter session of Parliament last year could not function properly because the Opposition was not satisfied with the Government's response on the issue of 2G Spectrum sale or swindling of money in the Commonwealth Games. The dust has still not settled. The issue of evasion of income tax and siphoning of black money out of India has complicated matters. The Supreme Court of India has pointed out that depositing national money of India in foreign banks amounts to 'loot of national wealth'. However, Minister for Finance Pranab Mukherjee in his Press conference on January 24 did not come forward with any concrete strategy to bring back the money, which is stashed away in foreign banks.
Why is the UPA Government incapable of responding to challenges facing the country? A few facts may be mentioned to substantiate the argument that the UPA Government has failed because of the 'dual leadership'. Ms Gandhi is not only the president of the Congress party, she is the supreme leader whose writ runs in the Government. Leaders of the party organisation and Congress Ministers in the Government are accountable to her. Ms Gandhi's complete control over party's organisational structure can be extremely helpful to the Congress-led Government if she acts as the eyes and ears of the party and provides feedback to the Government about the grievances of the people.
As president of the Congress, she is expected to act as a link between the party organisation and the Government. But Ms Gandhi, it seems, is not satisfied with such a passive role but wants to lead the party as well as the Government without being a formal office holder. The Prime Minister consults Ms Gandhi on all matters that fall in the domain of governance and for which he is solely responsible under the Constitution of India.
The party president can advise or make suggestions to the Prime Minister, but cannot act as an alternative source of making public policies in parliamentary system. The UPA Government is at loggerheads with Ms Gandhi's 'super Cabinet', the National Advisory Council, on a very important issue — of the modalities of implementation of the much-awaited Food Secuirty Bill.
The experts in the Government are not agreeing to the suggestions of NAC on the criterion of determining the rural and urban populations to be covered by this scheme. The public controversy between the Government and Ms Gandhi on public policy issues has not only sent wrong signals to the country, but has conveyed the message that NAC is a 'super Cabinet' and Ms Gandhi is the source of authority.
The NAC is also engaged in a tug of war with the Union Government on the issue of 'wages' paid under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme. Ms Gandhi has suggested to the Union Government that under MNREGA minimum wages should be paid as 'laid down by the laws of the land'. But the Government has expressed its inability to oblige because according to Government calculations, the burden will be too heavy on the public exchequer. Ms Gandhi's suggestions to the Government on Food Secuirty Bill, minimum wages under MNREGA or the proposed amendments in the RTI Act gives the impression that it is not Mr Singh who is leading the Government, but Ms Gandhi is the real centre of power.
Further, Mr Rahul Gandhi's recommendations to the Government have far more weightage than the recommendations of any other Congress leader because he shines in the reflected glory of his mother. It is the prerogative of the Congress to decide whether it wants to make Mr Gandhi a Minister or even a Prime Minister, but he is harming the democratic system by participating in policy matters, which is not his responsibility as an ordinary MP.
Ms Gandhi to her credit has rejuvenated and revived the declining Congress party and the party leaders accept her undisputed supremacy in the organisation. However, her special status as Congress president must not impact the functioning of Congress-led Governments at the Centre and the States. Congress party should remember that former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had publicly conveyed to Congress president JB Kripalani that he is not expected to meddle with the affairs of the Government. Jawaharlal Nehru also took on Purushotam Das Tandon, another Congress president, because he was not in tune with the thinking and ideological make-up of the party and it eventually led to Tandon's resignation.
The Prime Minister is the real leader of the country and there can be no 'dual' or 'triple' centres of power in a parliamentary democracy. If Mr Singh is perceived as 'passive' and Ms Gandhi is projected as the 'real source of power' of the Government, then it not only affects governance, it also harms the image of the Congress. That way neither is Ms Gandhi serving the interest of her party nor the interest of the UPA Government, where her party is the major stakeholder. Unless she amends her interfering attitude, the Government will become counter-productive and the Congress will have to pay the price in the next election.
