BJP supporters celebrate the party’s victory in the Gujarat Assembly elections. , photo credit: Reuters
a It is prevalent among political commentators, especially after important elections, that political parties are like corporations and their leaders are like CEOs. This analogy is made to emphasize the point that just as CEOs are held responsible for bad quarters, leaders of political parties should also be held responsible for bad election results. This analogy is misleading and leads to distorted views of how political parties function. This is particularly problematic in India because unlike, say, the US, there is little room for negotiation and the politics of compromise outside political parties. Therefore, the key to understanding Indian politics is to understand how political parties function.
Difference
An important difference between a political party and a company is that parties have claimants and volunteers whereas a company has employees. This difference has implications for all aspects of decision making and operations of the two entities. The purpose of a political party is to capture state power in the service of some declared social agenda. To legitimize this aspiration, the party itself must be viewed as a microcosm of society, its organization necessarily populated by individuals of voluntary capacity as opposed to salaried employees. Thus, while all parties have some paid staff, positions that enable the people holding them to make political decisions and have executive authority, such as area presidents and in-charges, are honorary. Despite this, there are many contenders for each position commensurate with the respective prestige and power.
On the other hand, most private companies sell goods and services in a narrowly defined and non-political space. Politics – in the sense that it makes value judgments about the trajectory of society itself and its resulting trade-offs – is not part of the corporation’s role. Even if there is an element of political decision in the functioning of the corporation, it is exercised at the top as opposed to individual employees exercising political decision at their own level. Thus, a corporation is staffed entirely by paid employees performing well-defined, non-overlapping roles with a reasonable expectation that their professional skills will be sufficient for their jobs.
From the above context, it is clear that the analogy of a political party as a company has no meaning. A political party must manage the trade-offs between multiple conflicting interests, build a consensus, and then mobilize voters around its chosen narrative. It is a more than vague venue in which pre-determined goods and services are exchanged for profit. Furthermore, multiple contenders for each position essentially separate the pitch for the party’s operations. Given the public nature of political parties, it is neither appropriate nor possible to exclude claimants from participation in the organization’s functioning, although the influence of dissidents is often minimized. Since political parties are in the business of opinion formation, internal inconsistencies and conflicts of interest have a direct bearing on a party’s ability to perform, especially in a competitive electoral landscape. Examples include contradictory statements made by party functionaries during critical campaigns, sabotage and leaks, rebel candidates, or sheer inaction. When such internal factionalism is exposed to the public, it has cascading effects on all aspects of party operations, from outreach to fundraising.
At this point it may be suggested that a political party can resolve these issues through ‘discipline’. However, unlike employees, political office bearers cannot be ‘fired’, especially since many may not have had a position to begin with. This is because political functionaries not only play a role but also act as representatives of some or the other interests. The ability to enforce discipline in a political party is thus directly related to the leadership’s ability to consolidate power at the top. This points to a fundamental difference between a political party and a corporation: in a political party, power is more informal and dynamic than in a corporation. Therefore, corporate notions of hierarchy, departmentalization, professionalization, discipline, and accountability do not translate well within a political setting. In a corporation, a promoter can outsource management to a ‘professional’ without worry of losing control as long as he controls a majority of the shares. However, in a political party, power once delegated may be lost if the delegates reassert interests.
recent trends
Given these irregularities in the functioning of political parties, there are indeed clear trends towards ‘corporatisation’ and ‘professionalisation’ of parties. Political parties have come to make political decisions from various positions, such as in the case of spokespersons where their expression of the party’s stand is completely different from the actual decision-making authority. Similarly, the anti-defection bill takes away political discretion by restricting elected representatives to the whip and all decision-making within the party leadership. Chief Ministers using bureaucracy to bypass ministers and political advisors using political advisors to bypass party organization are other examples of commercialization of political parties. However, instead of improving efficiency, this resulted in a further deterioration of the overall public purpose. The pruning of political discretion from positions has made the individuals in those positions as expendable as employees and less able to negotiate the party’s internal power structures. The ‘commercialisation’ of politics has also led to massive party promotion by political office bearers in the way of employees moving around in companies. It undermines the overall credibility of the political space.
After all, politics is a value driven enterprise. We must seek competence and accountability from political functionaries, but the way forward is not through the corporatisation of our parties.
Ruchi Gupta is the Executive Director of Future of India Foundation. Twitter: @guptar