Opinion: Rahul Gandhi in a new avatar, aggressive on ideology but real issues of the public are something else

arun Posted On September 14, 2024

134 Views

The Leader of Opposition is speaking less on issues of wider concern of voters like lack of jobs etc. and more on ideology. Ideology-centric campaigns have limited benefit in elections.

Edited by Chandra Prakash Pandey

Rahul Gandhi has become aggressive on the level of ideology
Attacking by telling the difference between the ideology of Congress and BJP
Rahul should be aggressive on issues related to the public rather than ideology

Some of Rahul Gandhi’s comments during his US visit gave rise to political controversy. But the biggest thing is what he said and what he did not say about his political views.

He presented the Congress’s vision, which emphasized two main themes: fairness and pluralism. Rahul compared it with the BJP’s vision, which he claimed is based on caste hierarchy and majoritarianism. He also condemned a system in which 90% of the people do not get opportunities.

But on the policy implications of the caste census, including an increase in reservation, Rahul Gandhi said it will depend on what comes out of these studies.

Here, one can see a significant difference in the political approach that the opposition leaders are emphasizing. The approach is more about ideological issues and less about value issues. In political science, a valence issue (employment/corruption/cost of living) has a uniform appeal across voters, while an ideological issue is one that divides opinion across different sections.

In India, there is a large section of voters who base their voting choices on the ability of parties to deliver on cross-cutting valence issues. Ideological attachments can be weak. For just one example, consider the dramatic decline of the long-dominant CPM in Bengal and Tripura. The rapid disappearance of their large ‘left’ voting block is an indication that a party’s social support base largely derives from its credibility in power-taking and its ability to deliver public goods. Without these two compelling factors, ideological positions become irrelevant.

The political philosopher Georges Sorel said that a political vision is nothing but a ‘social myth’ – a symbolic, often utopian view of the future that can galvanise the broad masses behind a political force. It is situated higher than ideology, charting the path to achieving the vision.

Under Rahul’s leadership, the Congress ship has gradually re-established itself as an egalitarian left-wing force. The party has intelligently expanded its catchment area of voters, especially attracting those regionalist, backward caste and Ambedkarite constituencies that once viewed it with suspicion. However, its core message of reducing inequality could be conveyed more forcefully by linking it to an attractive vision of the country’s development, promising upward mobility and expanded livelihood opportunities for all.

A CSDS-Lokniti survey earlier this year found that unemployment is a serious concern for nearly two-thirds of voters. The highest proportion of voters was found among OBCs, Muslims and Dalits. The rest of the voters are not only conscious of communal issues but are also equally concerned about livelihood.

The ‘Gujarat model of development’ makes for an attractive vision. In 2014, the campaign cushion provided by this symbol helped the Modi-led BJP win a clear majority for the first time in nearly three decades. It projected an image of rapid private-investment-led growth and commensurate job creation (based on the mantra of ‘minimum government maximum governance’).

The NDA’s lacklustre performance over the last 10 years has badly marred this vision. The level of private investment (measured in terms of gross fixed capital formation) has not been impressive, while job creation has been stagnant. The World Bank reported that India’s manufacturing sector would account for 13% of GDP in 2022, a decline of 4 percentage points from 17% in 2010.

In the 2025 ‘jobs budget’, NDA 3.0 allocated $1.2 billion for its flagship job-training scheme for the emerging ‘neo-middle class’. In comparison, the Modi government allocated $10.3 billion, 10 times bigger, to MNREGA, the UPA-era rural employment programme.

The NDA 3.0 is facing questions on job creation. Hence, this is a golden opportunity for Rahul to offer an alternative view on jobs. Not just to connect with poor voters, but also to rekindle the Congress’s ties with the ‘Manmohan Singh-middle class’. This class voted for the Congress in 2009 but moved to the BJP (or, AAP in Delhi) over the last decade. The Congress can build its symbolic political capital as the architect of the country’s post-liberalisation middle class.

In his US tour, Rahul addressed the unemployment crisis, at one point suggesting that India could learn from China and Vietnam in moving from a consumer-centric economy to a production-centric one. In addition, he advocated a manufacturing-based approach and cited the progress made by states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. All the ideas are interesting but left unelaborated and unconvincing.

Instead of incoherent suggestions, perhaps they could have crystallised the Congress’ own economic vision. What are some of the sound governance practices India can adopt from countries like China and Vietnam? What are the best practices adopted by states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, and can these be combined to form a national model? How is the new Congress different from the UPA-era Congress in terms of economic policy? Does the Congress support sweeping reforms in the bureaucratic structure? How does the party view state-centre relations? What are some of the key measures taken by Congress-ruled states on educational reforms, social equality and economic opportunities? Does the party advocate the I.N.D.I.A. alliance model or the Congress development model for development?

The Congress’ solutions to macroeconomic concerns, especially jobs, may come under scrutiny in its campaigns for the upcoming assembly elections in Haryana, Maharashtra and Jharkhand. In the first two states, the Congress alliance is dependent on the support of dominant agrarian castes (Jats and Marathas). Therefore, it will need to carefully calibrate its appeal to caste-based distributive justice. In Jharkhand, the Congress’ role as the JMM’s junior partner will be to reach out to voters in urban-dwelling and caste-Hindu constituencies outside the tribal heartland.

The Congress has already firmly established itself on the centre-left political syncretism, moving towards a region with a fertile social base. But just as a fishing vessel expands its catchment by casting the net over a greater area, the Congress now needs to cast the widest possible net, and to do so clearly needs capable hands.