On December 15, 2017, Rahul Gandhi took over charge as the President of Congress Party, the oldest party of India, and it gave rise to plethora of opinions about the prospects of the Party, specifically with reference to Gujarat elections. Though the results of this election were not in favour of Congress, the critics pointed out that there was significant increase in votes polled by the Party, and they credited the increase to firebrand speeches made by Rahul in rallies, and the strategies he adopted. That brings us to a pertinent question as to what is political leadership and why and how it is important. Role of a leader is important in any human association, but it is all the more significant in democracy, where the leader is expected to be responsible, more amenable to public opinion, approachable, and accountable to the electorates. Mahatma Gandhi emphasized that leadership at one time meant muscles, but today it means getting along with people. Political leadership, thus, can be defined as the ability of the individual to influence others, without coercive behaviour, with an objective of achieving a shared goal. It is a product of interacting forces of history, competing ideologies, cultural heritage and social structure of the society.
Study of political leadership in India throws light on some interesting facets of leadership. The early years that is during the freedom struggle, the leaders were of different genera. They were goal oriented, and they dedicated themselves to the service of the people. The leadership then was based on tradition of sacrifice and austerity. During that period jail-going was co-related to remarkable social performance and leadership. The impact of Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy was very strong and there was high degree of emotional commitment. After independence, Congress was the most important political institution in India, and leadership in India was study of Congress leadership, both at Centre as well as in states. Nehru’s leadership represented certain values of Indian politics such as secularism, modernism, scientism, social planning and democracy. However his leadership was compared to a banyan tree under whose shadow other smaller plants did not get a chance to grow. Indira Gandhi was lauded for her strong, almost authoritarian personality. However she undermined inner party democracy, initiated process of de-institutionalisation, and attempted to establish ‘committed Judiciary’ which resulted in Emergency of 1975, which put Indian democracy in crisis.
Democracy witnesses continuous and steady flow of leaders, and India was not exception to it. The urban centred leadership of highly educated, high caste elites began to be displaced by new leaders with stronger mass-base. They came from middle class, other castes, and from rural areas with the caste/clan support. So India today has fleet of leaders who hold on to a particular region, caste or clan. They can make powerful speeches. But as Peter Drucker (Management Guru) rightly said, effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked. Leadership is defined by results and not attributes. Today’s leaders fall short of various qualities a good leader is expected to possess. A good leader has to recognise a problem before it becomes an emergency. Our leaders politicise caste, religion, language etc. and create riots in the country. A good leader is expected to lead by example, paradoxically; we come across ample examples of corruption and fraud committed by our leaders, and several cases registered against them. Arnold Glasgow said a good leader takes a little more than his share of blame, a little less than his share of credit. However to our dismay, we find our leaders don’t lose a single opportunity of claiming the credit, while on the flip side, are always on their toes to put the blame on others for their folly or errors. Our leaders forget the fact that leadership is all about taking responsibility and not making excuses.
Back home, in Goa, one leader who has been revered throughout the state irrespective of caste or creed, is non-other than our first chief minister, BhauSaheb Bandodkar. He was a charismatic person with a vision. He had emotional appeal and he championed the cause of traditionally suppressed and underprivileged. He laid great emphasis on people and believed in informal leadership. He did not mind mending the rules to make them enabling. Even though he cannot be termed as a democrat, he tried to usher in a new society for people of Goa. He was more of an authoritarian but not an autocratic leader. The beauty of this leader is that he felt the pulse of the people, and he will always remain fatherly figure for people of Goa.
After Bhau, Goa has produced a few good leaders, but they have stopped short of thinking of and for Goa as a whole. Though the small size of the state facilitates communication and accessibility between people and their leaders, the increasing power instinct is widening the gap between expectations of the people and fulfilment by the leaders. With the entire focus on playing the political game, our leaders are thinking only about next elections and not about the next generation. Today our state is endangered, and our natural resources are depleting at much faster rate, while on the other hand our political leadership is busy drafting development plans for Goa, without taking feedback from the people and acting on it. Let us hope and pray that our state as well as our country is laid by leaders who renounce their personal and private pursuits for the larger cause of nation.
(Dr Seema P. Salgaonkar, Associate Prof. in Political Science, Govt. College,
Khandola, Marcela).
