Dec 24, 2007
One headline ran in 'Indian Express' -- With tears, Modi tries to wipe his party's fears .....
And secondly,
'To be PM, Modi has to first get a liberal face like Vajpayee's : Congress'
The second story first -- At the AICC media cell chairperson was M Veerappa Moily.
Responding to queries at a press conference in New Delhi, Moily said - "Wishing Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Modi and added that Modi should now onward provided good governance and provided good governance and treated all citizens equally with equity".
It was an important and well thought out words from Moily as the Congress had made Modi's alleged not so good love-hate relationship with Muslims a major poll issue. In fact, it was during this campaign - Sonia Gandhi had infamously used the phrase 'Maut Ka Saudagar'.
Narendra Modi did not miss chance to give his spin and said Sonia had insulted the entire state of Gujarat --especially millions of entrepreneurs and business houses. In 2007 assembly polls, many analysts later said this dialogue from Sonia left native Gujaratis anguished and to be precise Modi has not seen backwards after this.
He was on a crucial mission and by then words started saying Modi should be BJP's prime ministerial candidate. However, too touchy to handle Gujarat-based issues; the Congress also played safe and trusted the auto mode.
Moily said : "Vajpayee became Prime Minister of this country because of his liberal face. Any person without a liberal face cannot dream of becoming Prime Minister of this country". He later clarified - he did not mean Vajpayee had a "totally liberal face" and what he meant was "some remnants of a liberal face".
The other issue/headline was about the internal pulls and pushes in the BJP. A word circulated soon after Namo victory in 2007 assembly polls that the Gujarat Chief Minister could soon emerge as a national player. In fact, even BJP top brasses acknowledged this and just a few days before the results of assembly polls were declared, L K Advani was anointed as party's prime ministerial candidate.
But on Dec 24th (2007) when Modi met the state BJP leaders and newly elected MLAs; "Can a son grow taller than his mother"?
"Rajniti itna nirdayi hota hae ... (Can politics be so heartless)," he had said.
And he sounded quite emotional and tried to brave emotion and wipe tears.
The meeting was in Gandhinagar town hall and he was flanked by two his trusted men in Delhi - Late Arun Jaitley and M Venkaiah Naidu. "I was silent because silence has power....," he said in reference to internal rebellion in his party.
Modi also had said: "I have taken the poison backed by some Godly power because I know some day we would all come together".
He further stated: "A time come and some people fail to realise it. They let their circumstances cloud their judgement and make mistakes. But the present demands that we be magnanimous. No democratic institution should bear a scratch".
Now let's make a reference to an article in 'Dawn' - the popular Pakistani newspaper.
"...the role of a ruling party MNA who has spent a certain amount of money on elections. Ostensibly, his (or her) priorities would include: recovering the amount spent on the poll campaign, securing contracts and government jobs for his constituents; getting an executive position; and ensuring that the local government system does not take root lest development funds move out of his domain and end up with LG representatives. None of these priorities relate to his actual responsibility of negotiating and legislating on public interest issues.
It is essentially no different if this MNA is in the opposition. He would have to find a way to recoup the funds spent on his election campaign, or team up with like-minded colleagues to bring the government down. Legislation is the least of his priorities.
A fragile political system cannot deliver.
The prime minister is a hostage to the MNAs. If he does not facilitate the allocation of sufficient development funds for them, he runs the risk of a vote of no-confidence. To remain in power, he looks around to seek help from other state institutions — the bureaucracy, judiciary, army — rather than leading them as chief executive of the country or inspiring their confidence to work within their respective mandates.
Such a fragile political system cannot deliver good governance." -- writes Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry (May 19, 2024, Dawn)
Just alter few words here and there; he same agony, irony and humour about parliamentary democracy exists in India as well.
So where do we stand? Is Parliamentary Democracy only form of democracy ? Or Should we also debate -- the pros and cons - the minus and the plus between a system that 'fails', that encourages corruption and nepotism on one hand -- and a system that delivers, that encourages talent, discipline and performance on the other?
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment