Leadership Note

Shashidhar S. Kapur

No single leadership style is suitable for all countries at all times. The reason why ancient civilisations and older democracies have opted for parliamentary system is that they have pluralistic polity and a diversified society. There is a combination of individual leadership and collective responsibility exemplified by the Prime minister ( the first among equals ) and the Cabinet. Individual leadership integrates plurality into a nation and collective responsibility keeps the society united. The later version of Parliamentary democracy the Presidential system – has been devised by relatively recent nations in history with a comparatively homogeneous society. Thus a strong leader is enough to keep their nation together – since their society is not diversified, collective responsibility is not a prerequisite. With globalisation of economy and large scale migration / immigration both the models are facing questions. There is no denying that at both ends of the spectrum there is a churning / yearning for a different leadership. While the west is veering towards a more accommodative kind of leadership India is rooting for an assertive style.

A look into history may provide some insight -Parliamentary democracy has evolved from monarchy and hence is supportive of mass leaders. Presidential form grew largely out of adventurism and hence has an affinity to dictators. In times of wars parliamentary democracies tend to throw up aggressive leaders ( Churchill ) and in crisis situations there is a tendency for autocrats to pop up  ( Hitler ). In India the current unrest is largely due to the dearth of a leadership pool. At least a part of the problem is that Kingship in India was abolished lock, stock and barrel. It was like throwing the baby with bath water. After all, the rulers did have some qualities – which could’ve been utilized in some way-in sport, culture, heritage etc. Had it been done over 100 years in a gradual manner perhaps enough parliamentary leaders would’ve come up. That apart – India is not as yet ready for a presidential form- perhaps never will be – for it is not suited for pluralistic and diversified country like ours. Thus India has to come up with a system which is differentiated but not different from both and present a model which is similar but not same as either of them.

Before designing the change and shaping reform it must be kept in mind that in worldly matters and affairs-inorganic as well as animate – only calibrated and incremental changes survive and sustain. Quantum jump may look good in short term and small matters but in mid long term it’ll be one step forward two backwards. Also, before going any further one would do well to figure out the kind of leadership suited to India – particularly in these times. The aggressive kind of leadership in Presidential form is suitable for comparitively new nations which are mostly Military Industrial complexes. Being a technological cultural construct India has opted for leaders and guardians than dictators and autocrats. We need Public leaders ( Lok Netas) and Popular leaders ( Jannetas ) more than Rajnetas ( Ruling leaders ) and spiritual leaders. The latter are needed only in Times of Crisis / war and calamity. Agreed that India needs an assertive leader in these tough times of coalition era but not an aggressive one -certainly not an autocrat. A dominating leader may be even less acceptable to the alliance than the days of single party rule.

To use the metaphor of sport, team sport suits India’s temper more in public matters. The captain though crucial is only marginally important than the team, a first among equivalents. He has to lead by work /ideas than dictate by power or dominate by position. Similarly, we like our star system in films but TV family dramas match the temperament of Indian woman more. In it, the character is more important than star value. Since Indian electoral Politics combines elements of both sport and films the PM has to be combination of good sportsman and a TV celebrity than a sporting hero or a filmstar. In any case, it is virtually impossible for any person to be a sporting hero and a filmstar at the same time. Besides, Indian PM is more of a hockey captain than a cricket leader only symbolically first among equals than – for any direct value. Presidential form is more like a sporting hero while an autocrat is akin to a filmstar.

If abolishing kingship altogether was like throwing the baby with bathwater the current trend to get a populist leader with the aura of an autocrat is like getting bathwater back. Besides, it is like changing the system from backdoor / subverting it.

Even if due to some pressures of realpolitic, PM / leadership has to be projected prior to the elections individual leadership ought to be projected in conjunction with Cabinet/ Independent collective lieutenants – which’ll follow the leadership only when he is right in conjunction with the philosophy, vision, manifesto, ideology and policies of the party. The leadership-lieutenant spectrum may even contain some members of pre -poll alliance partners. Likewise, Party President/ Guardian and autonomous common guides / Senior party leaders will have to be underlined simultaneously. The latter will have its say vis-a-vis the party president as long as it is in tune with the traditions, culture, mission and programmes. The Guardian-Guides continuum may well comprise some members of the coalition parties. Basically, the idea is to convey that a truly Indian model of a political party is one which is both an organisation and a Family (parivar ) –with a team and a troupe. In the electoral fray only those contesting are leaders / generals lieutenants- soldiers ; party members are mere workers / back-up. Similarly, in party activities the elected members are only Sewaks /service staff. Thus the PM is a Leader-Sewak and the Party President is a Guardian Worker. The way to project leadership & Lieutenants is in a centralized, mainstream manner while Guardian & guides ought to be underlined in a decentralized way –perhaps through alternate / community media.

A standard operating procedure could be that PM is the originator of ideas -particularly in important intellectual matters. The cabinet can at best modify, even ask him to reconsider but cannot reject it ultimately. Only in times of war, elections or crisis is he more equal than equal but in routine governance matters he is just one among equals. In the same vein, Party president ought to be a communicator of party proposals which spring from the masses. Moreover, his conduct must communicate more than the pronouncements. It is only in times of calamities, party elections or national celebrations that the party gains precedence over their president. In day to day concerns he represents the party.

To sum, Indian Leader- Guardian model of collective individual leadership and personal common representation allows only innovation improvisation in normal times and situations to the PM & Party President – he is merely a worker and /or Sewak. Only in times of wars, crisis, calamities & elections does he assert and conduct as Leader and / or Guardian.

To a great extent things work even now in this manner but in the absence of clearly laid out principles and ideals it is often a stumbling and fumbling approach. In the name of high command and core group ambiguity and ambivalence prevails which presents as Leadership crisis as in the present.

With original thinking and traditional wisdom India this leadership crisis could be converted to an opportunity by coming up with and Indian model. To my mind it ought to be Leader – Guardian model –a powerful leader alongwith a strong party head. The other option is to marry the western system with the emerging populist model to come with a jugaad / hybrid concept – an autocrat in the name of a strong leader. Its immediate benefits are far outweighed by long term harm- even accidents and mishaps. Such a leader is more likely to be an opportunist and / or an anarchist than a statesman.