The buoyant mood in the Congress following Sonia Gandhi's
decision to campaign for the party is understandable. Since
political communication in India is disproportionately dependent
on a party's ability to sell imagery, the Congress naturally
feels it is on to a good thing. The party is still not the odds-
on favourite, but Sonia's presence at least ensures a spirited
contest. Unfortunately, that is where the optimism ends. It is
one thing for a 112-year-old party to work itself into a frenzy,
it is a separate matter to make that enthusiasm contagious.
Regardless of the national appeal of the Nehru-Gandhi name, the
mystery over what Sonia stands for is unresolved. She has taken
an active interest in charities. been a good custodian of her
family's interests and her strong views on the circumstances of
Rajiv Gandhi's death are well known. But this election is neither
about an unfortunate murder that took place in 1991 nor about a
family's heritage; it is about governance. If Sonia is ' he
public face of the Congress and enthusiastic veterans are calling
on her to lead the party, it is important for the voters to know
where she stands on actual issues. Rajiv was a general secretary
of the Congress and an understudy to his mother for at least
three years before he became prime minister. Sonia's political
experience is more imaginary than real. It is this shortcoming,
rather than her earlier nationality, that is of concern.
To win the approval of the electorate and legitimise her claim to
be a political force, Sonia can no longer afford to remain an
enigma. The demands of public life are taxing. Apart from
following a punishing schedule, politicians have to maintain a
pretence of accountability. India may still retain its dynastic
fascination, but it is also deeply committed to democracy.
Dynasty and democracy come into conflict only when accompanied by
imperious aloofness. If Sonia wants votes, the people must know
what she is all about. She must either lead from the front or not
at all.
|
||