Organization

• • If one goes by the definition, an organization is a group of people who work together for a specific purpose.
  • As far as Congress is concerned, some may have doubts about togetherness, but it is democratic and its members do voice their differences of opinion.
  • The structural weaknesses, failures always develop in any organization or system. Corrections and improvements are always needed. It is a continuous process.
  • There is never a status quo as such as there will be a natural deterioration over a period and it needs continuous improvements.
  • The examination, analysis of failures, weaknesses is a requirement. and should be done frequently or concurrently to correct, prevent them.

Realities

• • Strengths and weaknesses coexist in every part or section of an organization or those forming part of them. 
  • Some may say Congress is not active in many states. It is part of the overall weaknesses that have developed in its activities, administrative structure, the processes of information, discussion,  analysis, and evolution of solutions.
  • Let us have a look at its roots. How many states have an active organization? How many leaders, cadres in states are active and responsive? 
  • One has to visualize their activities vis-a-vis the potential that exists. If that is discomforting, then they can measure it against how they were a few decades back. 
  • Sometimes it looks Congress supporters, and sympathizers are more active without adequate response mechanisms from Congress. 
  • Most of their leaders have become ‘white-collar’ politicians. They do not take the pain unnecessarily. 
  • They become active or inactive at will, depending on their interest and benefits. They often go into silent mode and have developed silence and indiscipline into an art form.
  • How an organization is expected to produce results when in most of the areas/ states it does not have truly active leaders and cadres?

Leadership crisis

• • The immediate demand that emerges especially from rootless articulate leaders, is to fill the so-called vacuum at the top after Rahul’s resignation as President. It appears to be more blackmail and nuisance value. Perhaps they do not want active Rahul at the top as he is not reflecting ‘Congress culture’.
  • This is nothing new for Congress. The history is getting repeated for decades of new ‘young and old Turks’ emerging, quite often because of their own insecurities and recognition issues. It is a wonder that Congress is still divisible by these ‘power-less’ leaders.
  • What they were doing before the ‘vacuum’ came into existence? The organizational structure got corroded and eroded over decades before the ‘open eyes and face’ of these ‘active Turks’ and senior leaders. Why did they fail to initiate corrective actions? 
  • The top leadership which is presently Sonia and Rahul are too democratic, soft, considerate towards such discomforting elements. They allow these forces to drift into insignificance and irrelevance but it does affect their image as well as the Congress.
  • The process of identifying such opportunistic elements in the organization is faulty though sometimes, the disease symptoms emerge late to embarrass them. There is a need for quick hard measures after due warnings when such instances crop up.
  • This, however, should not stop the process of rejuvenation and resurrection of Congress structure urgently with a planned and well-devised approach from the grass-root level. 

Mass leaders required

• • How do they expect to overcome the failures, dissipation, destructions of the organization at the field level?
  • There are various possibilities to do it. One of them is to make Congress a cadre-based party. In theory, it may overcome some of the problems but it is out of character with the Congress party which is basically democratic with too much indiscipline. So conversion will be difficult.
  • But the nomination culture and the divided loyalty relatively more to a particular leader than the party is to be stopped. This is the main cause of group formations and power bargaining by their group leader. 
  • Party should work and move towards appointing leaders who already have/ are likely to have mass support at the state level. 
  • Their role will be clearly people-centric and not power-centric. They should carry all sections of the party without any bias. In addition, they should have a hands-on approach to address all issues of leaders, cadres and also people. 
  • There are ways to identify people. Even now, there are some instances of mass leaders being given such jobs/ positions. It is not taken up in a committed mode as a matter of policy decision but as an ad hoc or one-time arrangement. They will have the necessary support and force if the nature of their role is clearly specified.
  • These are all basic factors defined but on the field, such mass leaders may expand it in different dimensions depending on their imagination and vision. Their role naturally may call for energetic, younger, and fitter people.
  • This is basically an older format that existed in Congress before many decades. It may have to be redesigned if one can call so, to suit the present-day needs. We need not underestimate the availability of such volunteers to do these service-oriented assignments, as it carries its own charm.
  • If there is really a need, the party can Identify, negotiate, and assign such tasks to the people who they consider will be suited for this purpose. 
  • Congress has to move away from power-centric leaders to people-centric leaders if they are to serve the people truly and carry the party and the country to the grand old democratic ways to establish a modern, egalitarian, secular society.

Explanations

• • It should not be mistaken for a moment that power centric leaders are not required. Their approach is to be viewed as an aspiration and ambition to serve people in their own way. It is very much their right and they are very much required to bring in their experience and acumen.
  • The party may need their administrative abilities to evolve solutions not only as part of governments but also for the party structure.
  • This, however, does not mean that a good administrator will be able to shine as a good mass leader. They may or may not be able to don that role, though they do land up in such an assignment for whatever reason associated with it. Their misfit leads to the failure of the party at the field level.

Endnote 

• • If today’s newspaper reports are true about Priyanka saying that a Non-Gandhi should be a Congress Chief, then this particular shift towards creation, identification of mass leaders to play a big part at all levels is all the more essential.
  • If Administrative and power-centric leaders who may come to occupy positions are not checked, there will be at times nasty internal fights, wars, and battles. This is again history which should not be repeated for the good of the Congress and the country.
  • The benefits associated with this approach can be listed but it is avoided considering the length and readability of this blog. Further, most of the persons concerned will be able to visualize it. 
  • This an analytical presentation. There will be questions, doubts, some endorsements, and criticisms running in one’s mind. 
  • It will be beneficial if some effort is taken to write and send them. It will help readers and author of this blog post more, if they are reflected/ copy-pasted here in the ‘Leave a reply’ box provided at the end.