SWARAJ  

The politically astute Retributions has argued that primaries to elect the BJP leader – in which BJP workers, members and long time sympathizers vote – might lead to the election of ideological pure but politically infeasible candidate. I agree, but I think there are two separate things to consider here – primaries for BJP MP candidature, and primaries for BJP’s internal organizational posts (including party president).

I think Retribution’s points apply to the latter – that is, if the BJP’s president and general secretaries at the national/state levels are elected through ballots, there will be a tendency to go for ideological purity – after all, the BJP internal post-holders do not necessarily have to face elections. Therefore, the hardcore supporters have no real cost to bear here. After all, in India the BJP’s elected president will not have a presidential campaign against a Congress candidate – elected or nominated.

But, primaries for who is going to be the next BJP candidate from say South Delhi or Amethi is much more likely to incentivize BJP supporters and donors to support a winnable candidate – even if he/she is deemed a tad too moderate. Not to mention that true blue BJP types – that is, those who are seriously funded and still have the ideological CV – will probably not run in a seat never won by the BJP.

Now since primaries are an American phenomenon – it will not be out of place to mention Scot Brown, the Republican who recently won a Senate seat in deeply leftist Massachusetts. Brown is not a strong social conservative and has previously supported left-liberal economic hobbyhorses like cap-and-trade – yet he was strongly supported by the very libertarian/conservative “Tea party” supporters – who are anything but political moderates. This was probably so, because a true Tea Party guy would not have been able to win Massachusetts – even principled ideologues will often concede more than a few points to win power

But obviously all this, leaves out the even bigger question of why do we need a strongly institutionalized party leadership in the first place (that is, if the individual legislators were not hobbled, as they currently are in India, by anti-defection and campaign finance laws). In America, no one person can claim to be the Republican opposition’s leader – not John McCain, not Sarah Palin, not Rush Limbaugh. Yet despite having lost the Presidency and the House, and almost the filibuster capability in the Senate, they stopped Obama’s cap-and-trade and healthcare nationalization in its tracks. That is, because what matters is not party leadership at the end of the day – but whether the movement to which the party is tied can produce ideas popular with the people.