Not a dual power centre

The removal of the law and railway ministers could have been a display of the prime minister's ultimate sign of authority. But this was presented by the Congress as part of a joint decision taken by D

The recent political drama over the resignation of two Union ministers on the same day has turned the spotlight once again on the principle of governance through a dual power centre. Quite a few statements have been made in the last few days to suggest how the dual power centre model remains intact without diluting the importance of either the prime minister or the Congress president.

But nobody would believe such claims, particularly in the wake of all that happened last week. Worse, the idea of a dual power centre now stands further diminished and the Congress general secretary, Digvijay Singh, is likely to wonder if his recent comment highlighting the limitations of such a governance model had severely understated the seriousness of the problem.
 

The idea of a dual power centre took root soon after Sonia Gandhi declined to be the prime minister in May 2004 and instead named Manmohan Singh as her nominee for the job. It was then understood that while Ms Gandhi would take care of the Congress party's affairs, the task of leading the government would be entrusted to Dr Singh.

The dual power centre model was further fine-tuned when Ms Gandhi became chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance, or UPA. In her capacity as Congress president and UPA chairperson, she would engage with the prime minister on matters of broad policy that the government should pursue. Thus, Dr Singh would visit Ms Gandhi's office at 10, Janpath, when he would like to discuss issues pertaining to the Congress party. And Ms Gandhi would visit Dr Singh's residence at 7, Race Course Road, when she would need to discuss some government-related issues with the prime minister.

The weakness of the model, however, became apparent from the very start of the new arrangement. The problem began with the partners of the UPA. Union ministers belonging to alliance partners would show their primary allegiance to the president of their party and not the prime minister. The prime minister's ability to get work out of such ministers from alliance partners would be severely undermined. In matters of resignation, ministers from alliance partners would often make it obvious that the prime minister was not their real boss. Even in putting in place his team of ministers, the prime minister was not seen to be a free agent, deferring to the choices made by the Congress president or by the heads of the Congress' alliance partners.

Those who defended the dual power centre model, however, would strongly argue that the prime minister was his own man and got the team of ministers that he actually wanted. They would point out how the prime minister would take the final call on elevating a certain junior minister to a Cabinet-level position or divesting a senior minister of a crucial portfolio. But what happened last week showed that much of that defence was only a public relations exercise to boost the prime minister's image.

The reality was that the dual power centre had right from the start of that experiment diluted the prime minister's powers in ministry formation. Look at the way the Congress leadership explained how the decision to drop the two ministers - Ashwani Kumar and Pawan Bansal - was taken jointly by the prime minister and the Congress president. If proof of the nature of the prime minister's dwindling powers in deciding on who his Cabinet colleagues ought to be was needed, that Congress statement had established it beyond doubt. Dr Singh may have had a role in the appointment of those two ministers to the key portfolios of law and railways, but their removal was a matter of a joint decision of the Congress president and the prime minister.

It is important to note that this is not what has been subsequently clarified by the Congress leadership. Nobody among the many Congress spokespersons has denied or modified the statement on how the removal of the two ministers was a joint decision of the prime minister and the Congress chief. What they were concerned about were reports of differences between the two. In other words, they were only reiterating the fact that the action against the ministers was a joint decision and did not, therefore, betray any differences between the two leaders.

Last week's developments have left nobody in doubt about the ineffectiveness of the dual power centre model. The removal of ministers could have been a display of the prime minister's ultimate sign of authority. But this was presented by the Congress as part of a joint decision taken by Dr Singh and Ms Gandhi. And in its zeal to present the strong bonding between the prime minister and the Congress president, the Congress leadership went as far as stating categorically that Dr Singh would remain the prime minister till 2014. What this means for the party's choice of a leader after 2014, if such a need arises, has, however, been left unstated.