Why stay on?

A Prime Minister hemmed in on every side, by his party colleagues and by their coalition partners, should ask himself what he is doing at the head of the UPA government. It is clear that the political forces that have come together under the banner of the United Progressive Alliance, and those who are supporting it from outside (like the communists), have no faith in the economic reforms that Manmohan Singh would push ahead with, if he had a free hand. This government is therefore like a creature with two heads and several tails; each tail knows how to wag the body, even as it is not clear whether the two heads are talking to each other.

Only a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister's people were telling journalists that Dr Singh had got fed up with being pushed around, he would now be his own man and move ahead on long-delayed reform measures. And indeed, he stood his ground against a rollback of the increase in petrol and diesel prices, despite his own party calling for it, and then announced the disinvestment programme that now lies in a shambles. The problem is not just with the freeze on all disinvestment, following the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's opposition to selling shares in Neyveli Lignite Corporation. There is also opposition from the Orissa Congress unit to the proposed sale of a minority stake in National Aluminium, and the Left's general opposition to all disinvestment. Then there is the protest orchestrated over inflation (a meeting of the Congress Working Committee, and then a conference of chief ministers, no less); the price rise may be politically sensitive because of the items affected but, at the end of the day, overall inflation is just 5.5 per cent. Why, even a spent force like Arjun Singh has been able to upstage the Prime Minister by announcing a reservation programme that Dr Singh had not expected and has tried hard to water down since.

Earlier this week the Prime Minister spoke of the reforms that are needed, and mentioned flexible labour laws""which of course his government has not been able to introduce. He also mentioned reform of the financial sector, even as he was announcing bank loan write-offs. In other words, the credibility that Dr Singh has had as a reformer is rapidly eroding, while it is noticeable that no one in his party speaks out in favour of the need for more reform. So, Dr Singh has taken refuge in foreign policy, with some success, and can take credit for preventing communal tensions, as well as for maintaining a high standard of personal probity (though he cannot claim the same for all his cabinet colleagues). But he has increasingly looked like a general without troops, an isolated man without a support base who is challenged frequently by his own ministerial colleagues.

Part of the problem is that the Congress has barely half the seats required for a majority in the Lok Sabha""and every UPA ally knows that. The rest of the problem is that the Congress feels the need to compete with the communists in opposing any government initiative that might give the Left a platform. This is an impossible situation for the head of a government to be in""and one of the conclusions that should be drawn is that the experiment with a nominated prime minister has not worked. Politics at the end of the day is about power and getting a mandate; Dr Singh has neither, beyond the broad base of goodwill and support that he enjoys among a section of the people, and the respect that he commands internationally. His fatal weakness is that he is not a natural player of the power game, and has not found a way to build on his strengths during two years of being at the nation's helm. Perhaps, he knows that he would not have been allowed to do that, so he never tried. Whatever the reason, it is clear that Dr Singh is a more diminished figure today than when he entered office, without much of an agenda left, other than what is given to him by others. So it is time he asked himself the tough question: Why am I here?