It is easy to be sceptical about Arjun Singh. In an interview given recently, the Congress veteran and Union HRD minister has lamented the lack, rather weakening, of inner party democracy in the Congress. Decision-making in the party has become less participatory, he says. It is easily pointed out that Singh is not exactly seen as the progressive face of the party — except by the more bigoted among the quotawallahs — and that in his tenure as HRD minister he has repeatedly given in to the same irresistible urge to control, which had so famously overtaken his predecessor Murli Manohar Joshi. In other words, Singh is an unlikely campaigner for democracy, inside the party or outside it. Yet, as he expresses his anxieties about the decision-making process in the Congress becoming less inclusive, he touches a shared raw nerve.

The dissonance is eye-catching. Political parties that do the work of democracy — by selecting candidates, mobilising electorates, formulating agendas and passing laws — remain internally undemocratic. There is no transparency about the ways in which they arrive at crucial decisions; the criteria they use are unclear or left to the discretion of one or a few leaders. But what is even more striking than the absence of democracy within party structures — with the notable exception of the Left parties, which can be accused of centralisation of power rather than its concentration — is the scant attention it habitually receives. Politicians and the people occasionally throw up schemes of constitutional reform. But they rarely acknowledge that many of the problems they are worried about — from the fragmentation of the party system and its ethnification, to the waning of accountability despite the high turnover of incumbents, to the declining quality of public deliberation, especially in Parliament — feed upon the same absence.

... contd.