Mani Shankar Aiyar writes approvingly of Prashant Kishore's ideas for reviving Congress. Unfortunately, he doesn't get that Congress needs a Manager, not a Consultant. If PK were running Congress, factionalism and intrigue would fall because there would be confidence that decisions were being made on an objective basis and with the goal of winning elections, forming governments and presenting a united front to defeat anti-incumbency.
It is certainly unusual for consultants to wish to become executives.
Consultants can 'head hunt' executives capable of implementing the new business plan. There is no reason why a consultant might not be on such a list- if the market has confidence in him.
I doubt that McKinsey or Boston Consulting Group or Ernst & Young have ever suggested that they get co opted to the board to ensure that their recommendations are carried out.
Having been a McKinsey consultant greatly increases your chances of becoming a CEO. Indeed McKinsey has been called a CEO factory. Plenty of Accountancy firms supply CFOs to their clients some of whom may become CEOs.
That is for the company who hired them to make up their minds.
If it has a mind.
I suspect that some PK recommendations will eventually be accepted and some not; sometimes, the recommendations accepted would be those that really matter; sometimes, it is only the fringe suggestions that would find acceptance.
In other words, Congress will continue to do stupid shit.
PK has brushed aside all nonsense of running the Congress without the Gandhis.
So, this is a family firm. But the family can step back to ceremonial roles while a professional is brought in as CEO. Had PK been that CEO, Congress would have gained credibility. As things stand, talented people continue to leave the party.
He has suggested alternative scenarios of the role the Gandhis may play but in each of them, he has ensured that the Gandhi triumvirate is accommodated in the highest positions.
Ceremonial positions.
This will displease the armies of Gandhi-baiters but will resonate with the Congress rank-and-file as the family is built into their DNA.
But defection is even more strongly built into their DNA.
Among those whose DNA is not so constructed are to be found the defectors and potential defectors,
i.e. people who, conceivably, some other party might want or those who have the gumption to form their own party.
but for those who do not abandon ship even at this critical juncture, there is the deep and abiding conviction that it is the Gandhis who together constitute the glue, or the bonding adhesive, that keeps the party together and gives it an all-India profile.
Sadly, Rahul is so utterly incompetent that all over India, Congress candidates have got a bad name. Moreover, factional intrigue within the party, fostered by Rahul, brings down even those leaders who attracted votes off their own bat.
They are, of course, aware of the dire straits in which the Congress finds itself at present but are each persuaded that our condition would be even worse but for the pervasive presence of the mother and the siblings in the party leadership. Recognition of this is one major merit of the PK proposals.
This is foolish. It was obvious that either the dynasty would hire PK to run things or else they'd muddle along as usual. Their instinct is correct. PK is young. If he gets his feet under the table, Rahul will be cut off from the type of sycophancy and intrigue which he enjoys. Priyanka will have to take a back seat so her son's career can develop. The fact is she has proved useless in UP. Sonia can finally retire.
The other major merit is that his proposals open the doors for elected leaders to occupy key positions from which to guide the party out of the shoals.
But those 'elected leaders' will use the cachet they gain thereby to jump a sinking ship.
That is what G-23 mean by “collective leadership”. Instead of a group of favourites constituting a non-transparent coterie around the leader,
which is the essence of dynastic rule
PK’s proposals give various alternatives that would ensure the presence of elected and, therefore, “representative” and “responsible” voices in the deliberations of the key policy and organisational bodies of the Congress. (These two phrases are not PK’s but Rajiv Gandhi’s in the context of Panchayati Raj).
This would create the familiar problem of a tussle between the 'rank and file' members (some of whom would be 'entryists' representing extreme ideologies) and caucus of elected or electable legislators from the Party. The BJP benefits from having the RSS behind it. This limits the scope for factionalism and intrigue. Had PK taken over the management of Congress, people would have had confidence that sensible decisions would be made and that the party would become electable, be able to form stable governments and even defeat anti-incumbency.
To my mind, the most persuasive of these is the proposal that Priyanka Vadra be made the general secretary in charge of coordination.
This is a terrible idea. Coordination must be an executive function. Put her in charge of the women's wing or something of that sort while ensuring she gets enough TV time to build a fan base- as she is well qualified to do.
While this may cause some heartburn to the current and any aspiring general secretary (organisation), I would reckon hard decisions emanating from Priyanka after due consideration and debate on controversial issues would carry wider sanction within the party than from other sources.
Unless it was PK or some other guy known to be smart and focused on winning elections
This is essential to keep the party together.
The party can afford to lose senile fools like Aiyar. It can't afford to keep losing elections and getting wiped out in State after State.
The crux of my argument is that PK has given the party a great deal of hard data and many suggestions on which to collectively reflect.
Did it really not have access to this before?
Those points remain on the table, with it being open to wiser heads to give their own presentations. There is nothing “take-it-or-leave it” about PK’s proposals
which is why they are useless. I suppose PK wanted to leave himself an escape hatch.
— even if the man’s personality and personal attitudes give the impression of a know-it-all
There are other good consultants but PK has made himself a brand.
who would be rebuffed if anything were changed. However, by suggesting alternative scenarios at every turning, the proposals, in themselves, leave it to the party to pick the preferred route or even to explore yet other alternatives.
moving deckchairs on the Titanic is never a good idea.
What is important is not each particular but preserving the integrity of the perceptions and predictions that inform the PK narrative. They are less rigid and self-assured than the proposer might be personally.
So, they are useless but PK's brand hasn't been dented. Moreover, he has kept the door open for 'repeat business'. Smart.
No comments:
Post a Comment