There has yet not emerged a scriptwriter who could improve on the Samajwadi Party soap opera that is playing out in real life as well as on television screens for the past month. Although the feud has come into public view only recently, tension between Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and much of the old guard in his party has been ongoing almost from the start of his term in office. To be effective, a Chief Minister needs freedom to choose his team and to take policy decisions. Akhilesh Yadav was severely circumscribed on both these fronts, having to accept several individuals he did not approve of within his council of ministers as well as in the Samajwadi Party organisation. These individuals refused to accept the UP CM as their boss, and instead either acted on their own or followed the directions of Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav. This was similar to what was witnessed within the United Progressive Alliance during 2004-14, when Sonia Gandhi was in effect the Reporting Authority for ministers in what was nominally the “Manmohan Cabinet”. Some of the ministers made the absence of real power of the Prime Minister obvious, as for example when the senior Congress leader who was Union Minister for Finance, Pranab Mukherjee, declined to share details of his budget proposals with the Prime Minister well in advance, in what was probably a first in the history of governance in post-1947 India. The budgets presented by Pranab Mukherjee were very much his own budgets, unlike in the case of several others over the decades, when the PM at the time had substantial and often final say over budget proposals. Certainly in the case of Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi, there can be no doubt that he is in full command of his government, and is very much in the loop whenever important decisions get taken by key ministers. This is as it should be. A Prime Minister or a Chief Minister should have full control over policy to be effective.
The lack of such complete authority was responsible for several of the missteps made by the UP government over the past five years. However, what cannot be doubted is the fact that Akhilesh Yadav has emerged as a capable administrator with promise for the future in a state that has been lacking good governance for a long while. However, to ensure that he fulfills his potential, it will be necessary for Akhilesh Yadav to ensure that the Samajwadi Party responds to his commands and views, and these are not stymied by those who are his political and personal rivals. Clearly, politicians such as Shivpal Yadav represent a past that has not always acquitted itself. In particular, the Samajwadi Party had a reputation for being slack in matters of law and order, and this has largely continued during the term of the present Chief Minister despite his aspirations for a better show.
Hopefully, patriarch Mulayam Singh Yadav will appreciate the need to escape from the pull of the past and hitch his party to a future where voters look beyond caste and community considerations and decide on the basis of performance in indices of governance and development. Unless the party escapes from the past and positions itself as a party of good governance in a manner not seen thus far, its future will be dim. With all his faults, Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav represents the future and his uncle Shivpal Yadav the past. The choice for the leadership and cadres of the Samajwadi Party is clear, although the vicissitudes of politics in India may make such a soft landing from the party’s current troubles difficult, if not impossible.