Pranab-Chidambaram duel reveals why they cannot lead

Political anthropologists should be able to tell us as to how a leader is chosen in a democracy, and they may look at the profile of person who is likely to emerge as the big boss.

The topic is of utmost importance in the wake of the just-concluded duel between Union finance minister Pranab Mukherjee and home minister P Chidambaram and the crisis it had spawned. The crisis has been resolved and there is a kind of patch-up, but no one is sure how long it will last. Many observers have tried to analyse the unseemly spat in terms of their distinct and even contrasting personalities. It is one way of looking at the issue.

The more important issue is that of frustrated ambition of two very talented and experienced people denied their just desserts and asked to play second fiddle, where leadership rewards go to people who do not have the same qualifications. It is not so difficult to make the case that in terms of political metier, Mukherjee and Chidambaram have an edge over prime minister Manmohan Singh. But the top post does not always go to the most deserving person. There are other aspects that are crucial for a leadership role. Singh wins points over the other two for those reasons.

A critical scrutiny would reveal that both Chidambaram and Mukherjee would lose out to Singh when it comes to be reckoned as a leader of a government, and that Singh not being a seasoned politician turns out to be an advantage. Mukherjee and Chidambaram attract a lot of rivalry not just between themselves but with the party at large because intelligent and talented people are not good at winning over less intelligent and less talented people, which is important in leading a party as well as a government.

Singh and Sonia Gandhi are less talented but they have the confidence of rank and file in the party and in government as well as that of the experienced and talented middle and top rung leaders. It is this ability not to antagonise people because of their genius that helps them. Not being a superior person is a virtue in a leader. Both Sonia and Singh require the help of the more intelligent and more talented Mukherjee and Chidambaram. It is when the superior talents are harnessed that a party and a government emerge winners. The Congress led by Sonia and the UPA led by Singh cannot function successfully without Mukherjee and Chidambaram, but they will not do well if the two are asked to lead the party or the government.

It is something like a cricket team. The captain need not be a genius as a batsman, bowler or fielder though he has to display minimal assuredness in all these departments. But it will be easier to lead more talented people than himself.

The leadership issue could have been settled in an open manner as well. The argument that many make against the Congress on the dynasty/family dominance issue can be laid to rest. The truth seems to be that a majority of Congress members will end up choosing a Sonia Gandhi over a Mukherjee or a Chidambaram. It would have been better if there was an open contest and the issue could have been settled in a transparent manner. Similarly, Singh or someone like him would have been a natural choice even if there was an election. Sonia and Singh do not intimidate people around them with their superior talents. So, blaming the dynasty is not an intelligent person’s way of analysing the Congress situation.

What the leader needs is not charisma, which will be useful if it is there, but a certain geniality to carry people along combined with the ability to trust other people with crucial work. Gandhi has shown it in the last 13 years as president of the Congress, and Singh seems to show it in his dealings with cabinet and government colleagues. It can be argued that his trust in Raja was a mistake. So the person at the top has to be a good, not great, manager, who will take a backseat and let talent bloom. No, this is not exactly backseat driving.

It would seem that leadership is for someone in the crowd who is able to like if not love the crowd. That eliminates the most intelligent people from the leadership race. Let us not then grumble too much about leaders who have nothing extraordinary to show for themselves. When they have time to think over matters, both Mukherjee and Chidambaram are likely to arrive at the same conclusion.