Rahul Gandhi, the leader of Congress, seemingly mirrors America’s excessively liberal culture through his ‘shop of love’; a philosophy that boils down the fight for democracy to simply opposing a dictator. This seems derivative of the admitted failure the Democrats demonstrate in dealing with a recurrent conservative orientation and charismatic right-wing leaders. The triumphant return of Donald Trump serves as a poignant revelation not only for American Democrats but also for political participants worldwide who are trying to control the escalating trend towards conservative politics.
Trump’s victory in both the electoral college and the popular vote signified the disconnect between the concerns of political theorists and the actual desires of the population. Apparently, the masses are not as appalled by autocratic tendencies as the so-called defenders of democracy; they are more interested in a narrative that promises them a secure future and the safeguarding of their interests.
The promise from Trump to revive the manufacturing industry provided a glimmer of hope to many. Combining his commitment to refocus on domestic issues, such as ‘porous borders’ leading to an influx of ‘criminals’ allegedly taking their jobs, the American people felt their interests were looked after. This case of prioritizing national interests was a sharp contrast to Kamala Harris’s misfire of a campaign.
Democratic candidate Kamala Harris made the protection of democracy her battle cry, but it only succeeded in exacerbating the suspicion that she had ‘fallen awake’, taking on extreme positions on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Regrettably, her progressive strategy was broadly rebuffed, essentially serving as an unsuccessful attempt at counteracting Trump’s populist appeal.
Reflecting on India, Gandhi’s ‘shop of love’ manifesto, akin to America’s overbearing liberal culture, reduces the argument for democracy to merely opposing an authoritative figure. However, for the poor and the marginalized, democratic government is less about fighting an authoritarian regime, and more about immediate redress of their economic grievances.
A classic instance is the farmers’ movement, a manifest opposition against a despotic government. But the poor remained loyal to the Prime Minister, swayed by broad-spectrum economic incentives from the government, demonstrating the critical balance between ideological opposition and economic realities.
Trump pledged to disrupt an existing order afflicted by ‘fleeing jobs’, ‘critical race theory’, and excessive immigration with his MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement. This promise to overhaul the system played well in contrast to flag-waving liberalism signified by anti-Trumpism, perceived as pandering to foreign interests at the expense of white Americans.
Similarly, anti-Modism in India is seen as Congress’ disconnect with dealing with Hindu majority’s interests at the forefront. The pragmatic strategy would be to engage the electorate with a compelling narrative while avoiding the areas sensitive to the general population.
Taking a cue from this, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has a clear approach. Instead of touting his ambition to defeat anyone, he stresses wanting the nation to triumph. This realignment with the people’s aspirations, rather than a combative approach, seems a more promising strategy.
A vibrant, alternate vision for the country should ideally be born from the people’s expectations. However, Congress seems to constantly err in its continued chastisement of big businesses, failing to consider the aspirations of an increasingly cosmopolitan Indian demographic, as well as the tiers below.
The younger generation in India is of the belief that for the country to grow, a crucial role needs to be played by businessmen who generate wealth and create jobs. They crave a coherent plan that will propel India’s growth, something the Congress utterly fails to offer.
The masses want to get seduced by a dream, not just to receive aid; projects like MAGA and Achhe Din satisfy this. Whereas the caste census only resonates positively with the Other Backward Classes, predominantly constricting Congress’ capacity to empathize and engage with diverse demographics.
The contemporary desire for a powerful and confident prime minister, entrusted with enhancing India’s global standing, is largely endorsed by the majority of voters. However, Congress’s over-dependence on regional parties, that deny it a primary role and lack an effective geopolitical strategy, undermines its appeal.
For the Congress party, demonstrating leadership should be a top priority. This entails taking the responsibility of handling national security and India’s international objectives, aligning with parties that respect its leading role, or opting to remain in the opposition. Such a firm stance would suggest a commitment to the people’s and India’s interests, rather than a simple hunger for authority.
The potential allies are unlikely to vanish—they need the Congress party as much as it requires them. However, before allies and the public can trust Congress’s leadership, the party itself needs to exhibit compelling control over its direction.
In summary, the trajectory of politics across the world, especially in relation to the rise of the right, is an important lesson for the Congress party. It needs to redefine its strategies, align its vision with the real expectations of people, and, most importantly, demonstrate robust leadership.