top of page

By:

Akhilesh Sinha

25 June 2025 at 2:53:54 pm

From Ideology to Electability

BJP is blending ideology with pragmatism, elevating leaders from rival parties to power New Delhi: The growing tendency of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to elevate leaders from other parties to the position of Chief Minister represents a shift, one that reflects not only a recalibration of the party's strategy but also the evolving character of Indian politics itself. Once known primarily as a cadre-based party anchored firmly in ideological commitment, the BJP has entered a phase where...

From Ideology to Electability

BJP is blending ideology with pragmatism, elevating leaders from rival parties to power New Delhi: The growing tendency of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to elevate leaders from other parties to the position of Chief Minister represents a shift, one that reflects not only a recalibration of the party's strategy but also the evolving character of Indian politics itself. Once known primarily as a cadre-based party anchored firmly in ideological commitment, the BJP has entered a phase where political pragmatism is accorded equal importance alongside ideology. The clearest evidence of this transformation lies in the rising number of leaders who, after crossing over from other parties, have not only found space within the BJP but have gone on to occupy the highest offices of power. Names such as Basavaraj Bommai in Karnataka, Himanta Biswa Sarma in Assam, and most recently Samrat Choudhary in Bihar have come to embody this trend. Each of these leaders had prior political affiliations outside the BJP, yet after joining the party, their stature and responsibilities have grown significantly. This is not an ad hoc development, but the outcome of a carefully crafted, multi-layered strategy. At the heart of this strategy lies a decisive emphasis on "winning ability." The BJP is no longer determining leadership solely on the basis of ideological loyalty, instead, it is prioritising individuals who possess electoral appeal, grassroots influence, and the capacity to navigate complex social equations. This explains why Himanta Biswa Sarma rose swiftly within the BJP to become Chief Minister and one of the party's most influential figures in the Northeast, who spent nearly two decades in the Congress. Similarly, leaders like Pema Khandu in Arunachal Pradesh, N. Biren Singh in Manipur, and Manik Saha in Tripura underscore the party's willingness to rely on strong local faces to expand its footprint in the Northeast, even if those leaders once belonged to the Congress. In Uttar Pradesh, the elevation of Brajesh Pathak, a former Bahujan Samaj Party leader, to the post of Deputy Chief Minister reflects a similar attempt to balance social equations. Key Driver One key driver of this approach is the relative absence of strong indigenous leadership in several states. In regions where the BJP historically lacked widely accepted local faces, turning to experienced leaders from other parties has proven to be a pragmatic solution. This marks a shift away from ideological rigidity toward an acceptance of political realities. A second critical factor is the need to manage caste and regional equations. Social structures continue to play a decisive role in Indian elections, and political success often hinges on aligning with these dynamics. In Bihar, the elevation of Samrat Choudhary is widely seen as an attempt to consolidate OBC/Kurmi support, while in Karnataka, Basavaraj Bommai's leadership aligns with the influence of the Lingayat community. The third dimension of this strategy is the systematic weakening of the opposition. By inducting influential leaders from rival parties and assigning them significant roles, the BJP not only strengthens its own ranks but also erodes the organizational capacity of its competitors. The induction of leaders such as Jyotiraditya Scindia, Narayan Rane, R. P. N. Singh, and Jitin Prasada, all of whom have been entrusted with key responsibilities in government and party structures, illustrates this approach. Two Levels The BJP's model now appears to function on two distinct levels: a strong and centralized leadership at the top, and influential local faces at the state level. Under the leadership of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, the central command remains cohesive and firmly in control, while states are led by individuals capable of delivering electoral victories, irrespective of their political past. The rise of Suvendu Adhikari in West Bengal further exemplifies this strategy. Once a close aide of Mamata Banerjee, Adhikari is now one of the BJP's principal faces in the state, forming a cornerstone of the party's expansion efforts. The message is unmistakable clear that the opportunities within the BJP are no longer confined to its traditional cadre. Any leader with mass appeal and capability can aspire to the top. This shift also reflects the party's organisational confidence. The BJP believes its institutional structure is robust enough to quickly integrate leaders from outside and align them with its broader objectives. This has enabled a blend of ideological flexibility and political pragmatism. That said, the strategy is not without its internal contradictions. For long-time party workers, the rapid rise of leaders from outside may send mixed signals, potentially creating tensions within the cadre. Managing this balance will be a critical test for the party in the years ahead. Even so, in a broader sense, the BJP's approach represents a fusion of ideology and pragmatism. Its goals are clear that secure electoral victories, expand rapidly into new regions, and systematically weaken the opposition.

Indonesia’s Protests: Perks, Politics, and Public Anger

For many Indonesians, trust in the state depends on visible outcomes—prosecutions, discipline, and policing reforms.

Indonesia has a long history of protests, with recent demonstrations and violence erupting in major cities. The death of a young motorbike rider highlights the human cost of civic unrest. Beyond the immediate trigger, the turmoil raises deeper questions about accountability, governance, and economic fairness in one of the world’s largest democracies.


The unrest was sparked when details of MPs’ housing, travel, and other perks spread on social media, fuelling anger over rising living costs. Protests began in Jakarta and spread to other cities. Tensions rose after a 21-year-old motorbike rider was killed in a police collision during a rally. In some places, protesters torched government offices; in Makassar, three people died in one blaze. Parliament has since suspended overseas travel for MPs and promised to review allowances. The government has tightened security and opened enquiries into both the perks scandal and the fatality.


President Prabowo Subianto took office with a strong mandate and a platform of stability and development, yet his leadership is scrutinised for authoritarian tendencies linked to his military past. Parliament’s fragmented party system demands constant deal-making, with allowance controversies seen as part of wider “money politics”. Civil society, students, and media remain active but struggle to hold power to account. Though the post-1998 Reformasi opened democratic space, weak institutions leave public trust fragile when scandals erupt.

The police response has drawn scrutiny, with past protests marred by excessive force. Oversight bodies have opened enquiries into the fatality and misconduct, but credibility rests on transparent follow-through. For many Indonesians, trust in the state depends on visible outcomes—prosecutions, discipline, and policing reforms. Without them, faith in the rule of law will erode further.


Economic backdrop

Economic pressures have fuelled public anger. Despite five per cent growth, many Indonesians struggle with insecure livelihoods. Youth underemployment is high, and urban workers often depend on gig or informal jobs. The gap between headline growth and household security drives perceptions of unfairness.


Markets reflect this tension, with the rupiah and equities volatile as investors weigh governance risks. Institutional credibility thus matters not only domestically but also for investment and long-term growth.


The latest protests follow a long pattern. The 1998 Reformasi ended authoritarian rule and entrenched protest as a legitimate channel. Since then, student and labour groups have mobilised against corruption, fuel hikes, and legislative reforms. Protests in 2019 and 2020 showed how grievances can rapidly converge. With slow or opaque institutions, the streets remain vital for accountability—both a pressure valve and a signal of gaps in representation.


Protests touch all levels of society. The presidency must balance public anger with stability, while parliament manages divisions and reputational damage from the benefits scandal. Police and the military face contested roles in handling unrest. Student groups, unions, professional bodies, and faith networks lend protests organisation and moral weight. Businesses and investors watch stability closely, as it shapes decisions. Digital platforms amplify mobilisation and frame narratives, influencing opinion at home and abroad.


Regional and global significance

Indonesia’s importance extends beyond its borders. As a G20 member, ASEAN’s largest economy, and a hub in global supply chains and maritime routes, its domestic governance signals resonate internationally. Partners and investors observe Jakarta’s handling of dissent as an indicator of stability, continuity of policy, and respect for civil liberties. Effective crisis management enhances Indonesia’s reputation as a reliable regional anchor. Conversely, heavy handed responses risk raising concerns about political risk and governance credibility.


Scenarios and indicators to watch

Three broad scenarios are possible. A reform track would involve credible investigations, concrete ethics reforms in parliament, and structured engagement with civil society. A muddle-through path would involve symbolic concessions that ease tensions temporarily but leave structural issues unresolved, leading to periodic flare-ups. A hardline reflex, meanwhile, would rely on securitised responses, risking deeper alienation and long term instability. Key indicators to monitor include outcomes of investigations, whether legislative reform on remuneration and disclosure is enacted, changes in rules of engagement for security forces, signals from coalition negotiations, and clarity in government economic communication.


At the heart of the protests lies a simple question: Do political rules align with the public’s expectations of fairness? Indonesia’s democratic test is to convert promises of accountability into enforceable standards that citizens can trust. If visible reforms follow, the unrest could strengthen institutions and reinforce the credibility of the system. If not, the same pressures will resurface, ensuring that public discontent remains a recurring feature of Indonesia’s political landscape.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page