The Congress party in Karnataka is struggling to keep its house in order. Despite public proclamations of unity and reassurances from senior leadership, the party is being buffeted by growing undercurrents of dissent, factional rivalry, and the slow unravelling of a leadership pact that now appears to be more political myth than a roadmap. At the centre of the un rest is the uneasy cohabitation between Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his deputy, D.K. Shivakumar.

What began as a power-sharing compromise following the party’s electoral victory has evolved into a tug-of-war marked by veiled accusations, open defiance, and increasingly shrill calls for change. The promise that Mr Shivakumar would take over midway through the term has remained conveniently ambiguous, fuelling both his aspirations and the resentment of those loyal to Mr Siddaramaiah. The official line ~ that there is no discu – ssion of a leadership change ~ is less a position than a plea for discipline. When party emissaries like Randeep Surjewala appeal to legislators not to “settle scores” in the media, it is clear that the party is fire-fighting, not lea ding.

Advertisement

The metaphor of the Pradesh Congress president as the “head of the family” and the chief minister as the “head of government” only underscores the divided loyalties and blurred lines of authority within the Congress camp. Yet the disorder cannot be attributed solely to personal ambition. MLAs are voicing serious concerns ~ over unresponsive ministers, inaccessible bureaucracy, and a lack of development funds. These grie vances are not imaginary, nor are they limited to one faction. The public airing of dissatisfaction is not merely a leadership crisis; it reflects deeper structural dysfunction in governance and political messaging. The leadership’s hesitation has also exposed the limits of moral authority within the party.

What was once managed by deference to elders is now slipping into a pattern where only formal positions seem to command conditional loyalty. The persistent talk of a mid-term switch has become a distraction, reducing governance to a waiting game and transforming internal party strategy into a public spectacle of ambition and entitlement. What makes the situation particularly combustible is the lack of transparency from the high command. The party’s top brass continues to rely on silence and sym – bo lism, rather than offering a clear direction. This vacuum invites speculation, emboldens dissenters, and deepens mistrust between rival camps. The Congress in Karnataka has only itself to blame for institutionalising uncertainty.

It created a dual leadership formula without building mechanisms for power transition or role clarity. By delaying difficult decisions, it has allowed internal fault lines to widen ~ potentially jeopardising its prospects for 2028. A short-term truce may still be possible, but the long-term stability of the government will depend on political maturity, not rhetorical rest – raint. If the party fails to assert control, it risks eroding its public mandate and reviving old images of a Congr – ess that cannot govern itself, let alone the state.