Free and fair elections are important in a democracy, as much as winning and losing elections are in the life of a politician. But what do elections mean for the common man apart from having the day-off? Simply put, does the public ever win in a democratic set-up?
John Lyly said that all is fair in love and war. Today, elections are fought like wars (from war of words, money to free-bees) all parties promising love, sometimes cash too in return. Does it mean that being unfair before and not delivering their promises after elections is fair?
In a democratic set-up like India, the public express their voice and choice on the ballot paper at both state and centre once in five years. Some of those choices are made out of anger against the ruling government and decisively made to fight corruption and bring in parties that promise development to power.
The psephologist, who predict election outcomes and the news anchors and opinion makers who analyze and categorize victories as anti-incumbency, caste-led, sympathy driven, development focused, etc. forget to study why despite a strong verdict the public never wins in an election?
The Election Commission of India spent 3 billions rupees (300 crores) of taxpayers money to conduct the recent elections. Today, election results have been declared for the Bihar state assembly and the people have overwhelmingly voted for Nitish-Lalu alliance that have separately ruled and drained the state in the last two decades. Let's not forget that the former Chief Minister Lalu Prasad was convicted in a fodder scam and has been barred from contesting in elections. If Nitish's hat-trick victory is analyzed alongside the development in Bihar in the last 15 years, I find the choice and ambition of the people working against each other.
Bihar, was a centre of power, learning, and culture in ancient India. With a literacy rate of 63.82%, Bihar now ranks lowest among all the states of India. The failure to transit from a feudal based economy to a market oriented economy created unemployment and lawlessness. As a result, both educated and uneducated have migrated out of the state to make a living, and those living in it continue to wither in penury. In the recent elections, only 56.8% have exercised their franchise of which many of them support an known devil (Nitish) than an unknown angel. But isn't that suicidal?
Pondering over the electoral choice, I asked myself if people benefit more from electing a ruling party at the state which is different from the one at the center? While Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat for a decade, the ruling party at the center was the UPA, but despite very little support from the center, Modi managed to make Gujarat an attractive destination for investors thereby providing employment, making the state power surplus, and building infrastructure conducive for trade and development of the economy.
On the other hand in Tamil Nadu between 2006-11, the DMK in alliance with the UPA drained the coffers, failed to bring about development, turned the state dark (power crisis) and also their ministers were caught in one of India's largest scams, the 2G, worth billions of rupees.
The anti-incumbency wave brought back AIADMK to power in the subsequent elections in 2011, while the UPA was still in power at the Center. In the last 5 years, AIADMK constantly at loggerheads with the center, failed to bring about any development and improve water and power situation in the state. While welfare schemes like Amma brand water, pharmacies, movie halls, canteens, cement, etc. only emptied that coffers being filled through selling liquor. Today, 30% of women in Tamil Nadu have turned into alcoholics. The state has ruined many families, broken marriages, ruined peace at homes thereby changing the fate of an entire generation by promoting alcohol.
Policy paralysis, parliament log-jam and opposition parties not engaging in fruitful discussion has ruined the future of this country. The 15th Lok Sabha, with UPA II government, was the crowning glory of the BJP in disruption of the Parliament - at 61 percent, its productive time was the worst in Indian legislative history. During the same period, the record for Rajya Sabha was equally dismal - 66 percent. Compared to 297 bills during the 13th Lok Sabha, when the BJP-led NDA was in power and Congress in opposition, the UPA II could pass only 179 out of its planned 328 bills. Several serious pieces of legislation such as Women’s Reservation Bill, Direct Taxes Code, Micro Finance Bill, Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill and the Bill enabling the introduction of Goods and Services Tax just lapsed. What was more tragic was that 60 per cent of the question time was wasted by the BJP-led acrimony. (Source First Post: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/parliament-logjam-can-congress-beat-bjps-record-of-disruption-2361104.html)
While UPA was in power parliament disruption was an every day affair sponsored by the opposition, and now with BJP back in power the UPA is returning its blows with a vengeance. Is this how the parliament and parties function and engage in a democratic set-up?
Isn't it suicidal to make a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea or vote out of sheer compulsion? Six more months to caste my vote in the Tamil Nadu state elections, I again ask the same question in the first paragraph, does the public ever win in a democratic set-up?
There is no simple answer to that question. People can win probably in a direct democracy like that of in Swiss. The problem is that most people do not analyze the policy implications of the parties/leaders before voting. First, they go by who satisfy their immediate needs like freebies. Second, they vote for the ones they associate with in terms of caste etc. The third and the most dangerous ones are those that sit out of the elections because they didn't get the whole of what they wanted. The third group empowers the first two groups a lot more than what they really are.
ReplyDelete