Through the lens of elections

By M H Ahssan

Elections reflect the nature of our democracy. They show that ours may be the largest democracy in the world but it is not one that rests upon the public presentation of reasons.

Elections in India are like the game of cricket. Initially attention is focused on the process of selection, or more appropriately, nomination of the team members who will contest seats, and next on winning the game. As the date of elections comes close, media and political astrologers swing into action predicting the possible outcomes of the game. And when the day of reckoning dawns, everyone is fixed to the monitors seeing how each ball adds up and contributes to victory for one and loss for the other.

As is inevitable in any great spectacle what catches the eye and becomes the main subject of conversation are the activities of specific individuals — the political leaders and their key associates. Who is standing with whom, when and where, who stays away and who comes in wearing heels but not pink, become matters of continuous interpretation, leading to speculations about future alliances and break-ups. It is no different this time. Indeed, every evening the excitement builds up as possibilities of new alliances surface and old ones seem to fade away.

But what does this tell us about the nature of our democracy? The common lament — one that is expressed by the media and the analysts during election period — is that political parties indulge in personality targeting and shy away from raising ‘issues’. The reality, however, is that political parties get away with commenting on statements made by an individual because that is what we rush to them for.

There is also the question of what is meant by discussion of issues. Even a quick look at the campaign trails shows that political leaders speak of issues, but they are in the form of what was or was not accomplished. Election meetings resound with charges and countercharges; who provided housing and employment for the poor, who gave cheaper rice or waived loans; who stood by the minorities and who is firm in their resolve to fight terror.

So issues do get raised and punches are thrown at each other in staged media confrontations. What does not find space is a sustained debate about what would be the policies favoured by a political party on a specific issue — say, the environment or education or agricultural growth. As is the case everywhere, our country too faces challenges and there are concerns that citizens have about their security, housing, employment, the future of their children, to say the least. How would political parties deal with these issues? What are the differences between them on these matters? What are their priorities? If they were to initiate one project or policy on matters relating to environment, what would that be?

As a democracy we emphasise the importance of casting the vote, even though the vote becomes an asset only when the citizens are in a position to make informed choices. Informed choices, however, are not possible as we do not debate specific policies and alternatives on a given issue. It is not, therefore, surprising that people have no option but to choose among leaders, and, at the local level, the patron with some clout, whether that is family ties, wealth or simply terror.

The striking feature is that the media and the intelligentsia which never fails to lament the absence of serious discussion and debate in Parliament too is obsessed with comments on the day’s occurrences rather than an intensive debate on key areas of policy and decision making. It is almost as if everyone believes that policies must be left to specialists or that there are no significant differences between most political parties and irrespective of who comes to power existing policies would continue with few significant changes.

Elections thus reflect the nature of our democracy. They show that ours may be the largest democracy in the world but it is not one that rests upon the public presentation of reasons. While the thinking and practice of democracy is moving towards a public justification of judgements, actions planned and taken, we focus on reiterating and recounting what was or was not done. It is not reason but rhetoric and emotion that clinches discussions and shapes, by extension, the choices of the voters.

If the recent elections to the American Presidency captured the collective popular imagination it is because justifications were publicly given and sought for future policies, domestic and foreign, economic and social. We could vicariously participate in them because reason transcends national boundaries. So, even though arguments were presented before the American electorate we could all listen, reflect upon them and make an assessment on hearing both sides. It is not quite the same in India and political parties alone are not to blame for this. If we look at the past few weeks, particularly since the elections were announced, we are all, media, the intelligentsia and the middle classes, complicit in this.

The peculiarity also is that this apparent limitation, and perhaps even a weakness, of our democracy has yielded mixed results. If in the early period of coalition politics it made governments unstable and dependent entirely on individual caprice, in recent times it has facilitated the free (unburdened by past record) coming together of political parties in pre- and post-poll alliances. Since explanations offered for making and breaking of alliances are simply announced on public forums rather than justified in an open debate with another, actions are not constrained by reason. At a time when no one political party is able to win a simple majority in the Lok Sabha, this flexibility has been transformed into an asset, one that can be used to keep the government in office for a full term.

Political opportunism, crossing over for individual gains and positions, sloganeering and walkouts are not simply symptoms of the gradual erosion of our democracy. They are a direct consequence of the nature of our democracy — one that is laid bare before us during the period of election. So long as we are busy tallying votes, predicting results and receiving press briefings from selectors, coaches or captains, we are unlikely to see the many ways in which we are ourselves implicated in giving this form to our democracy.