EXCLUSIVE In keeping with the good old Indian tradition of arriving late, BJP finally did it. After getting panned for not even having a manifesto, the party touted to be the winner of these elections, has a manifesto.
People were already making it an issue as if voters cared about promises made on a piece of paper. In the current electoral and political system, manifestos are not worth the paper they are printed on.
That BJP doesn't believe in it has been evident in their casual demeanour about it. When taunted for the inordinate delay, BJP leaders have gone on record saying Narendra Modi's vision statement and his speeches were essentially the BJP's manifesto. Their man is the message.
The new D.K. Barooahs haven't graduated to Modi is India, India is Modi stage, but they have firmly crossed the line of Modi is BJP and BJP is Modi. So is this personality-centric politics evil? After all, we are a democracy based on the British system and not the presidential system of the US of A.
In our system, at least in theory, elected representatives elect their leader who becomes the prime minister. This is the fig leaf used by parties when they cannot agree on a leader before elections. Sometimes by those who agree on one, but do not want to announce it.
So do people vote for/against issues or they vote for people?
Evidently, people vote for their candidates because that is who they vote for. In our system, people don't elect the prime minister, they elect their representative. That representative's election has changed its character over the years. They were supposed to be legislators, who could make laws on behalf of their people.
Then the people expected them to solve their local problems in lieu of the vote. They did not have the mandate, nor did they have the resources to do that. After all, MPs' job was to speak in parliament and together be the voice of the nation. Under pressure to perform in their constituency, the Centre invented the MPLAD (MP local area fund).
Now they can spend as much as Rs.5 crore annually, doing what the state governments and the municipal authorities are mandated to do. In one stroke and on their own demand, MPs became municipal officers. With new confidence, they began taking their work in parliament a lot lightly than before. Legislation has taken a back seat, development is the buzzword. It reflects in parliament's sessions where very few MPs now care about legislation.
That turns the parliamentary democracy on its head. But much before that happened, Indians have voted for a leader they pinned their hopes on. Congress won many elections and lost one based on one personality: Indira Gandhi. In fact, Rajiv Gandhi rode a sympathy wave because Indira was lost to terrorism.
V.P. Singh may not be of the same calibre but the truth is the 1989 election too was a personality clash. BJP did not shy away from naming Atal Bihari Vajpayee as its face and what others called a mask in two successive elections it successfully won.
It's true that the charismatic L.K. Advani fought and lost the battle in 2009 to a faceless Manmohan Singh, but that did not halt, only slowed down, our parliamentary system acquiring the character of a presidential system-like election. This time, the Congress has all but named Rahul Gandhi its PM candidate.
There's nothing official about it. Modi and the cult built around him has firmly changed the game. The regional satraps of the so-called federal front may not have a consensus candidate but in their fiefs they are as personality-driven as it gets.
It's time we dropped this charade of parliamentarians choosing their leader. Leaders are chosen before the battle, not after it. They win, they lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment