Any citizens? democracy is ultimately about electing governments, about holding political leaders accountable through the ballot box. The year 2008 saw a remarkable electoral process, and outcome, in the world?s oldest democracy?the US. The next story in this section focuses on that unique election and how it drew any more people into the electoral process. This year, some time in April-May 2009, the people of India, the world’s largest democracy will elect a new Union government.
Traditionally, at least over the last two decades, turnout in most general elections and assembly polls has been average, usually between 50-60%. In general, turnouts tend to be higher in poorer, rural areas than in affluent urban areas. And the overwhelming voting trend has been towards anti-incumbency?the voter has booted out the party in power. Think of the general elections since 1989. The only one which returned an incumbent to power was the one in 1999. But that was arguably a special case?the incumbent NDA government led by Atal Behari Vajpyaee had served only a little more than a year in office when it lost a vote of confidence in Parliament by just one vote. The period between the fall of government and the general election witnessed the Kargil War, around which the country united behind the incumbent government.
It is fair to say that at the national level, over the last two decades voters have expressed dissatisfaction over incumbents and voted them out. Something similar happened at the state level too, but with some notable exceptions?in West Bengal, Gujarat and now Delhi, incumbent parties have won more than two consecutive terms. Admittedly, some governments like, for example, Digvijay Singh?s Congress government in MP and Navin Patnaik?s BJD-BJP coalition government in Orissa had/have won two terms in a row. But these were the exceptions rather than the rule.
The recent set of assembly elections in Delhi, MP, Chhatisgarh and Rajasthan may have changed things and may hold important lessons for the polls in 2009. Citizen voters are now willing to vote back governments which they perceive as competent and honest. In an unprecedented result, three states?Delhi, MP and Chhatisgarh?voted back incumbents, and even in Rajasthan the incumbent hardly faced a rout despite a lot of internal fighting in the ruling Rajasthan BJP. Political parties, particularly those sitting in opposition need to learn, that from 2009, they will need to have a bigger agenda than simply anti-incumbency if they want to win an election. Similarly, governments in power at the Centre and States need to realise that if they govern well, people will vote for them. That said, it is harder for governments at the Centre to prove a point, largely because many of the bijli-sadak-pani issues are implemented at a state level. General elections in recent times have tended to be an amalgamation of local results, based on local issues. That isn?t surprising in a politics where regional and local parties occupy almost half the seats in Parliament with the two major national parties?Congress and BJP?splitting the other half. Still, since the ruling governments at the centre now consist of a large number of regional/caste-based parties, their performance at the Centre must be judged by the people of their states. At any rate the continued fracturing of the polity while hampering decision making at one level, may have strengthened the forces of accountability and checks and balances in the system.
Perhaps the most heartening aspect of citizens?democracy at the fag end of 2008 going into 2009 was the election in J&K. The near 60% turnout was a victory for the ordinary citizens of J&K who defied boycotts and threats of violence to exercise their franchise. The next government, a NC-Congress coalition led by the 38-year old Omar Abdullah has a huge responsibility to carry out the citizens? mandate in J&K. There is now an opportunity to make a decisive turn in Kashmir, starting 2009. Even if relations with Pakistan remain strained, there is scope for the Indian government to talk to different groups in Kashmir. People have clearly indicated their desire for normalcy. Politicians of the mainstream and beyond must now respond.
Away from electoral politics, there was a second aspect of citizens? democracy towards the end of 2008 which will remain a burning issue as we begin 2009. And that manifested itself in the outpouring of public anger in the aftermath of the audacious and dastardly Mumbai terrorist attacks. That much of the anger was vented by the usually apathetic middle/upper middle classes is noteworthy. Of course, many commentators argued that this was simply because places like the Taj and Oberoi, normally safe havens of the affluent had been hit. While that may have some truth to it, the engagement of a wider section of civil society into matters of security and policy is without doubt a pathway to the deepening of democracy.
Unfortunately, a lot of the anger has been disorganised, incoherent and often na?ve and dangerous. In the absence of other institutional channels?civil society in India hasn?t yet learnt the art of engaging with politics?most of the anger was vented through the media, mostly television. Various citizen groups against terror have been formed and are holding forth on a range of issues. The problem is that many of these groups and people still remain disengaged from the political process and government. They are very much in the mould of other virulently anti-establishment civil society groups, which in many circumstances do play a constructive role in holding government accountable. However, security can only be run by the government, not vigilante citizens. So a more appropriate response from civil society groups in this context would be to try and influence government for the better, not disengage from it.
Some of the anger, which continues to be felt and expressed in the New Year has also turned to jingoism and into shrill cries for war. That is unfortunate, especially if it takes the focus away from the failures of our own intelligence and security apparatus. As citizens, we must first focus on setting our own house in order. Civil society has a crucial role to play in this. May they use the start of 2009 to direct their anger better and influence public policy, particularly on internal security. Given their success in other walks of life, the new civil society can and must do better.
