The great excitement of the forthcoming elections stems from their intractable contingency. Seldom has there been an election whose outcome is so difficult to even think about, let alone predict. The outcome will depend on so many local factors: the structure of alliances, the candidates selected the energy of the local organisation. The depth and dignity of Indian?s democracy can be gauged by the fact that the question, who governs has become almost impossible to answer.
This election is taking place against the backdrop of tectonic changes in the world: an economic slowdown, and an unprecedented security crisis in the neighbourhood. But that is precisely the disquiet: none of the big issues of the day seem to be registering in the political process with any degree of force. Is it because voters are content?
At one level everyone has been doled out something: Farmers have benefitted from agriculture growth, the middle class from the sixth pay commission; the NREGA has provided a cushion in rural consumption. So despite all the hand wringing over Mumbai, we are all quite complacently perched. Or is it because politics is simply not picking out our anxieties?
Part of the difficulty is due to fact that none of the big issue easily map onto political parties. Security issues do not obviously favour the BJP any more than economic issues favour the Congress. The secular communal divide often runs within the political parties than between them. The leadership of each party is stable enough to give it an identity, but not compelling enough to command national presence. The character of alliances is shifting and open ended. The levels of hate speech across parties are breaking new ground, suggesting a real vacuum of authority, so all lines of what can be thought and said are easily breached. But the most important fact is that, as one commentator wryly described it, this is a collection of several state level Lok Sabha elections. One does not have to be a supporter of two party systems, or even singly party dominance to wonder what this fragmentation represents. What crisis does it portend?
Crisis of national purpose
The present crisis of Indian politics is, at its base, a crisis of national purpose. The drift in policy we are experiencing at home and abroad can be traced to many sources: an intractable political economy, bureaucratic lethargy, complicated power equations. But when all is said and done, these explanations are themselves symptoms rather than causes. These obstacles gain strength precisely because of the fact that there is very little shared understanding of the national stakes. It is often said that venial interests often come in the way of doing good. But often the opposite is true: venial interests acquire greater power in circumstances where a nation?s knowledge of its interests lacks certainty, where a nation has a diminished sense of its possibilities, and acquires its self image that is reflected in a distorted mirror. It is considerably easier under these circumstances to disguise the stakes of inaction, to be self deceived about the dangers and opportunities, and to let the pedantry of process be allowed to triumph over the need for substantive outcomes. What is the cognitive disconnect that gets us to thump our chests with pride on the most trivial of issues, but the ones most vital to national interest are accepted with remarkable fatality? It is easy for interests to thwart movement when your own sense ofpurpose is hesitant.
In search of the credible
Talk of national purpose justifiably evokes scepticism. Indeed we are an age that prides itself on jettisoning the blinkered piety of the past. Too many phony ideologues have hijacked the discourse of national purpose to their own ends, and ritual incantation of platitudes about national purpose is more likely to provoke scepticism than excite us into action. And it is also true that the reality of national purpose is often implicit in action, we come to full awareness of it after the event. Nevertheless, without a minimal awareness of what sort of shared future we seek, without giving the idea of India some vivid practical content, it is difficult to see why anyone should be moved by collective policy failures.
What fills the public sphere by way of national purpose is old platitudes: national greatness, economic growth, inclusive society. But now these platitudes have the quality of a ritual incantation, more form than substance. Most of our political parties often say the right thing; their manifestos are full of good ideas. And they mostly agree. The difficulty is that we find it difficult to judge who exactly is credible. Who exactly will live up to their promises? Both the BJP and the Congress are now promising a national Identity Card System. Both have them have not been able to implement so simple and necessary and ideas for fifteen years. What makes them more credible now? What will Mr Advani do for national security that he was not able to do in five years as home Minister? What will the ?dream team? of the Congress party, headed by Dr Manmohan Singh be able to do, when they frittered away the good times during the last five years. Is Mayawati a symbol of caste empowerment, or is she using caste for a potentially tyrannical personal aggrandisement? How can Sharad Pawar, whose insidious support of Maratha nationalism stand for India? Can any of these figures rise beyond their narrow core base? Democratic politics needs personification. But we are closer to an age that could be described in Churchill?s words, ?an age of great events but little men.? But what is true at the national level is even truer locally. While a few Chief Ministers have carved a reputation for themselves, at a constituency level it is difficult to choose amongst candidates.
We have, and should rightly celebrate two things. We still find the liturgy of democracy exciting. And democracy has opened up new spaces of contestation. It is fashionable to say that because hitherto disempowered castes, particularly Dalits and OBC?s have risen through the democratic process democracy is deepening. There is some truth to this characterisation. But this is only on a very narrow definition of deepening. In all other senses our democracy is growing shallower. It is patently less civil and mindful of institutional proprieties. Politicians are now indulging in hate speech and assaulting institutions. The entry barriers to politics are actually increasing for two reasons: the play of money, and the fact that no party has clear institutional rules for candidate selection. While voters have the dignity of choosing, the menu being set for them is increasingly narrow. Politics are getting less deliberative. Parliament is becoming moribund as an institution. And arguably, the ideological spectrum of debate was much deeper and thoughtful a few decades ago than now. The only diversity that now counts is ethnicity not ideas. It is no wonder that the gap between representative government and responsive government is growing. Or we are in the paradoxical situation of loving politics but hating politicians. This election will celebrate the representative process. It will still leave us wondering, why the representative process is not responsive.
The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi
NUMBER GAME
Around 714 million people are eligible to vote in the world’s biggest democratic exercise. 828,804 polling stations will be set up for a five-phase voting process spread over several weeks. 2.1 million security personnel will be deployed.
First introduced for a general election in 2004, around 1.1 million electronic voting machines will be used across the nation. 40 lakh people were on poll duty for that election.
The direct cost of organising the 2004 elections was estimated to be about Rs 1,300 crore.