Impact of Gujarat Elections on India's Future Elections
There is something about Narendra Modi that sets him apart from the rest of the political leaders in India. It is the fact that Mr. Modi is one of the most aggressive leaders in Indian politics. He represents the new face of India - an India that is vibrant, aggressive, has the in-your-face attitude and a never-say-die spirit. He also provides something that most politicians (at least in India) do not provide - transparency. In fact, so amused was I when I heard Mr. Ashish Nandi lay out the characteristics of an Indian politician - someone who should be intelligent, but should not exhibit his/her full intelligence when in public; a person who is not 100% in-corrupt, etc. that I could not help but ask the question - is that what we really want our politicians to be like? I am not sure how Mr. Nandi came up with those characteristics and I am not even sure how he made the generalization that everyone wants leaders with those characteristics, but I am pretty sure there was no scientific thinking involved in his characterization and generalization. I can only wish that most Indian politicians look at Mr. Modi and try to imbibe some of the values that he has as a politician in their own roles.
So what is the significance of the Gujarat election results - especially on the national political scene? I am not going to discuss which party will form the next government, I would much rather discuss the observations from the recent Gujarat elections and how they impact future elections in India, be it at the national level or at the state level.
One of the most significant lessons from the Andhra Pradesh elections (when Chandrababu Naidu lost) and the parliamentary elections of 2004 was that by merely focusing on "development", an incumbent party could not win an election. The primary reason why development cannot be used as the sole agenda item is because the positive impact of development takes a long time to filter to the masses. A significant portion of the Indian population has to worry about their means for daily livelihood and cannot comprehend how development will have a positive impact on their lives either in the near or the short term futures. Neither can these under-privileged people think beyond their present circumstances nor can they relate themselves to the "development" taking place around them (which until now has not permeated to the under-privileged strata in India) and this obviously has a negative impact on the election results of those parties that use "development" as the sole agenda point. A corollary to the above lesson is that there is a need to have at least one issue on the agenda to which the masses can relate themselves to.
In light of the above lessons, the current elections results from Gujarat are interesting to analyze. There are 3 distinct observations that can be made based on the results -
1) "Development" CAN be used as an agenda item, provided, the leader is strong enough to make the masses see how future development will help them in the near and short term future. Of course it helps to have someone who has delivered on promises of past agendas/election manifests, is strong willed, aggressive and resembles the current and younger Indian generation. It also helps if the leader has strong opinions about some of the most pressing issues facing the general public and is willing to take a stance - unlike most politicians who are very centrist (don't have a specific point of view about an issue). It is possible that the point of view might not be shared by the general public and might not even be correct, but at least the leader is providing transparency in the election process even before he/she gets elected. (I guess it also helps if people just keep going back to history and try and cast an eye on communalism and keep harping the same old stories about someone being "Maut ka saudagar"!)
2) As we mature in our democracy, I foresee a change in the way future elections will be held - there will be more emphasis on the person who is being projected as the future CM/PM, very similar to the presidential elections in the US, where people traditionally align with a political party and eventually with a single presidential candidate (but not necessarily from the same political party to which they are aligned). One of the reasons why Congress failed in the Gujarat elections was because Congress could not project a strong CM candidate to stand against (or even up to) Modi. Of course some might argue that NDA lost the parliamentary elections of 2004 even when Vajpayee was projected as the PM before the elections - I can only say this - the move was bold and well received by the intellectual class, but on hindsight my feeling is that it was a bit premature. Going forward however, my belief is that whoever has a strong future CM/PM candidate will more likely win an election rather than any one party winning an election based on its manifests - which are most likely thrown in the recycling bins once the elections are over. A brand image for the projected PM/CM candidate will have to be created and projected to the masses who might choose to buy into the "brand" or not.
3) Lastly, if we take a look at the Gujarat election results, we find that 117 seats went to the BJP, 62 to Congress and the remaining 3 went to others. What that tells me is that we are slowly but surely progressing towards a 2 party political system - again, much like the US. The trend is not new - during the 2004 parliamentary elections we really only had two major conglomerates (NDA and UPA) contesting the elections. At least for central elections, my belief is that we are already in the phase where regional parties will either be wiped away (less likely) or will merge with either UPA or NDA (more likely). It will be a consolidation of sorts - with only the NDA and UPA remaining as the two main political outfits contesting future elections. This trend reinforces my belief that in future elections, it will be imperative to have a strong leader being projected as the future CM/PM in order to win an election.
All the above observations lead me to believe that India is finally gearing towards a more mature electioneering process where leaders will have strong leadership qualities and provide transparency even before they are elected, which will ultimately provide the electorate a better picture (better than the election manifests anyways!) of what to expect in terms of governance from the elected leaders. I also believe that we might move more towards the presidential form of democracy in the long term future.
So what is the significance of the Gujarat election results - especially on the national political scene? I am not going to discuss which party will form the next government, I would much rather discuss the observations from the recent Gujarat elections and how they impact future elections in India, be it at the national level or at the state level.
One of the most significant lessons from the Andhra Pradesh elections (when Chandrababu Naidu lost) and the parliamentary elections of 2004 was that by merely focusing on "development", an incumbent party could not win an election. The primary reason why development cannot be used as the sole agenda item is because the positive impact of development takes a long time to filter to the masses. A significant portion of the Indian population has to worry about their means for daily livelihood and cannot comprehend how development will have a positive impact on their lives either in the near or the short term futures. Neither can these under-privileged people think beyond their present circumstances nor can they relate themselves to the "development" taking place around them (which until now has not permeated to the under-privileged strata in India) and this obviously has a negative impact on the election results of those parties that use "development" as the sole agenda point. A corollary to the above lesson is that there is a need to have at least one issue on the agenda to which the masses can relate themselves to.
In light of the above lessons, the current elections results from Gujarat are interesting to analyze. There are 3 distinct observations that can be made based on the results -
1) "Development" CAN be used as an agenda item, provided, the leader is strong enough to make the masses see how future development will help them in the near and short term future. Of course it helps to have someone who has delivered on promises of past agendas/election manifests, is strong willed, aggressive and resembles the current and younger Indian generation. It also helps if the leader has strong opinions about some of the most pressing issues facing the general public and is willing to take a stance - unlike most politicians who are very centrist (don't have a specific point of view about an issue). It is possible that the point of view might not be shared by the general public and might not even be correct, but at least the leader is providing transparency in the election process even before he/she gets elected. (I guess it also helps if people just keep going back to history and try and cast an eye on communalism and keep harping the same old stories about someone being "Maut ka saudagar"!)
2) As we mature in our democracy, I foresee a change in the way future elections will be held - there will be more emphasis on the person who is being projected as the future CM/PM, very similar to the presidential elections in the US, where people traditionally align with a political party and eventually with a single presidential candidate (but not necessarily from the same political party to which they are aligned). One of the reasons why Congress failed in the Gujarat elections was because Congress could not project a strong CM candidate to stand against (or even up to) Modi. Of course some might argue that NDA lost the parliamentary elections of 2004 even when Vajpayee was projected as the PM before the elections - I can only say this - the move was bold and well received by the intellectual class, but on hindsight my feeling is that it was a bit premature. Going forward however, my belief is that whoever has a strong future CM/PM candidate will more likely win an election rather than any one party winning an election based on its manifests - which are most likely thrown in the recycling bins once the elections are over. A brand image for the projected PM/CM candidate will have to be created and projected to the masses who might choose to buy into the "brand" or not.
3) Lastly, if we take a look at the Gujarat election results, we find that 117 seats went to the BJP, 62 to Congress and the remaining 3 went to others. What that tells me is that we are slowly but surely progressing towards a 2 party political system - again, much like the US. The trend is not new - during the 2004 parliamentary elections we really only had two major conglomerates (NDA and UPA) contesting the elections. At least for central elections, my belief is that we are already in the phase where regional parties will either be wiped away (less likely) or will merge with either UPA or NDA (more likely). It will be a consolidation of sorts - with only the NDA and UPA remaining as the two main political outfits contesting future elections. This trend reinforces my belief that in future elections, it will be imperative to have a strong leader being projected as the future CM/PM in order to win an election.
All the above observations lead me to believe that India is finally gearing towards a more mature electioneering process where leaders will have strong leadership qualities and provide transparency even before they are elected, which will ultimately provide the electorate a better picture (better than the election manifests anyways!) of what to expect in terms of governance from the elected leaders. I also believe that we might move more towards the presidential form of democracy in the long term future.
posted by dhaval brahmbhatt at 12/24/2007 09:19:00 AM
1 comments
