As I sat watching the news this morning, following the results of the recent state elections in North India, an interesting discussion began that lasted nearly four hours; one among the panel of experts speaking on the issue was my father.

Setting the stage

As the talks went on, right around the two-hour mark, what seemed quite apparent to me was that the possibility that the country was spiraling into an abyss was something few were prepared to accept.

Part of this, no doubt, was a direct result of the participation of party-representatives in the talk. There were times when they were quite defensive about their parties; but a few things that stood out were hard to deny.

Four states (Chattisghar, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan) along with one nobody cared about (Mizoram) today elected representatives of their choice into state houses. But the voting was preceded by bizarre political campaigns and media-happy scandals, and voting day itself involved machines carrying a none of the above option.

A lesson in voting for anarchy

The thing about this weird none of the above option is that it is the very definition of futility in not one, but two, manners.

Firstly, why should voters opting for none of the above even bother to vote? After all, voting for nobody is effectively the same as not voting at all.

Here is a brief lesson in maths to illustrate my point: if 80 of 100 people in a town voted for three political parties and the exit polls rewarded them 20, 30 and 10 vote shares each, (in other words, adding up to 60 votes), then, clearly, the remaining 20 voted for none of the above. Had just the select sixty voted, the share would still have been 20, 30 and 10, making no difference.

Now, assuming this is meant to be more of a fashionable statement to make about allegedly corrupt political parties, what happens when an entire nation votes for none of the above. By all logic, it would be like voting out the concept of a leadership, an administration and governance itself.

Voting for none of the above is like voting for anarchy. If you think a none of the above win means the highest remaining candidate gets to govern (or indeed if you think there is any solution to that result), read this article released by the election commission of India. The action to be taken in such an event is still hazy.

Of mad hats and politicians

Red fezzes do not make Tommy Coopers out of unfunny comedians any more than Gandhian headdresses make symbols of spotless administration out of  self-proclaimed statesmen. Not even if the cap is shiny white.

The way I see it, to that 25% India which cannot read party names on ballot boxes , party symbols and placements on those boxes make a huge, unwelcome impact on election results. There is no reason why an illiterate tribal housewife from a remote corner in India should not pick “the broomstick option” simply because she identifies with it more than a palm or a lotus or an elephant.

Now available: anarchy!  Photo courtesy: Flickr/757Live

And this has greater impact that it appears at first, because, unlike in most other countries (see “American voter turnout in comparative perspective” by G.B. Powell, Jr, for example) Indian voter turnout comes from the poorer, likely less literate, section of the population than from the middle- or richer-classes.

New York University professor, Kanchan Chandra, in her study on ethnic voting argues in the following manner:

When survival goods are allotted by the political market rather than as entitlements, voters who need these goods have no option but to participate. […] Voters do not themselves have control over the distribution of goods. But by voting strategically and voting often, they can increase their chances of obtaining these goods

(This paper quotes Prof Chandra.)

Perhaps this was not the kind of influence India’s founding fathers reckoned  party symbols would one day command.

Politics is not all talk either

Shocking as it may seem, even the generic barber, whose in-depth knowledge of running a country while cutting hair is legendary, will falter once the chair is given to him. Running a country involves more than what idealistic principles and sheer disregard of administrative talents warrant.

Neither a mechanical degree from an IIT nor the Ramon Magsaysay award sufficiently speak of anybody’s, let alone Mr Kejriwal’s, ability to govern a country. But, once elected, his own party website states that they do not intend to decide things by themselves, but involve the country in these decision as well. But why paraphrase when you can quote?

In a true democracy The people have the power. Governments should be responsible to the people, not the other way around. This is the goal of Aam Aadmi Party – to give the power back in the hands of the people of India. This is SWARAJ or self rule - but can it be done practically?
The answer is YES!
SWARAJ can be created in a fully democratic system and many countries in the world have done it.

(The out of place capitalisation of words such as “YES!” is as used on the AAP website as of the date of writing of this article. Clearly, AAP believes it is above the rules of common English grammar.)

Now I have a couple of problems with this statement, completely unrelated to grammar. Firstly, the AAP aims to “give the power back in the hands of the people of India.” Given that we vote for our leaders, we already have as much power in our hands as anybody in any country that votes for its leaders.

Secondly, AAP believs that “swaraj”, or self-rule, can be done practically. The problem with this claim is (and a brief peruse through any history book would have told them) that we have had self-rule (defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as the act of a country, a part of a country, or nation choosing its own government and controlling its own activities) and we have been following it earnestly for 65 years now. This would also render the last statement (that many countries have done it) moot.

Richard Nixon and Indira Gandhi at the arrival ceremony for Mrs Gandhi in the US, in 1971. Photo courtesy: Wikimedia commons

Other aspects of the party’s stated goals are also vague. For instance, they plan to “implement long overdue judicial reforms in order to create a judicial system easily accessible and affordable for all Indians”.

The party’s take on legislation involves an almost story-like quality, accompanied by no lesser than four accusations not backed by data of any sort (betrayal of trust, making unfair policies, making corrupt policies, and taking unilateral decisions):

The common men and women of India elect the MLAs and MPs and send them to Parliament. These chosen few then betray the trust of the common man and make unfair and corrupt policies and take unilateral decisions that affect the lives of millions of Indians.

There are also some fantastic ideas such as enacting a ”Right to Reject law, wherein the common man does not have to wait for 5 years to remove a corrupt MLA or MP from office”, which seems geared towards promoting annual general elections in the coming years, and which will perhaps end up mimicking Karnataka’s suffrage of four elections in five years but on a nation-wide basis.

AAP, conveniently, speaks little, if anything, about things that matter, be it international relations, environmental sustainability or science. The party seems to be contesting for an anti-corruption squad than federal governance. Mr Kejriwal, for instance, cannot fast his way to a stronger Indo-US relationship.

Voting does not have to be a messy affair. Photo courtesy: Flickr/Tracy Hunter

Does this abyss have a bottom?

There is a reason why a government exists: 1.237 billion people deciding the fate of one nation is laughable, not to mention a royal pain in the neck. The fittest solution is to filter the system out so select, interested people whom other people trust are given the responsibility to govern and decide with the best interests of the nation in mind.

The solution to a corrupt set of these elected members is not to replace them with another potentially corrupt set of members. But it does not mean the system needs any correction either. If not in government, corrupt people will find other ways to feed their itching palms.

A system can always be worked around, and no system, over time, is foolproof. The intelligent solution lies in matching corruption with a consequence and surging forward. A jan lokpal is not the answer; in fact, it is an unnecessary cog in a wearing machine. The trick is to oil the machine, not throw more spanners at it.

In time, such idealistic thinking will become catch 22 situations. They will be fine examples of  “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, or, “who will guard the guardians?”

The post Let us examine the abyss Indian politics is falling into appeared first on VHBelvadi.com.