VOTER TURNOUT: THE URBAN ENIGMA

Many of my friends put a poser to me about the ‘lower than expected’ turnout of voters in Mumbai in the recent assembly polls in Maharashtra. Quite a few of them were shocked that on the crucial day of political choice, many members of the otherwise conscious 'civil society' went missing from the polling booths.

Mumbai is just a case in point. It’s true of all major cities. It has always been noticed that voter turnout is more in rural areas as compared to urban centres. But surely, it doesn’t reflect a lack of political consciousness.

In fact those in the urban areas are politically more vibrant. Reading newspapers, watching news channels and living room discussions on politics are all forms of political participation of a class that is seen as opinion-maker. There is hardly a living room in a city like Mumbai where politics of the day is not discussed or read about. Then there are the occasional rallies of the like seen after the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai. The question is why doesn’t it translate into attendance (more than what we see) in the polling booths?

Some would say these are double standards by members of the civil society. May be! But there is the other side of the argument too. To my mind, one main reason could be logistical. A substantial chunk of people in cities live in rented accommodation and move residences between elections. There names go missing from the electoral rolls or remain in the old colony that might be many kilometres away, a clear disincentive to vote. A large number of people also don’t bother to go the electoral office to get them registered again or get a new voter I-card with the changed address. Call it lethargy, but the process of getting a new voter I-card is indeed cumbersome for the busy professional.

It’s difficult to imagine somebody travelling from Boriveli to Vrar to cast his vote if he has changed residence since the last elections. In such cases, the temptation is to rather spend the polling day 'holiday' catching up with family and friends. The latest proposal to grant the poll holiday only to those who give proof of having cast their vote seems to be a good idea.

The next step is to think of ways to make the process of registration of name in the electoral list much more convenient for the busy professional or overworked daily wager. Also the cut-off date should be as close to the polling day as possible instead of what’s in vogue today.

The last stage in the evolution could be heralding in 'digital democracy' enabling people to vote from their PCs or laptops from the confines of their offices or living rooms. This would do away even with what many see as the hassle of standing in queue at the polling booth. The world is yet to see this as of now. But it can well be a workable idea in the land from where the world takes lessons in information technology.

Nandan Nilekani has been tasked with the unique national identification project. Perhaps, he can look beyond to make this a reality. That would be the real hallmark of the digital age that we boast of living in today.

ELECTION ANALYSIS IN INDIA: THE PITFALLS

Another round of elections are over- this time in three states- and we had the usual dose of analysis from experts after the results came out. Out of the three, focus was on Maharashtra, followed by Haryana and we heard the same old phrase of index of opposition unity, attributing the lack of it to Congress’ victory. Though it’s true, but I don’t subscribe to the application of the yardstick in the context of the party system in India.

Even for Haryana, at the risk of sounding like holding a flag for the Congress, I would still describe its performance as a victory over the political rivals in the state. Many of the experts across television news channels and in print compared the Congress’ performance in the Lok Sabha elections in the state with the showing in the assembly polls. The INLD which drew a blank in the parliamentary polls, bagged many more seats than projected in the assembly polls. Though the figures are true, I beg to differ in my analysis of the data. After all statistics can often be like a bikini that reveals everything but conceals the essentials.

In India, while analysing polls, we sometimes compare issues or data that shouldn't be compared. Take the case of Haryana first. In the Lok Sabha elections, it could be seen as a vote for/against the performance of the Manmohan Singh government. In the assembly elections, it was surely for/against the Bhupinder Singh Hooda government. That’s a big difference and is reflected in the results. So it may not be prudent to compare the two results- an outcome of voters applying two different yardsticks.

The snapping of ties between INLD and BJP was seen as the other reason for the Congress emerging as the single largest party in Haryana. It was described in terms of the index of opposition unity.

The same logic was applied to Maharashtra where Raj Thackeray’s MNS played the spoiler for the BJP-Shiv Sena combine as the Congress-NCP alliance came to power for the third time in a row. Raj Thackeray was even described as the ‘Man of the Match’ in the elections.

While it’s a fact that MNS was the party-pooper for Shiv Sena-BJP combine, I think an analysis of the poll results shouldn't overlook the multi-party system.

With a plethora of parties, the nature of democratic choice in the Indian polity-both at the Centre and in states- is different from the bipolar democracy of the US and Britain. The attempt to apply the ‘index of opposition unity’ logic only takes one away from the political reality on the ground and amounts to analysing the results in context of a non-existent bipolar system.

In a multi-party system, the single largest party should be seen as a political victor unlike in a two-party model where one of them is bound to cross the half-way mark.

Perhaps that’s the reason why crossing the half-way mark is always described as ‘absolute majority’ in India’s multi-party context and rarely as ‘simple majority’ though going by the political dictionary, both mean the same.

INDIA: A CENTRIST STATE

It has been nearly two months since I wrote on the BJP's existential dilemma (posted on Aug 18, '09) soon after Jaswant Singh's controversial book on Mohammad Ali Jinnah hit the stands. The party has since expelled the veteran leader. I had attributed the BJP's current state of decline to not only a succession battle among the second-rung leaders as they stare at the post Vajpayee-Advani era but its very ideological foundation of Hindutva. I had argued that any brand of exclusivist politics is bound to fail to garner a pan-Indian appeal as the country's political space and culture is inherently centrist in nature. It can tolerate a marginal deviation from the centre on either side but not beyond. Appealing to communal sentiments (be it religious or linguistic) can get some limited temporary electoral gains, but will never broaden any party's base.
Keeping this in mind, I had done my own tabletop projections for the Lok Sabha polls much before the first vote was cast and it was not a surprise that I was close to the final outcome.
A couple of weeks back, it was heartening to read an article by Lloyd Rudolf and Susanne Rudolf in The Economic and Political Weekly in reply to Zoya Hassan's review of their latest book- 'Explaining Indian Democracy'. Rudolf and Rudolf, whose 1987 book 'In Pursuit of Lakshmi' analysed the nature of the Indian state, have taken the thesis a bit forward in their latest book and concluded that Indian state is centrist in nature while explaining the BJP's conclusive defeat in the 2009 parliamentary polls. In fact, looking beyond politics, they argue that the Indian economy is also centrist in nature despite the heavy dose of liberalisation that has unfolded since 1991. The only difference is that from a command and control (Licence Raj) economy, we have moved to a regulated economy rather than going to the extreme of embracing 'free market' (free for all) like the US. This, perhaps, helped India remain substantially insulated from the trend of collapsing financial institutions and absorb the global meltdown better.
The decline of the Congress in the last two decades had much less to do with the apparent expansion of the BJP, but more to the rise of forces like Mayawati, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad. Together these parties managed to corner the support of the minorities, backward castes and Dalits, wiping off the Congress from UP and Bihar which account for a substantial chunk of parliamentary seats. Verdict 2009 witnessed signs of Congress revival in these two crucial states in the Hindi heartland. Rahul Gandhi's periodic visits to Dalit families in UP seems to be part of a long-term grand strategy of India's grand old party.
What applies to the BJP also applies to the Left. The sooner the comrades realise and move towards a 'New Left' philosophy (not going too far to the left of the centre), the better it will be for their political future. Interacting with a few comrades weeks after the announcement of the parliamentary results, I was surprised that most claimed that the people had committed a mistake instead of analysing where the Left parties faltered.
Like the BJP, the Left parties also seem to be in a denial mode. Both have failed to analyse the mindset of the rising middle class. This aspirational class, even at the lowest levels, is not bothered anymore about the Ram Temple or aggressive trade unionism. For a vast majority, trade unions have outlived their utility as the battle for minimum wages is long over and in the face of huge opportunities in the private sector and for self-employment.
In a few days, we will know the verdict of the people in three states of which the focus is on Maharashtra and Haryana. In Maharashtra, the Thackerays, particularly Raj Thackeray, pandered to the anachronistc regional sentiments (Marathi pride), perhaps forgetting that the migrants' votes tilted the scales against the Shiv Sena and in favour of the Congress-NCP combine in the last elections. This time, it could be worse with the Thackeray family split in the middle.
One more word about the nature of politics in Maharashtra. Unike elsewhere, political leaders at the local level in the state are far more powerful, courtesy the cooperative movement (sugar coopertives etc) that gives them a personal clout, reducing their dependence on the party. That explains why Maharashtra gets maximum number of rebels across parties as contestants. Local leaders don't shy away from defying the party when denied ticket. In a state where 145 is the magic number, more than 115 rebels this time are said to have the potential to have a bearing on the poll outcome in their constituencies.
In less than two weeks, we will know the verdict. It will be interesting to know what the people of the one of the high-growth states in the Indian Union have voted for.