The problem

THE soon to be held 2014 elections to the Parliament may well turn out to be India’s ‘morning after’ elections, a phase in our national history which may finally force the political class and elites into facing a ‘tryst with reality’. Elections in India always arouse great passions but, possibly, never before has the heated debate about outcomes been so suffused with trepidation. Even 1977, arguably India’s watershed election, wherein an electorate, furious with the depredations of the Emergency, whitewashed the incumbent Congress from the entire North Indian belt, generated fewer fears about the future of the country; it was as if the relief at having ousted a ‘hated’ regime and the euphoria of freedom, squeezed out space for serious discussion about the institutional design of a post-Congress polity.

If the media, both print and broadcast, and opinion polls are to be believed, the fate of the contest has already been sealed even before the candidate lists have been announced, alliances firmed up, and votes cast. The overwhelming consensus among poll pundits is that there are only three players who matter – the BJP led by Narendra Modi, the Congress by Rahul Gandhi and the Aam Aadmi Party by Arvind Kejriwal, with the first a clear front runner. The different regional parties, irrespective of their strength in specific states, have been relegated to a supporting role, unlikely to influence national trends even though they would likely play a role in post-election governance.

Not only does such a framing reduce what is ‘a complex, gigantic exercise, full of all kinds of permutations and combinations, combined with micro-local and national factors, to a personality contest a la the U.S. presidential elections’, wilfully amnesiac about the uncertainty associated with open-ended exercises, it devalues and demeans the fundamental autonomy of the voter. In times of high voltage campaigns and propaganda, it is sobering to remember just how often forecasts go wrong. The fact is that ever so often elections spring a surprise; it is prudent to not be suffused with certitude.

More important, whatever the eventual results, the deep divisions reflected in the campaign rhetoric are unlikely to subside soon. Few, at the moment, expect a UPA-3 in power. If, at all, there is likely to be relief at seeing the end of a governing arrangement badly bruised by factionalism, ineptitude, inability to take decisions, and worse. Similarly, the prospects of a Third or Federal Front rule, even if a rather long shot, generates apprehension and dismay. It is rare to come across anyone who remembers the previous experience of United Front rule – be it in 1977 with the Janata Party or 1989 with the V.P. Singh led Janata Dal – with any fondness. Equally, it must be admitted that the prospects of living under a Narendra Modi led BJP/NDA generates apprehension in substantial sections of our citizenry. Even if we disregard his image of a hard line Hindutva votary, an image that he has tried hard to moderate, his decisive, no-nonsense persona is read as verging on authoritarian, insufficiently appreciative of the need to reach out and create working consensus across social and political divides. Thus, the fear is that even if we move out of a phase of drift, welcome as it is, we may still face the prospects of a divided polity.

The obsession with electoral outcomes and ‘who will become the prime minister’, has drowned out serious discussion on making sense of longer-term changes marking Indian society, as also our preparedness to deal with challenges being thrown up by altered circumstances. The implications of a large number of first time young voters; the growing weight of the urban – socially, economically, politically and demographically – on our culture and political behaviour; the impact of mass media and communication technologies affecting not just aspirations but mobilizational strategies, to mention a few, are yet to sink in. So too are the consequences of enhanced mobility – rural to urban as also rural to rural –which unsettle the old role of received identities, be they of caste or religion. Above all, the impact of two decades of greater enmeshing into the global economy and culture which has unleashed an aspirational storm, adding a strain of impatience in what was long seen as a relatively tolerant and accepting populace, remains little understood.

The enhanced expectations from government, aided in part by legally sanctioned entitlements – to education, food and employment – but most crucially, to information, has created new pressures on performance and accountability, pressures that across political parties, our institutional apparatus and arrangements are finding difficult to handle. The legitimacy of each of our institutions – political, judicial, governance – is today under greater scrutiny of an energized electorate, forcing a deeper examination of not just our inherited structures but modes of functioning. The growing intensity of anti-corruption movements and the emergence of new social formations challenging the dominance of older parties, among other trends, is indicative of the fact that our politics is changing, and no one is confident about what shape this churning might take.

There are, of course, many who argue that Indian reality has a way of moderating all rulers, that no project seeking to hold together this vast and diverse country can afford sharp edges. Much is also made of our constitutional order, the elaborate scheme of division of powers and checks and balances. The paean to our ‘civilizational ethos and genius’ though pleasing, does not, however, equip either the country or those charged to govern, with the ability to process and handle multiple, complex challenges.

Once the modern institutions of governance are enfeebled, their legitimacy constantly called into question, this lack of ability can turn toxic and dangerous, triggering a crisis of ‘implosion’. This, among others, is one key reason why the Aam Aadmi Party, with its unusual political project and style, questioning the foundational principles and working of all institutions of the state, creates such deep anxiety despite being seen as unlikely to win many seats. Its questioning is seen by many as necessary to challenge conventional orthodoxies and the cosy, complicitous club of the elite. But equally, its calling into question all parties, state institutions and conventional political behaviour, without providing even the outlines of an alternative, can as easily add to the mood of cynical rejectionism and likely create a groundswell favouring an authoritarian turn. There is much to learn from the recent histories of both Nepal and Bangladesh, in particular the rapidity with which dashed hope can mutate into rage and anomie.

In a remarkably thoughtful essay, Pratap Bhanu Mehta points to four transformations that our country has to accomplish simultaneously – economic: the creation of a sustainable high growth economy in which more and more citizens can participate; institutional: the transition from a state based on vertical accountability, secrecy, centralization and wide discretion to one based on horizontal accountability, transparency, participation and the exercise of discretion based on public reason; political: the movement from a plutocratic, closed, patronage based system invested in mobilizing identities in a debilitating way to a less corrupt, open competition-based system where identity does not disable reason; and social: moving away from social processes that produce a low trust society wrecking its ability to cooperate in the making of new norms enhancing freedom and equality (Outlook, 17 March 2014). Failure, he fears, will manifest in pathologies of violence.

Elections should not be expected to settle deep-rooted pathologies. But the manner in which political actors and parties engage in competition and the discourse they deploy strongly conditions the possibilities post the results. Whether our political parties will rise to the challenge remains an open question. One only hopes they realize that how they conduct themselves matters, not just to themselves but to us, the citizens. This issue of Seminar debates some of these questions as the country readies itself for what promises to be an inflexion point in our young history as a democratic republic.