Open Forum
New Delhi, 23 October 2013
Pre-Election
Chimera
MOCKERY OF
POLARISING VOTES
By Dr.S.Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR)
In a letter to Chief Ministers the Union Home Minister
Shinde asked them to ensure no innocent Muslim youth is wrongly detained in
terror cases along-with providing legal assistance to those lodged in jails.
After several objections of Muslims being singled out were raised, the Ministry
clarified it applied to all minorities.
Predictably, various Opposition Parties condemned this move
to divide the nation on communal lines. Coming on the heels of communal riots
in UP’s Muzaffarnagar district it provoked accusations of the Congress’s
conspiracy and strategy to polarise voters on communal lines, read Hindus and
Muslims.
Specially against the backdrop that the communal flare-up
took place in Muzaffarnagar known for people of different communities living in
peaceful co-existence thereby raising suspicion
about the role of Parties with an eye on forthcoming Parliamentary election. Namely, by polarising voters on a caste and community
basis.
Unfortunately, innumerable social groups are receiving
recognition for preferential treatment from political leaders for various
purposes. However, when it relates to a
question of law and justice, it raises several questions vis-à-vis the ‘hidden’
intentions behind this move. As our
Constitution guarantees equality before law and precludes special treatment to
any group.
Worse, mutually contradictory developments in electoral
politics are glaringly visible today adding more confusion to the already
confused electorate. One is the
multiplication of State-level and regional Parties and the other are attempts
at polarisation of electors particularly by the national Parties.
The first is an outcome of diverse interests, needs, and
aspirations of groups of people seeking political expression and support for
fulfilling them. The latter is the
result of Parties seeking to build a Parliamentary majority by bringing
together like-minded Parties against pinpointed opponents.
Pertinently, co-existence and co-development of both trends
have become necessary wherein it is linked with various
dimensions of the political processes ---- rise of identity politics, establishment
of alliance politics and formation of coalition Governments.
Notably, bi-polarism refers to a division in to two on
extremely opposite ideological stand.
Divergence indicates absence of a meeting ground as well as obstinate
adherence to their position by two Parties on the opposite political spectrum.
In fact, polarised pluralism is a term coined by Sartori to
describe a two-Party or multi-Party system where moderate views are replaced by
antagonistic ideas. It refers to sharply
different approaches to an issue with no reasonable or compromise middle positions. A classic case was seen in Germany when it
was split between Communists and National socialists (Nazis).
But in our country, polarization attempts are sometimes
issue-related and other times on Party lines overlooking individual Party
preferences.
In the USA,
the phenomenon of polarisation is prevalent but during the two World Wars it declined
drastically for the sake of national unity. For instance Liberal-conservative
division is noticeable on race-related issues which is increasing polarisation
of political elites presently.
Besides, there is more reference to polarisation politics in
the current pre-election period in India than at any pre-election period
in the past. It is part of the communal
politics played more in political rhetoric than in actual field. As such, polarization is more in the
imagination and strategy of interested Parties than in the minds of the voters.
Moreover, the Further the anti-incumbency phenomenon present
today is evidence of the lack of polarisation of the electorate. Consequently,
the principal actors in this polarisation game are Parties/groups and not the
voting public.
This game uses communal affiliations as one of the effective
factors of fusion and fission. Importantly, communalism in India is not
restricted to religious groups. It may
divide members of the same religion also.
Caste and sub-caste conflicts, linguistic differences, Dalit
and non-Dalit disputes, practices of “untouchability”, tribal and non-tribal clash of interests,
OBC-SC competitive demands, Shia- Sunni interface all are communal
divisions.
As also some of the dictates of the khap panchayats and
instances of “honour killing” of inter-caste couples are manifestations of
communalism within a region and religion.
In its wider sense, ethnic, sectarian, and linguistic groups
that display political divisions are also involved in communal politics. Concepts like “sons of the soil”, remedies like the Reservation Policy and “Mulki Rules”,
propaganda against people from outside a State as aliens, outsiders,
migrant workers designated with the epithet “non” like “non-Maharashtrian” or “non-Assamese”
are also forms of communalism in a plural society. They can divide people into distinct and often
antagonistic groups.
Indeed, appeal to communal feelings by political groups is common
to catch bulk votes but, it is an undesirable phenomenon. It is violation of the elections model code
of conduct. Sadly, Parties which are
supposed to provide political education are failing miserably in their
responsibility when they recognise and pamper groups for political patronage.
Clearly, people want elections to be free. This freedom lies not just in going to the
booth and casting a vote to register one’s will without any overt compulsion. But the voting choice must be based on one’s informed
opinions. Therefore, there has to be
freedom in forming opinions.
Undeniably, rumours, lies, exaggerations and false promises
mislead the public into framing opinions that are not free and are behind many
instances of communal clashes. Thereby, public opinion summing up “unfree”
individual opinions portends a dangerous trend.
Alas, whosoever tries to create such public opinion is playing anti-national
politics.
Significantly, a leading political scientist points that in
many instances the public has no opinion even in advanced democracies but only
a very articulate public feeling made up of moods and sentiments. The
average voter does not act, but only reacts to simulations and provocations. It is this weakness that is exploited by Parties
in India
to whip up parochial attachments to build non-existing support.
Recall, bi-polar consolidation of political forces started in
Indian politics in the late 1960s in some States and in the 1970s, a bi-polar alliance
of Congress vs. Left Parties emerged
in three States, Kerala, West Bengal, and
Tripura.
In five other States the Congress and a regional Party became
contenders to power in the 1970s and 1980s.
In Tamil Nadu, it is a bi-polar contest between the regional DMK and
AIDMK since the latter’s formation in the 1970s.
At the national level, it is difficult to achieve bi-polar
consolidation as issues and interests
vary from place to place. It may work at
a village or ward level but not even at a constituency level in most places. But there are multiple Parties within
religious, caste, linguistic and other groups making a mockery of attempts at
polarization. The less we talk about
this pre-election chimera, the better we understand electoral behaviour. -----
INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|