In this election 2004, the voter’s message has jolted all of us including those who have won – the leftist parties, the Congress Party, the BJP certainly, the NDA.

Voters Prove Pollsters and Astrologers Wrong

For two months we were subjected to political analyses based on opinion polls and later exit polls. Now the verdict proves that the voters are not influenced at all by opinion polls. There is no need to ban them in a democracy, let them continue, but they can perhaps ban themselves for the next five years till they arrive at a better scientific method of coming out with opinion polls.

The same thing with astrologers. In fact, Freedom First should publish an article to indicate where the astrologers have gone wrong and where the opinion pollsters have gone wrong. It is a lesson to be learnt that these are an exercise in futility.

Preference for Younger Candidates?

One small indication perhaps is that voters have started preferring young, educated candidates to the old tried out candidates. A small message. Perhaps it may work; perhaps there was dynasty behind these educated youngsters that is why they got elected. But there is a message saying ‘let this boy do something, that the other man has failed to do.

Ideological Considerations Absent

Ideological considerations have not come into the picture at all. We may, according to our convenience and predilections, think that a certain ‘ism’ has failed and a certain ‘ism’ has been victorious. But it does not appear to be so from the election results. Perhaps it is a negative vote as some speakers pointed out; the voters obviously don’t care for one ideology or the other. Otherwise you cannot explain how the BJP got 138 seats and the Congress got only 145 seats – a difference of just 7. If there was a preference for dynasty or a changeover to a better party, the Congress should have got much more and the BJP much less. That hasn’t happened.

So it would be wrong on our part to believe that one ideology has been defeated and another has won. Perhaps it has never been so. Communalism perhaps has never won earlier too. It is change from one to the other that was indicated. Here too, although Professor Sanghavi said that there was no anti-incumbency factor in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh, it was so because the elections to the state assemblies in these three states took place only three months earlier. Had it been another year or so, perhaps one may have seen a different picture in these states as well. The only exceptions are West Bengal and Bihar. Not even in Orissa, because in Orissa the percentage of votes for the ruling coalition actually came down.

So what do we read from this? Either you have a Communist-like stronghold over the cadres or give full marks to the Communists, who have shown their grip of governance over the state. In West Bengal it is not the Babu who controls, it is the minister who counts and he is in firm control of the state. In Bihar, probably it is the caste that is controlling. If you can manipulate the caste, perhaps you can win.

Voters Demand Instant Delivery…

What the voters are saying is that they are not interested in the pie in the sky. They want something for themselves today. This is the message that the voters conveying clearly. Now, can a government deliver the voters’ wishes, their aspirations within the short time that is available before the next election? Can five years be a period when the voters can be made happy? If we give them first things first in the first year, they expect something more in the second year. And at the end of five years you find that the voters are still unhappy. So are the voters demanding too much? Or will the party that wants to continue to govern or win have to resort to populist measures completely irrespective of what happens to the country? Just to win an election, declare a lot of populist measures in the fourth year of the rule, then you are assured of victory again. Is that the message that is coming through? If that is so, then it is a disaster, because nobody can implement any long term policies but you have give them short term benefits as they want. So the voter says, ‘No ideology, We first. He wants something in his pocket immediately every time. Is that the message we are getting?

The second message is, are we all becoming irrelevant to the voters, irrelevant to the system, all of us who think, the intelligentsia. We have a lot of things to say, this should be done, that should be done. Is that all irrelevant? It is a cynical proposition but it is my lurking suspicion that what we say does not matter at all. What the papers, media, projected all along, or the political parties projected all along, does it matter to the voter? Or does the voter want something in his pocket at the time of voting. I am not saying buying of votes, but something from which he has benefited by government action. If that is so, then will democracy progress? Or will each succeeding government be affected by this ‘give away’ populist desire, give them whatever they want and let me win the election?

…Or Listen to Emotional Appeals

Exceptions have been found why a government can continue maybe on purely sentimental, emotional issues, like the Kargil war, or maybe the Godhra incident. This kind of thing, if it is engineered, or if it happens, then maybe the government may succeed and win the election again. Otherwise each succeeding government may fail. We shall soon see what happens in Maharashtra four months hence in the elections to the State Assembly. As the present reading goes, this state is likely to fail badly because they have done very badly, unless the Sonia factor comes in wherein she comes up and says, “I have sacrificed so much” and then the people get moved. It may be welcome for this government, but it will be bad for democracy. People should not be moved by this kind of appeal. But they will be moved, or something else happens between now and the elections in the State this November which appeals to the people’s emotions.

Voters are not Necessarily Wise

As was said here during this discussion, voters are not necessarily wise. Voters can be very selfish, perhaps are very selfish. They want something for themselves. They don’t care what happens ten years hence. If that is the short-term view of the voter, then there will be a short-term view of the rulers also. Then we will proceed on a short-term basis one step to another. But we will not be able envisage ten years or fifteen years hence where the country will be. If we think of India’s progress in 2020, forget about it. You have to see what happens in 2005. That is what is going to win the elections for any immediate government going in for elections. That is the problem that we are facing. Think about it. I am not, I hope, too cynical. I would like to be proved wrong.