Essay on Imperatives of Electoral Politics in India

Is it possible for the voter to elect a Government which serves his interest? Ever since the first general elections held in India in 1952, the voter has exercised his right and has made and unmade governments. His choice has varied over the years. Presumably, he has evaluated the performance of the elected representatives with reference to furtherance of his interest and has sent the appropriate signal through his voting pattern to the politician Whether the politician has been more wily or the voter has been more ignorant is difficult to determine as the politician's cleverness and the voter's simplicity are inversely proportional to each other.

It will be safe to assert that given the extent of literacy among the electorate, the level of public debate on national or regional issues, the influence of money, caste and community over a voter's choice, the Indian voter has not fared badly. Not a single major state in India has witnessed the unbroken monopoly of one political party. 

Whole-time politicians depend on their political career for their livelihood, advancement and recognition almost in the same way as any other professional depends on his profession. We do not grudge to the professional personal aims, desire for increased income and higher standard of living. However, we do not easily accept the legitimacy of the politician's desire to make the best of his life through his career in politics. Before independence, politics meant mainly agitation, processions, prison- terms and for a minuscule population of India, elections to legislatures and participation in popular ministries.

A great majority of legislators had independent means of livelihood. There was no sufficient money in politics for a living. After independence, things have progressively improved for the legislators. Increase in their salaries has kept pace with that of the bureaucrats. Their perks have proliferated much faster than that of any other section of Government Organisation. There appears to be nothing wrong in their desire to get elected and continue to enjoy power by any means short of those implying immediate social stigma. They owe their existence and survival to politics.

Serving the public interest is relevant only to the extent that it helps them attain or retain power. In periodical elections, they have to sell their intentions to the electorate. If they are able to market their image to the electorate, they win; if they fail, they lose. 

In their scheme of things, the way they go "about fulfilling their promise ton I electorate does not matter. So long as they are able to win an election, they can || on their promises without losing their peace of mind till the next elections. Theyca I always blame the Government functionaries for failure to deliver the goods as the bureaucrats are the actual facilitators of actions on behalf of the Governmen I Depending on the credibility of politician's claims, they win or lose elections. Afte most of the elections, large scale transfers are made involving bureaucrats to convino the public that the new Government means business and will not tolerate complacent on the part of the Government functionaries who, along with the previous politic) regime, were responsible for mal-administration. With the occasional change of me in driver's seat, the wheels of Government's carriage sluggishly move on. 

It will be unjust to deny that the politicians have commitment to the public interest The intensity of commitment and the order of priority are, of course, different matters Their first commitment pertains to those who give them party ticket and then to thosi who support and finance them. It falls in the same category as the first commitmento a bureaucrat to his boss who employs him (or keeps him in employment) and hi family which supports him. After he has humoured his political master and repaid thi debt (obligations) of his financiers, the politician would try his best to reconcile hi personal interests with the public interest. All the time he can spare from his firs commitment, he devotes to attending the legislature for discussion of policy issues and legislation.

He honours the party whip and a vote according to the latter's conscience. He receives his constituents at his residence, promises them jobs, subsidies, licenses and quotas. At times, he acts as a middleman, receiving and transmitting consideration money for favours done and patronage extended to the constituents™ other members of the public. 

A politician has to reconcile a host of interests to remain popular. He can't afford to antagonize his constituents irrespective of the genuineness or unreasonableness of their demands. So long as he is able to convince them that he is accessible, helpful and genuinely concerned with their problem, he is likely to retain their support irrespective of the fact whether he actually fulfils their needs or not. 

What is the voter's perception of deserving candidates? In the democracy we have, it is not possible for the large majority of the electorate to have any information about the candidate's abilities, past record and ideology. He is guided in his choice of the candidate by the advice he receives from "the significant others', who can be either a community leader, an employer (of a daily wage earner), father or husband (in case of a woman). 

Very few voters know the political ideology or election manifestoes of the candidate. Not even one percent of them know whether the candidate would actually do what he says even if he gets elected. Many voters will go by theirgeneral impressions of things political. They may vaguely feel whether the state of affairs has really worsened or actually improved during the previous regime. Promises relating to sale of rice or wheat, at much lower prices than those prevailing in the market may sway the voters occasionally. Failures to honour such promises by the political parties will reverse their fortunes if they are not able to attribute their failures convincingly to the ruling party at the centre.