05-24-2009, 03:56 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Indiaâs no to change</b>
pioneer.com
Chandan Mitra
On May 16, India voted out probably the best Government it never had. This is not mere wordplay. I believe the BJP-led NDA deserved another stint in office to demonstrate an alternative approach to governance, taking forward the incomplete tasks left behind by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and giving India a new direction both at home and abroad.
Lal Krishna Advani, with 60 yearsâ standing in public life and eight years of administrative experience (including two years as I&B Minister in the Morarji Desai Ministry) richly deserved to be Indiaâs Prime Minister because he would have been his own man in office, not a proxy PM.
The BJP also had a well-balanced team, a mixture of experience and enthusiasm, capable of implementing fresh ideas that were a combination of welfare measures and nation-building policies. But it was not to be. India resoundingly voted for status-quo, preferring five more years of Sonia-Manmohan rule with Rahul Gandhi waiting in the wings to take over, possibly mid-way through the tenure of the 15th Lok Sabha.
In a democracy, the last word lies with the electorate and those who do not agree with the votersâ choice also must accept the judgment in all humility even while questioning the wisdom of the verdict.
Contrary to the media projection of the outcome of the 2009 election as âpath-breakingâ and âhistoricâ, the fact is that it was essentially a vote for status-quo. Arguably, this was tempered with warnings delivered to certain parties especially in the States, but the electorate delivered this cautionary note knowing the applecart wouldnât be upset anywhere.
For example, Mayawati performed worse than expected, but BSP remains the biggest political force in UP with one seat being added to its 2004 tally and two per cent to its vote share. Nitish Kumar got an overwhelming endorsement from Biharâs voters, but the rise in the Congressâ vote share and the fact that the anti-NDA vote percentage in the State is barely one per cent less than the NDAâs, carries its own tale.
In Orissa, Naveen Patnaik romped home with staggering numbers, but BJDâs vote share is still only 37 per cent, albeit up by approximately eight per cent. Orissa and Andhra Pradesh results are significant because these were the two major States where Assembly polls were held simultaneously.
Both returned the incumbent Chief Ministers to power and even in Sikkim Pawan Chamling came back with all 32 seats in the Assembly. In other words, neither at the Centre nor in the States where Assembly polls took place, was the incumbent regime dislodged.
So, is the wheel turning full circle? Far from anti-incumbency being the key factor, has pro-incumbency emerged as the new X-factor? Howsoever tempting it might be to jump to that conclusion, it could be highly erroneous to say this definitively. It can, however, be said that over the last few years, incumbency has ceased to be an albatross around the neck of ruling parties. That benefited the BJP in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, although not in Rajasthan, in December last year, while Sheila Dikshit reaped the harvest of pro-incumbency for the Congress in Delhi.
Earlier, Narendra Modi in Gujarat had similarly bucked anti-incumbency to win successive Assembly polls in that State.
Now letâs hear the warning bells. It was loudest in West Bengal and Kerala, more resounding in the former because of the long-held assumption of the CPMâs invincibility. In Tamil Nadu, the warning was half-hearted: ADMK did win a fair share of seats but not enough to suggest that voters are disgusted enough to wait breathlessly for the first opportunity to overthrow the DMK regime. Basically, they have told the incumbent regime to shape up, not get out, as yet. Had they been certain about ousting DMK, they would not have ensured the defeat of all nominees of the Vanniyar-dominated PMK whose representative in Delhi, Anbumani Ramadoss, had unleashed terror of Tughlaqian proportions as Health Minister. In Maharashtra, voters by and large retained their faith in the bumbling Congress-NCP coalition although the incumbent regimeâs performance was abetted by its own illegitimate progeny, namely, Raj Thackerayâs MNS.
It is necessary to disaggregate the 2009 verdict in order to understand it. There was no wave in favour of the Congress, nor was it an unequivocal rejection of regional parties. It was essentially a vote against change, demonstrating that the electorate was in no mood to experiment in a big way.
Barring West Bengal, Kerala, Punjab and Uttarakhand, the incumbent regimes were not jolted anywhere; even in Assam, the Congress retained the upper hand despite projections of an AGP-BJP sweep. The Congress and a few of its allies benefited most from this pro-incumbency trend by winning more seats than expected in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Given this mood, which few analysts could foresee, the BJPâs performance was below par but not disastrous. It got just about 20 seats less than 2004, although it was hoping to get around 20 more than last time. It too was a beneficiary of pro-incumbency, although it didnât do as well as expected in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. BJP improved upon its already high tally in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh reaffirming pro-incumbency sentiment just as in Rajasthan it was pulverised in the follow through of its defeat in the Assembly six months ago.
Regional parties have suffered but not as grievously as it is being made out. BSP in my opinion hasnât lost its base; its inability to substantially improve its presence in the Lok Sabha doesnât mean itâs been routed, although its aspiration to emerge as a national party stands thoroughly rejected. Mulayam Singh should be reasonably happy that he managed to retain 24 seats in the face of a resurgent Congressâs success in attracting a sizeable percentage of the Muslim vote after several decades. Nitish Kumar, Naveen Patnaik, Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi remain successful and powerful regional satraps, capable of influencing decisions even at the national level. So, writing them off would be a huge mistake.
Arguably, voters in the Left-dominated States have firmly put CPM in its place, but that is primarily because of the partyâs high-handedness, insensitivity and in-fighting in those two States. It has very little to do with the votersâ disgust with the CPMâs destabilisation of the outgoing UPA regime in Delhi.
In other words, it is not entirely correct to describe the 2009 mandate as a ânationalâ vote as opposed to the aggregate of State outcomes, although it is true that there was an undercurrent in favour of the Congress especially in the cities, which explains the partyâs phenomenal success in Delhi and Mumbai.
Pressures of instant analyses, spawned by TV channels, have resulted in pundits reaching sweeping and largely misleading conclusions. The Congress, no doubt, has won but it has only 206 seats, which is why it remains desperate to have troublesome allies on board.
The BJP has lost the election squarely, but successfully retained its rural base, slowly emerging as the party of the upwardly mobile farmer rather than the urban middle class. This is a warning to the party, considering 40 per cent of India is now urbanised. But past experience tells us never to write premature political obituaries or get mesmerised by the illusion of permanence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pioneer.com
Chandan Mitra
On May 16, India voted out probably the best Government it never had. This is not mere wordplay. I believe the BJP-led NDA deserved another stint in office to demonstrate an alternative approach to governance, taking forward the incomplete tasks left behind by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and giving India a new direction both at home and abroad.
Lal Krishna Advani, with 60 yearsâ standing in public life and eight years of administrative experience (including two years as I&B Minister in the Morarji Desai Ministry) richly deserved to be Indiaâs Prime Minister because he would have been his own man in office, not a proxy PM.
The BJP also had a well-balanced team, a mixture of experience and enthusiasm, capable of implementing fresh ideas that were a combination of welfare measures and nation-building policies. But it was not to be. India resoundingly voted for status-quo, preferring five more years of Sonia-Manmohan rule with Rahul Gandhi waiting in the wings to take over, possibly mid-way through the tenure of the 15th Lok Sabha.
In a democracy, the last word lies with the electorate and those who do not agree with the votersâ choice also must accept the judgment in all humility even while questioning the wisdom of the verdict.
Contrary to the media projection of the outcome of the 2009 election as âpath-breakingâ and âhistoricâ, the fact is that it was essentially a vote for status-quo. Arguably, this was tempered with warnings delivered to certain parties especially in the States, but the electorate delivered this cautionary note knowing the applecart wouldnât be upset anywhere.
For example, Mayawati performed worse than expected, but BSP remains the biggest political force in UP with one seat being added to its 2004 tally and two per cent to its vote share. Nitish Kumar got an overwhelming endorsement from Biharâs voters, but the rise in the Congressâ vote share and the fact that the anti-NDA vote percentage in the State is barely one per cent less than the NDAâs, carries its own tale.
In Orissa, Naveen Patnaik romped home with staggering numbers, but BJDâs vote share is still only 37 per cent, albeit up by approximately eight per cent. Orissa and Andhra Pradesh results are significant because these were the two major States where Assembly polls were held simultaneously.
Both returned the incumbent Chief Ministers to power and even in Sikkim Pawan Chamling came back with all 32 seats in the Assembly. In other words, neither at the Centre nor in the States where Assembly polls took place, was the incumbent regime dislodged.
So, is the wheel turning full circle? Far from anti-incumbency being the key factor, has pro-incumbency emerged as the new X-factor? Howsoever tempting it might be to jump to that conclusion, it could be highly erroneous to say this definitively. It can, however, be said that over the last few years, incumbency has ceased to be an albatross around the neck of ruling parties. That benefited the BJP in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, although not in Rajasthan, in December last year, while Sheila Dikshit reaped the harvest of pro-incumbency for the Congress in Delhi.
Earlier, Narendra Modi in Gujarat had similarly bucked anti-incumbency to win successive Assembly polls in that State.
Now letâs hear the warning bells. It was loudest in West Bengal and Kerala, more resounding in the former because of the long-held assumption of the CPMâs invincibility. In Tamil Nadu, the warning was half-hearted: ADMK did win a fair share of seats but not enough to suggest that voters are disgusted enough to wait breathlessly for the first opportunity to overthrow the DMK regime. Basically, they have told the incumbent regime to shape up, not get out, as yet. Had they been certain about ousting DMK, they would not have ensured the defeat of all nominees of the Vanniyar-dominated PMK whose representative in Delhi, Anbumani Ramadoss, had unleashed terror of Tughlaqian proportions as Health Minister. In Maharashtra, voters by and large retained their faith in the bumbling Congress-NCP coalition although the incumbent regimeâs performance was abetted by its own illegitimate progeny, namely, Raj Thackerayâs MNS.
It is necessary to disaggregate the 2009 verdict in order to understand it. There was no wave in favour of the Congress, nor was it an unequivocal rejection of regional parties. It was essentially a vote against change, demonstrating that the electorate was in no mood to experiment in a big way.
Barring West Bengal, Kerala, Punjab and Uttarakhand, the incumbent regimes were not jolted anywhere; even in Assam, the Congress retained the upper hand despite projections of an AGP-BJP sweep. The Congress and a few of its allies benefited most from this pro-incumbency trend by winning more seats than expected in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Given this mood, which few analysts could foresee, the BJPâs performance was below par but not disastrous. It got just about 20 seats less than 2004, although it was hoping to get around 20 more than last time. It too was a beneficiary of pro-incumbency, although it didnât do as well as expected in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. BJP improved upon its already high tally in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh reaffirming pro-incumbency sentiment just as in Rajasthan it was pulverised in the follow through of its defeat in the Assembly six months ago.
Regional parties have suffered but not as grievously as it is being made out. BSP in my opinion hasnât lost its base; its inability to substantially improve its presence in the Lok Sabha doesnât mean itâs been routed, although its aspiration to emerge as a national party stands thoroughly rejected. Mulayam Singh should be reasonably happy that he managed to retain 24 seats in the face of a resurgent Congressâs success in attracting a sizeable percentage of the Muslim vote after several decades. Nitish Kumar, Naveen Patnaik, Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi remain successful and powerful regional satraps, capable of influencing decisions even at the national level. So, writing them off would be a huge mistake.
Arguably, voters in the Left-dominated States have firmly put CPM in its place, but that is primarily because of the partyâs high-handedness, insensitivity and in-fighting in those two States. It has very little to do with the votersâ disgust with the CPMâs destabilisation of the outgoing UPA regime in Delhi.
In other words, it is not entirely correct to describe the 2009 mandate as a ânationalâ vote as opposed to the aggregate of State outcomes, although it is true that there was an undercurrent in favour of the Congress especially in the cities, which explains the partyâs phenomenal success in Delhi and Mumbai.
Pressures of instant analyses, spawned by TV channels, have resulted in pundits reaching sweeping and largely misleading conclusions. The Congress, no doubt, has won but it has only 206 seats, which is why it remains desperate to have troublesome allies on board.
The BJP has lost the election squarely, but successfully retained its rural base, slowly emerging as the party of the upwardly mobile farmer rather than the urban middle class. This is a warning to the party, considering 40 per cent of India is now urbanised. But past experience tells us never to write premature political obituaries or get mesmerised by the illusion of permanence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->