Some Election Takeaways

What a glorious weekend! The collective hyperventilation seems justified—the miracle of democracy, the wisdom of crowds, how millions of seemingly incoherent actions can add up to one powerful cohesive signal. One can’t not be excited by what transpired on Saturday. A colleague at the office summed it up when he said, “I voted for the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), but I’m delighted that the country has given a clear mandate to the Congress.”

WHAT HAPPENED

Is it possible to explain the results? Already, theories are beginning to be floated: the maturation of the Indian voter; the BJP’s mismanagement of the Modi roll-out; Rahul Gandhi’s brave decision to go it alone in Uttar Pradesh; the end of communal politics; the return of national parties; the demise of the Left. Unfortunately, the canvas of the country is too vast to lend itself to bullet-point summaries. There are too many inconsistencies that the theories will find hard to ignore: If Varun Gandhi was a signal that the BJP lost more than it gained, the Mangalore moral policing incidents did little to dent the BJP’s fortunes in Karnataka—if anything, the outcome in the state was better, with the BJP upping its tally from 2004. Again, if the loss of the Left was a signal to speed up liberalization, this needs to be tempered with the reality that the Trinamool Congress is now the largest ally in the United Progressive Alliance—and Mamata Banerjee’s stand against industrialization places her left of the Left. And again, while the Congress and the BJP together accounted for 322 seats in 2009 versus 283 in 2004—a jump of 39 seats, or at least 13%—their combined vote share actually fell by 1.3 percentage points from 2004. So much for the resurgence of national parties.

And so on.

Essential message: beware the convenient narrative.

WHAT CAN HAPPEN

Even if it’s difficult to attribute clear causality to the election results, there’s no denying that we could be at the threshold of something significant—that somehow, serendipitously, we have been given a national gift. A clear political mandate, continuity of leadership in New Delhi, the emergence of youth as a national force (kudos to Rahul Gandhi) and a prime minister who in the last year has understood how to manage political allies (that is, when should groupthink end and decision-time begin).

All these add up to tantalizing possibilities for India on multiple fronts: for the average citizen and the country as a whole; for India within and India abroad; for the poor and the rich. Our experiences—and that of the global crisis—have shown that it is not only desirable but also possible to embrace a pragmatic model of economic development that eschews ideology for inclusiveness, that gives equally to the capitalist as it does to the tribal. Our maturing model of democracy should give us more stakes in global diplomacy, allowing us to suggest that India’s form of public institution-building is more relevant than that of the West, especially in other parts of the developing world—Iraq showed that you can’t carpet-bomb democracy. Soft power can be more than Bollywood, cricket or Punjabi cuisine.

The next few decades could be a big window for India, with these results acting as a springboard to galvanize the nation. In two very different ways, Barack Obama’s victory and India’s elections have been milestones of 2009, the world’s most powerful democracy and the world’s largest democracy each showing how the power of the people can be harnessed in one magnificent national event of collective voice.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR US

After the hoopla dies and the next government is sworn in, the rest of us—about a billion, give or take—will confront our everyday lives. We need to strike a balance between demanding a lot from the new government at the Centre, and demanding more from ourselves. The danger is that we allow the obstacles we encounter to overwhelm us and lose sight of the possibilities that have been unleashed. And in the process, go back to our instincts of only blaming the government for all that ails our society.

Change cannot happen only because the Congress party got 206 seats in the 15th Lok Sabha. We must recognize that millions of Indians should lend their shoulder to the cause of nation-building, especially the rich and the middle class. Getting engaged in larger public causes is not just about social service, it’s about personal growth—understanding ourselves, making sense of our lives.

If last month’s elections show anything, it is that politics and government matter, and affect almost everything about our lives. Witness the record-shattering moves of the financial markets on Monday—so much for those who believe that our lives work despite government, not because of it. Any takers for moving to Pakistan?

The true power of the election results will be felt only if it brings more talented Indians into the public realm, to learn first-hand about the methods of public change.

The Value of Manifestos

As momentum to the 15th Lok Sabha elections builds up, it’s easy to be overwhelmed by cynicism. Informed sources say that it will cost around Rs20 crore for a serious candidate. Assume three serious contenders for each seat or a round figure of Rs50 crore per Lok Sabha constituency, the national bill comes to about Rs25,000 crore. With all this money being disbursed in a concentrated burst of two-three weeks, the elections promise to do much more for jump-starting the economy than any monetary or fiscal stimulus plan.

There’s an old aphorism—“Anything that can be said of India, the opposite is also true”. Many Indians see our political system as rotten, broken and getting worse—and the account above would certainly justify that view. But there are millions who see the glass as half-full: Our state is accountable, our democracy is a remarkable exercise in adult franchise, and our political process is getting better.

Don’t hold your breath for this debate to end. But it’s this very debate that is improving the overall system, like a self-correcting feedback loop. The process of change in a democracy creeps up on its people, almost like the invisible hand of the market finds coherence in apparent chaos.

One example of the half-full/half-empty dispute—campaign manifestos. Most candidates standing for elections wouldn’t know a word of what’s in their own party manifesto. But they are useful documents and can help to hold parties accountable if they get to run the government.

Changes in campaign promises and manifestos can highlight changing national sentiments. Indira Gandhi’s famous “Roti, kapda, makaan” (bread, cloth, house) promise was a trailblazer in the early 1970s. Similarly, the more recent “bijli, sadak, pani” (power, roads, water) promise of the Bahujan Samaj Party became so evocative that it was adopted by most parties. Over three decades, the distance between these two political views highlights the change in the role of the Indian state: from “provider” to “enabler”, from being big brother in our lives to becoming the supporting actor in the story of our lives that we must each script.

Two major parties have released their manifestos: the Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPM, and the Indian National Congress. These are available at cpim.org/manifesto.pdf and www.aicc.org.in/new/manifesto.doc. A confession: I had made up my mind to write a cynical piece on manifestos. So, I began reading 2009’s manifestos with a critical eye, seeking only inconsistencies and half-truths. But as I read the documents, I couldn’t help being reminded of the enormous challenges in running our country, as well as the magical possibility of India.

For anyone interested in public change, a manifesto is a great starting point to understand the full canvas of national issues, and the relative importance of one’s pet peeve (environment, women’s rights, education, you name it, it’s all there).

A manifesto clarifies the positions of a party. You can often find yourself agreeing with some views of a party while disagreeing with others. For example, the CPM manifesto makes a commitment to pass a law that prevents criminals from contesting elections.

Similarly, the Congress manifesto makes an important commitment to police reforms. The National Police Commission suggested reforms in 1977, a Supreme Court ruling in 2006 mandated their implementation, but there has been little political will to take action so far.

Manifestos are also informative because of what’s missing. The Congress manifesto says that “regulations will be made to ensure good corporate governance, ethical business practices and accountability to all stakeholders.”

No question, the bar for corporate governance needs to be high. But what about political parties themselves? Not one political party has made any commitment to improving the functioning of their own party.

There’s an old Greek saying, “Who will guard the guards?” In 1999, a Law Commission report on electoral reforms stated, “Whether by design or by omission, our Constitution does not provide for the constitution and working of political parties.” So, we are going to need new laws. Unfortunately, the same politicians whose work is to be governed are the ones who need to set the rules. Imagine the kind of market regulator we would have got if the corporate sector were to establish the Securities and Exchange Board of India.

We need external pressure to get change, and shouldn’t expect much from our political parties. But it’s the height of hypocrisy for parties to cry hoarse about corporate accountability, when they run scot-free themselves. Even if legislation takes time, nothing stops a committed party from voluntarily setting a standard in political accountability in its manifesto. If not, the next time a political leader—even if it’s the prime minister—chastises the corporate sector, it could gently be suggested that true leadership comes from fixing one’s own house first. Manifestos can sometimes bite the hands that write them. For this reason alone, they could be the half-full facets of Indian politics.