Our democracy is loud, boisterous and rambunctious. Our elections are noisy, crowds are large at political gatherings, and competition is fierce. There is intense interest in election outcomes. In almost every social gathering the question that dominates conversation is who will win and who will lose.
Competition during elections is of two kinds. Parties fight in a no-holds-barred struggle for electoral success. The amount of money, energy, talent and passion on display during elections is unimaginable. On a per capita basis relative to our income we spend extraordinary sums on elections.
Come election time, there is intense competition among individuals to seek nomination of parties as candidates. The amount of jostling and pushing for a party ‘ticket’ is incredible. Ambitious candidates seeking a ‘ticket' spend crores of rupees for years to emerge as serious candidates in the eyes of the party ‘high command’. Even those who have no real interest in public affairs exhibit enormous, frenetic energy to be nominated by parties. Given the intense competition in our first-past-the-post system of elections, voters are offered vast inducements — money, liquor, gifts, community assets etc. Nowhere else do we see such a scramble for elective office.
This electoral frenzy extends to even local elections, though local governments are weak, poor and powerless in most parts of India. Elections are often fought with great energy bordering on ferocity, even in cooperative societies with only modest business. Millions of passive members are enrolled in credit cooperatives, elections are held almost like general elections, voters are bribed, camps are held before election of the president of each cooperative, and political parties and elected state governments treat cooperative elections as matters of life or death. The election to the head of a local government or cooperative is often indirect — elected representatives in turn elect the president. In such cases the election frenzy does not end with members or people voting. Kidnapping, organising ‘camps’, offering large amounts of money, threatening and bullying the electors are common practice in our country to manufacture a majority for a losing side, or ensure that the party or group with a wafer-thin majority retains power. We are inured to these absurdities and unusual lust for power, position or recognition sans purpose.
During 1992, I visited the Netherlands as part of a group of chief executives of cooperative banks in India to study and learn from the famous cooperative Rabobank. Rabobank at that time was larger than all of India’s scheduled banks put together in terms of assets and deposits. The Rabobank had over 80 local banks which were the mother institutions that created the apex bank. Despite the enormous assets and influence in society, whenever there was a vacancy in leadership positions, the best leaders were often chosen by consensus; and reputed, competent leaders had to be persuaded by other members to accept elective office and leadership. They felt that leading a local bank was an onerous responsibility, and would consume time and energy at the cost of their personal lives or profession or business. This reluctance to accept powerful positions is in sharp contrast with the Indian propensity to jump at every opportunity for public office and recognition.
When the Rabobank national leadership was vacant, most members of the managing board who were affiliated to the ruling combine in the Dutch government unanimously decided to elect as president the lone member affiliated to the political opposition! Coming from India, for all of us it was a culture shock. The board members were clear: on political and ideological matters they would compete strongly to deny opposition the power; but when it came to understanding finances, managing the bank, and preparing for the future, the lone opposition member was best suited! It will probably take a few decades more for us to embrace such a notion of enlightened self-interest in elections, as opposed to personal ambition, caste and primordial loyalties, and feudal domination.
A few years ago I was in a remote, poor village in Karnataka. The local sarpanch was trying to raise a loan of Rs 1.5 lakh to help his son settle down. When I discovered that the sarpanch spent Rs.10 lakh to win the gram panchayat election, I asked him why he spent so much when he could not afford it. His reply was graphic and revealing: he placed both his hands on his head and said, “unmadam, sir, unmadam”! The Sanskrit word commonly used in Kannada, unmadam, means frenzy or madness or insanity.
Our elections in the most part are not about competent public management or enlightened self-interest; they are about personal relevance, primordial loyalties and feudal domination. This cultural trait is ingrained in hierarchical society with many people suffering from deep-seated insecurity, and seeking salience and recognition. Many politicians are not even motivated by corruption; they can make more money in a growing economy in other ways with the resources, organisation and ability they deploy during elections.
We surely need political reforms — electoral system, rule of law and decentralisation. But we need to do much more to deglamourise politics and create avenues of fulfilment and recognition outside politics. And we need to make sure that political office is limited to legislation, policy and delivery; and does not give control over all facets of life or society. We need to restore sanity, purpose and principle to politics.
The author is the founder of Lok Satta movement and Foundation for Democratic Reforms. Email: drjploksatta@gmail.com / Twitter@jp_loksatta
