With every election to a state, the quality of campaign deteriorates.
In the race-to-the-bottom, all civility is thrown to the winds. Look at the address of Congress President Rahul Gandhi after BJP’s Yeddyurappa resigned his two-day term: “Prime Minister Modi will accept a man accused of murder as the President of BJP.” He described Modi as a dictator and his fight against corruption a ‘great lie.’
Dr. Manmohan Singh said during an election meeting in Bengaluru: “it is unbecoming of the office of the prime minister to stoop so low and spread falsehoods and innuendos.” His statement came in the aftermath of the weeklong campaign of Modi where he had gone hammer and tongs at the Congress. His Kaan Khol Kar Sunlo, a real low, was what had made Dr Singh react this strong.
The cause and effect of the Newton’s third law of motion is so much in evidence in the Indian polity.
Narendra Modi cannot quickly forget the humiliation heaped on him on the Godhra issue. Delhi politicians, including Sonia Gandhi (she called Modi maut ka saudagar during the 2007 Gujarat Assembly election), have singed into him. Mani Shankar Aiyar to Kapil Sibal and large sections of Delhi media continued with their tirade for over a decade. One witnessed the utter contempt with which Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and other Congress leaders referred to the Prime Minister throwing to winds the usual decencies. With 2019 elections looming large, such comments have also been heard from leaders of the Communists, the Trinamool Congress and RJD.
None of the three major Karnataka parties covered itself with glory. The BJP, contrary to Modi’s proclaimed principle to keep old men out of the reckoning and to ensure corruption-free administration, compromised in projecting Yeddyurappa (75) as chief minister. With the connivance of Governor Vajubhai Vala, the BJP got a liberal 15 days for the floor test, until the Supreme Court stepped in with a tongue lashing.
Arch rivals, the Congress and JD (S), bitterly critical of each other and still nursing memories of past betrayal, staked claim for power by pooling their strengths. The Congress, determined to keep the BJP out, gifted the JD (S) leader H D Kumaraswamy with the post of chief minister and with liberal berths for its MLAs. On the model of neighbouring Tamil Nadu, money played a big part in the election campaigns.
The sad experience demands serious attention to a couple of fundamental electoral reforms. The first relates to holding elections to the Parliament, state assemblies and municipalities simultaneously at regular intervals of five years. Simultaneous elections will help reduce the humongous monies spent on frequent elections. More importantly, this can also help reduce the heat and rancor generated keeping political differences on the boil all the time. The myriad corrupt practices could be drastically reduced. More important, the paralysis of administration could be avoided.
The second significant reform required relates to proportional representation. In this parties could get represented in the administration in proportion to their strengths in the legislature. This practice will ensure representation to all successful parties and will help focus on administration built on consensus. The system will also ensure a measure of continuity of policies. Remember the AIADMK and DMK in Tamil Nadu abandoning projects of each other?
In a divisive Indian polity with Maha-bharata-type of rancour among the political clans, such much-needed reforms are difficult. However, these are vital for the survival and healthy growth of the democracy. The leaders of major political parties can make a beginning. Notably, the BJP and the Congress, can withdraw their spokespersons for news television discussions – like the acerbic Mani Shankar Aiyar and Pawan Khera of the Congress and Sambit Patra of the BJP, as also ministers such as Ravi Shankar Prasad. They seem to exert every nerve to keep the divide widen further.
