Indian political history proves both these facets about political popularity and winning elections to be correct. Lets analyze the work of leaders who failed in garnering popularity and are almost forgotten.
Morarji Desai has to his credit of leading a first non congress government to power after the Emergency. It was him who restored the constitution of India through 44th amendment which was completely destroyed and paralyzed by 42nd amendment during the Emergency. He took the historic steps like Demonetization in 1978 which drastically brought down prices of commodities and even gold, restored and strengthened India's relations with China after war of 1962 and refused USA's involvement in India's nuclear programme so that India was able to do Nuclear Test later.
When Chandrasekhar became Prime Minister, India was on the verge of economic collapse. To talk specifically, RBI Governor informed the Prime Minister that India was left with money which could import petroleum for only seven days more! It was Chandrasekhar who took the bold and courageous step to move India's gold reserves to foreign banks for loans in return. It saved India from collapsing economically.
India's courageous decision of not signing Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was under I.K Gujral's tenure. He also gave his famous "Gujral Doctrine" which remained as a backbone of India's regional foreign policy. It was recognized internationally and even solved many issues like sharing of Ganga Water with Bangladesh, Indo-China border freezing, people to people contact with Pakistan.
Sadly, these Prime Ministers still lack the pedestal which they deserve in India's political history. They are still remembered and considered as part-time cameo Prime Ministers despite of the fact that their actions and work contributed to and shaped the foundations of Modern India.
In second facet regarding winning elections, lets talk about two stalwarts P.V Narsimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Staring with Narsimha Rao, he brought in Liberalization to India which saved India from Bankruptcy, boosted growth rate tremendously, ended license raj and brought giant foreign investments in India for the first time. He introduced Look East Policy which brought ASEAN nations in the radar of India's foreign relations. Atal Bihari Vajpayee during his full term from 1999-2004, took India to a real developmental path besides facing sanctions from USA for Nuclear Test. He started visionary projects like Golden Quadrilateral for National highways, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, PM Gram Sadak yojana, bus to Lahore, creation of Ministry of Social Justice and so on. He led India to growth rate of 8.4% in 2004.
But both these stalwarts who delivered legendary achievements to India lost elections miserably. Both were even admired and praised by political opponents for their inclusive political style of functioning. But India did not provide them deserved fruits in elections.
In second facet regarding winning elections, lets talk about two stalwarts P.V Narsimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Staring with Narsimha Rao, he brought in Liberalization to India which saved India from Bankruptcy, boosted growth rate tremendously, ended license raj and brought giant foreign investments in India for the first time. He introduced Look East Policy which brought ASEAN nations in the radar of India's foreign relations. Atal Bihari Vajpayee during his full term from 1999-2004, took India to a real developmental path besides facing sanctions from USA for Nuclear Test. He started visionary projects like Golden Quadrilateral for National highways, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, PM Gram Sadak yojana, bus to Lahore, creation of Ministry of Social Justice and so on. He led India to growth rate of 8.4% in 2004.
But both these stalwarts who delivered legendary achievements to India lost elections miserably. Both were even admired and praised by political opponents for their inclusive political style of functioning. But India did not provide them deserved fruits in elections.
Now arises the fundamental question. Why does this happen so? The answer is that India's politics especially during elections prioritizes emotions over development. India is a deeply emotional country. Our emotions comes from our multiple social identities and attachments based on religions, caste, class, language, ethnicity, gender and so on. These identities and attachments over-powers other considerations when it comes to politics. There is a general psychology to it. Issues of economics and development are long term things and does not carry existential threat with them. Whereas on the other side, socio-cultural and emotional issues have the ability to pose existential threat to the people. This makes them more powerful and influential for any human to take cognizance of over issues that do not pose any kind of short term threat to them. Therefore, humans automatically and sub-consciously get more influenced by emotional issues than developmental issues.
Second reason is that development is a subjective concept especially in country like India where there are huge disparities and inequalities. Development for rich urban youth is a metro rail while development for a rural women means toilet in her house. Development for a urban poor means a pucca house and development for a tribal means their children going to school. Development needs to take a priority in whose need does it want to address. Multi-pronged development for all classes and sections is not practically possible at least in five years. Therefore, in promising development for one section, you are definitely leaving aside another section. Thus development cannot mobilize people together to vote on a common agenda. While an emotional issue like national security or religious and cultural matters has tendency to unite large number of people under a common umbrella. When it comes to issues like culture, caste, religion or language,they are equally appealing to rich, poor, urban, rural, young old, etc. Therefore, people tend to get mobilized on those issues to vote for a common agenda.
And all of the leaders whom we discussed lost despite of the developmental work that they had done because they lacked in arousing strong emotional issues which could gain them public popularity or deliver them victories in elections. It is for this reason that today that you see political leaders playing and raising emotional issues during elections. People of India do not vote only on development and it requires an emotional card to mobilize them. This is reality of politics in India and in the world over. Of course this does not strictly account for ALL the people. There are sections who makes rational considerations while voting but their influence remains limited. Therefore, for all of us who want to make political narratives based on rational issues, we need to target our efforts not towards leaders who contest on emotional issues, but towards citizens who vote on emotional issues.
Second reason is that development is a subjective concept especially in country like India where there are huge disparities and inequalities. Development for rich urban youth is a metro rail while development for a rural women means toilet in her house. Development for a urban poor means a pucca house and development for a tribal means their children going to school. Development needs to take a priority in whose need does it want to address. Multi-pronged development for all classes and sections is not practically possible at least in five years. Therefore, in promising development for one section, you are definitely leaving aside another section. Thus development cannot mobilize people together to vote on a common agenda. While an emotional issue like national security or religious and cultural matters has tendency to unite large number of people under a common umbrella. When it comes to issues like culture, caste, religion or language,they are equally appealing to rich, poor, urban, rural, young old, etc. Therefore, people tend to get mobilized on those issues to vote for a common agenda.
And all of the leaders whom we discussed lost despite of the developmental work that they had done because they lacked in arousing strong emotional issues which could gain them public popularity or deliver them victories in elections. It is for this reason that today that you see political leaders playing and raising emotional issues during elections. People of India do not vote only on development and it requires an emotional card to mobilize them. This is reality of politics in India and in the world over. Of course this does not strictly account for ALL the people. There are sections who makes rational considerations while voting but their influence remains limited. Therefore, for all of us who want to make political narratives based on rational issues, we need to target our efforts not towards leaders who contest on emotional issues, but towards citizens who vote on emotional issues.
Comments
Post a Comment