Showing posts with label Rahul Gandhi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rahul Gandhi. Show all posts

Saturday, December 21, 2013

An Endearing Audacity

By Vinod Varshney
Denial is second nature to most leaders of conventional political parties, and   arrogance and condescending behavior towards people their outstanding trait. No wonder the Congress needed humiliating defeat in four states to wake it to the grim reality of its hollow narcissistic claim of mass-appeal, and to make it realise that people take corruption charges seriously.  People also cannot be fooled by circulating insinuations based on fake or doctored tapes and sting operations. Politicians would do well to note that people do not care much about doles; rather, they want good governance, jobs and control over prices.
       It was good to hear Sonia Gandhi talking about the need for deep introspection and Rahul Gandhi mentioning the need to learn from the newbie Aam Aadmi Party (Party of Common Man). This is a welcome sign in the leaders of a party which until the day of counting was smugly arrogant, not even ready to acknowledge the existence of the Aam Aadmi Party or its leader Arvind Kejriwal who was mocked at by the three-time Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit as a monsoon pest.
      Election results in Delhi indeed have shocked the two major national parties and confounded experts who are wont to look at politics in terms of caste, communities and vote banks. The way the one-year-old Aam Admi Party defeated the seemingly invincible Shiela with a margin exceeding the total votes she polled, the Congress Party should seriously think of closing down its dirty tricks department. 
     Many experts say the Aam Aadmi Party indulges in excessive populism. But not many are prepared to applaud its praiseworthy initiative in making election funding totally transparent. The fledgling political outfit put details of all donations received on its website. This is in sharp contrast to the corrupt and competitive politics practiced by others as a business run on the strength of black money.
      Another laudable APP initiative was the method of candidates’ selection in which opinions of the electorate in the constituency were sought and weighed. Preparation of manifesto separately for each constituency was an entirely new experiment. It was necessary to make governance accountable and closer to people’s needs. This method of trying to understand people’s aspirations revealed that lack of drinking water was the biggest problem of more than half of Delhiites. It showed that poor people wanted pure drinking water rather than liquor as price of their votes. By all accounts, therefore, this Delhi election will remain a textbook phenomenon to be studied by political scientists. It may also be a classic example of how power-drunk rulers could miss the mood of the people. Rahul Gandhi might want to present the image of an angry young man in a hurry with rolled-up sleeves wanting to make common cause with  people, but it was the down-to-earth Arvind Kejriwal who really struck an emotional chord with the electorate. Kejriwal’s utterances were direct, incisive and sincere enough to evoke trust and confidence. His narration of netas as chor, corrupt and criminals, half of whom would be behind bars once Jan Lokpal Bill was passed, was met with angry retorts from  leaders of established parties, but his words truly echoed the deep convictions of the voiceless common people.
      His ability to translate new ideas into votes provides the hint that his Delhi model can be replicated elsewhere in the country. Certainly he has succeeded in creating in people a desire for change. At this stage it seems his determination to change the political culture of India is simply audacious because it is in the vice grip of black money, criminals, crony capitalists, communalists and other vested interests.  But this audacity is what endears him to millions of our people.

The Article was first published in the monthly magazine of political affairs, the ' Lokayat' (December, 2013 issue)
 

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Why Not Reject One Only!

By Vinod Varshney
The political class does not like to take up issues of electoral reforms seriously though it continues to debate over them at various fora. The reason is simple and straight. Why should politicians tamper with the existing system when it has offered them so much ?
      So far as the latest reform is concerned, the situation became funny when a fait accompli was converted into a deed of conviction in a dramatic manner by Rahul Gandhi for banning convicted elected representatives to retain their membership of the house. The moral of the story is–serious work would only be done by the Supreme Court and the credit must be grabbed by one or several political parties or just an individual. 
     Such dramas of stealing thunder are much needed by the media to remain interesting. They always look for spicy and sensational developments to retain some of its entertainment value amidst a lot of morose happenings. It gives good opportunity for the chattering class also to run their avocation with passion.
However, many politicians might be shuddering at the prospects of more electoral reforms that may befall in their way sooner or later by judicial intervention, hurting their interests even more. They may again have no choice but delay implementation by their peculiar tactics in the name of parliamentary democracy. Ultimately the voice of aam admi would be heard in a vibrant democracy.
     The next bolt from the blue can be the right to reject only an individual candidate during elections. The Supreme Court recently approved voters’ right to reject all the candidates contesting elections if they so wanted by clicking the button—NOTA (None of the above). This is harmless for individual contestants. It will not be able to check election of an undesired candidate as one of the rejected candidates will still be declared elected. Thus the purpose of checking an undesirable candidate cannot be achieved. For this many activists recommend that voters should be given the right to cast a negative vote against a chosen candidate. One will not be surprised if any time soon the Supreme Court gives a verdict of this kind. The hint is already there in the judgement passed on the petition related to rejecting all the candidates.
     Getting a right to reject all candidates is only a cosmetic change in the electoral process and does not fulfil the true desire of people who are frustrated with the way politics is conducted by their elected representatives. Many activists therefore demand a right to cast a negative vote against a chosen individual. Sometimes a winner gets only 15-20 percent of the total votes cast showing that majority of voters were not in favour of the winner. Negative voting against a chosen individual can qualitatively change the electoral chances of contesting candidates. The focus of elections then might be not so much on who should win, but on who should not win at all. But ultimate result would be the election of a clean candidate.


( The Article was first published in the monthly magazine of political affairs the ' Lokayat' (October, 2013 issue)