This article appeared in DailyTimesPakistan on March 10, 2012
On Tuesday the US Republican party held key primary elections, while five Indian states held elections for their assemblies. In both countries the result of these elections will influence the course of politics unlike others where elected leaders continually face challenges from an unelected judiciary or an omnipotent military.
The Republican primary nomination process will determine the next Republican candidate which, in turn, will decide whom the Americans will choose as their next President. In India, the election results will have an impact not only on state-level politics but also the upcoming elections to the Rajya Sabha and this year’s Presidential elections. The military, media and judiciary in both countries will function, but none will be able to annul results of elections simply because in their wisdom the people made the wrong choice.
Of the five Indian states that went to the polls, the results in the most populous north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP), home to a majority of India’s prime ministers and which sends 80 members to India’s lower house of Parliament, the Lok Sabha, were critical.
The victory of the Samajwadi Party (SP) of three-time Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav was the result of a number of factors. Both SP and its archrival the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) are state-level caste-based parties that came into prominence in the 1990s. Both parties have a strong base among key supporters, and whenever they have come to power it has mainly been due to their ability to appeal beyond their immediate caste base. The BSP won the previous elections when it formed a coalition that included both upper and lower castes.
This time round the SP used Mulayam Singh’s old Lohiaite socialist roots to appeal to a broader voter base. The SP was also helped by the organizational skills of Mulayam Singh’s son and heir Akhilesh Yadav, as well as a desire for change by the people of the state. Since 1989, Mayawati (1995-97, 2002-03, 2007-12) and Mulayam Singh (1989-91, 1993-95, 2003-2007) have been Chief Ministers of UP three times each. Each has accused the other of corruption and of hindering the growth and development of the state of UP. This time too the main accusation against Mayawati’s government was of widespread corruption.
Corruption has been a convenient tool to attack political parties or leaders not only in India but in other developing countries as well. While corruption is a problem facing everyone, it is the middle class and political elite who have always had more of a problem with corruption. The masses are often willing to accept corruption as long as there is development and they have a say in their government. The elite would be happier with a polity that had zero corruption but equally less representation of the masses.
In India the military, bureaucracy and judiciary, while not pleased with the results of the elections, have never sought to bring about change by non-democratic means. In Pakistan, however, the establishment as the military-judiciary-technocracy is referred to, has been forever eager to replace the existing government with another one in the hope of finding the ideal party. Corruption has been the most convenient tool used both by the establishment as well as by the two leading parties, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N). Each party accused the other of corruption and sought its removal from power. However, each time elections were held, the people voted not on the issue of corruption but on which party represented them and whom they identified with the most.
From 1989-2005 Laloo Prasad Yadav and his caste-based regional party ruled India’s eastern state of Bihar. Being accused of corruption and indulging in caste-based politics, most pundits argued that Bihar would never change because Laloo would never be voted out of power. The argument made was that the illiterate rural folks lack real political sense and wisdom, and would keep voting Laloo back to power because of ties of caste and the muscle power of his party. Nevertheless, in 2005 Laloo was voted out and Nitish Kumar became the Chief Minister, who undertook vast reforms in Bihar, and on that basis was re-elected to power in 2010. What this showed was that people know when the government helps them and represents them.
The same pundits this time round argued that UP would never change and Mayawati would remain in power, as things never change in UP. The fact that another caste-based party has taken over means that caste still matters in the state, a trend that has shown up not just in these state elections but also in the national level elections. The fact that Mayawati has been voted out means that the voters, whether literate or illiterate, poor or rich, urban or rural, do have a mind of their own and one should never be dismissive of people power in a democracy.
Maybe it is time that the elite, not only in India but in Pakistan, understand that in a democracy it is the people who count and it is time to listen to what the people are saying instead of trying to manipulate the electoral verdict simply because you do not agree with it.