A look at the post-poll situation in Maharashtra, with a slightly different perspective:
- We have all forgotten that in democracy people directly or indirectly through their representatives administer the country. Do the elected MLAs represent people or their parties ? Is election merely about selecting between parties ? The battle between foot-soldiers and shatraps of the parties to be become 'rulers' is no different than battle for supremacy between hundreds of kings who ruled the masses, before independence.
- Since, independence the population has tripled, but the number of representatives, has not increased commensurately. The 'winner-takes-all' approach to government formation needs to be reworked out.
- Most Indians study not for learning, but to score marks in exams, higher marks means greater job opportunities. Similarly, political parties don't care about governance, but only about the number of seats, more seats mean more power.
- Lets compare the situation with, AAP in Delhi. When activists raised uncomfortable questions and made demands in public interests, they were not respected but rather challenged into electoral politics. Some of them formed a party and came second in the race. Despite not being in majority, citing moral victory and shying away from majority, they were pushed to enter government formation and show majority by BJP and Congress. But they came up with novel ideas like referendum and 16-point agenda for support. When it came to passing the reform for which they were pulled into politics, BJP and Congress teamed up to block them. If AAP had continued without passing their legislation - it would have been betrayal of trust of the people who voted for them, if they resign they (which they did), they would be labelled as running away from government. Elections were denied for eight months subsequently in the name of some sacrosanct letters and replies.
- Like AAP many political parties, including BJP, in India rose with some specific regional / ideological demands. Initial volunteers of such new born parties are idealistic but this race for the majority leads them to paths on which principles are compromised. The emphatic "naahi-naahi-naahi" of dynamic Devendra Fadnavis to alliance with NCP or PM Modi's criticism of NCP on the corruption charges against them, (before the elections) raise peoples hopes and when they compromise principles to remain in power (after the elections), hopes crash even faster. Vajpayee's clean image, had raised people's expectations, but when they saw mediocre performance, "feel-good-factor" was nowhere to be seen and UPA came to power. Anger against UPA's corruption scams, brought BJP back in power. Such flip-flops are seen at state and district level as well. So are we addressing the real problems ? Are we asking the right questions ? Our political analysts always concentrate on political battles, vote-banks and vote-shares based on religion, castes and communities and number of seats, but not the fundamental problems with the electoral system in India. I wish, we are more serious about change in governance, rather than a mere change in government.
