The Third Front is an Affront

The election euphoria is heating up. Almost all ordinary news becomes sensational during these days and the people of India are treated with more masala than the news per se. The buzz word for the past one week is the “Third Front”. This front has nothing to do with ideologies but with opportunities. This is a cluster of small regional parties who over estimate their value and has no national image. However, they are pretty good at their regional levels.

With the two major national parties Congress and BJP failing to act authoritatively while negotiating seat sharing with regional parties, India is turning more federal which is not a healthy sign. It is an irony that these two major parties put together do not represent half of the House. This number is not likely to increase as these two parties are not given more seats to contest by their small partners.

The rest of the house is represented by regional parties who do not know what is meant by national ideology. They represent their respective regions and are not willing to come out of it. Ironically, these two national parties count on such regional parties, courtesy, the identity these parties possess in their respective regions.

The debates in Parliament are long forgotten matter. One finds the house disrupted more than it discussed. Bills are not allowed to read let alone debating on it. The previous regime had the dubious record of having the least hours worked in a single tenure. This is the result of lack of accountability. With weaker center, one can’t even think of it. Under such circumstances, where the time for debates is limited, one cannot expect unrecognized parties gets more representation in the debates. Hence, electing an independent has no meaning.

Worst case would be, these smaller parties clubbing together (with an outside support from the communist parties for whom China is their motherland) forming a Government at the Center. The media adds fuel to such fire by projecting Mayawati as the future PM. The only qualification she has is she hails from Dalit Caste. Hailing from a caste that was considered once untouchable cannot become a sole criterion to become a Prime Minister of our country. This seat deserves much more capabilities and merits.

One should not get surprised if any of these two national parties support Mayawati to become a PM just to get an acknowledgement from the media and society for supporting the cause of social-justice. India need not have to prove its stand on social-justice to anyone else and we all knew who we are. India needs something more than that at present.

With economy under severe crisis, had it been in any other country, slew of debates would be happening but here in India nothing of that sort is happening. None of the parties rake this issue nor do they have a road-map to stabilize this situation. India is one of the most difficult countries in the world to do business in. After Narasimha Rao opened the flood gates in 1991, all his successors followed him in continuing the reforms. Even the communists who ideologically opposed it had no other option but to support it. These reforms have its advantages and its limitations.

We need a government who can act stern and implement harsh economic policies that may not sound popular. We can’t provide job security any longer at the cost of performance. Government employees should realize now that they either perform or perish! The government formed by smaller parties with the support from Communists would never allow this to happen. This will, in turn, throw spokes on the wheel of our country’s progress!

The issues of internal security, Kashmir, Cross-border terrorism, Economics, development, etc., do not occupy the agenda during the elections any longer. All it matters is regionalism, secularism, minority appeasement, populist measures and no importance to welfare of the country. As to accommodate smaller parties in their umbrella (after all this is the number game), the major parties are forced to compromise on their core principles (if at all they have one) and they come out with a Common Minimum Program of implementation that never takes off. Thus, the potential of multiple issues getting generated to be catered resulting in loss of focus. In the end, one cannot see a single entity with strong center but a picture where major parties are being crushed under and dominated by these smaller parties. Slowly, this leads to stagnation.

Imagine a Government heading India that has no national Ideology, for whom national interest meant nothing. With power being ceded to regions, how can this Government act on the policies of National security which is the utmost need of this hour? India needs a decisive Government, an assertive Government that can take hard decisions. Nuclear deal is singed and so is the deal with IAEA. Hence we may not expect major agreement in the next 5 years. However, India needs to pull up its socks pertaining to upgrading its Navy, Military and Police forces. This requires a strong Government at the center to do so.

A weak center cannot have control over the States. It cannot take a firm stand on disputes like Cauvery Water sharing or border issue between Maharashtra and Karnataka or the likes of it. A weak center would allow indiscipline and insubordination to flourish which is against the nation’s health. The control or the lack of it by the Central parties over Shekhawat or Narayan Rane is a good example for this. When we boasted “Unity in Diversity” we indirectly bragged on our hypocrisy. We lacked unity and history is a proof to this. With such Government at the center, days are not too far, when one would require a Visa to visit another State in India!

Infrastructure is one area where the present government failed to pay attention. The golden quadrilateral project that completed 81% when the NDA Govt left, got completed only 56% at the end of this regime. In the name of supporting “aam aadmi”, developmental projects were being shelved and the opportunities of employment were thwarted. Redistribution-through-corruption will increase as states become more powerful in center. Here again, the state that returns most number of MPs would get major chunk of the infrastructure projects over-ruling the needs. This is not healthy in nation’s perspective.

Diplomacy is an area that is expected to get affected badly with a weaker Government at the center. With smaller parties ruling the country, they would hardly get time to discuss with their neighboring countries. What will be their stand on LTTE-Srilanka or Kashmir-POK-Pakistan, or Bangladesh-Bengal, or Arunachal Pradesh – China? Such nightmares do not allow me to sleep.

If these two national parties, Congress and BJP, still feel that they are the guardians of protecting the honor of our country, they would not allow this to happen. In the sense, at any cost, they should not allow the third front to from a Government. One might say it is the votes that decide. Still, If these two parties join hands and form a National Government (in case of a hung Parliament that seems obvious) under a common leadership. These two parties has potential leaders who can bail this country out of the crisis and these two parties has presence almost all over India. Their actions cannot be termed biased and accountability automatically fall in place.

With CEC and the President handpicked by the present government, we cannot expect them to take a neutral stand in case of hung parliament. However, those who are interested in the welfare of the country have no other option but to form a national government with representation from the major parties. Will it happen?

What if i do not vote?

In continuation to my earlier blogs on the necessity of voting and floating suggestions on the electoral reforms required for a healthier democracy, I am further registering my school of thoughts in this blog in this regard.

In India, Elections have become a ritual. Invariably, the voter turn-out on election dates do not go beyond 65% unless something happens similar to what happened at Tirumangalam constituency where the bye-election was held recently. Considering rigging, hardly the actual figures of people turn out to vote would not be more than 60%. What happens to the balance 40% of the voters? Why do not they vote? I am sure the Election commission of India would have thrown some light on this. Perhaps, the political parties also, for whom every vote matters, might have done some ground-work on this.

I am not a statistician however; I throw my hat and come out with some figures which might be more or less similar to factual ones.

¨ Out of this 40%, 5% are attributed to people who are either on the move or who cannot move. This is the problem of accessibility. EC should work on improving the accessibility.
¨ Another 10% of voters are those people who are rich, for whom standing in a queue among others (to vote) is a waste of time. Irony is these people will have their say among the rulers as they fund the politicians irrespective of their party origins.
¨ The third is the category who takes the excuse of “none is qualified”. Still, section 49 O, provides an answer to this. All that one need to do is to exercise this option if they are genuine in citing this excuse. This category too, cannot exceed 10%.
¨ The fourth one is the category where people do not vote because they do not want to. This category forms the major chunk of the non-voter percentage.

Voting is our right and duty as well. Had we considered voting as our right, we would never stay away from voting unless the reasons are genuine. Hence, Let us take up the duty part. “What do I get if voted?” “What if I did not vote? What will I lose by not voting?” these are the questions that linger in almost all of their minds. Perhaps, we do not have answers for this. This does not mean that those who vote do not get such questions in their mind. Still, they do vote. Why? If we did this study, perhaps, we might get the solution too. This is termed as differential diagnosis in problem solving techniques.

It is the human tendency that one needs motivation to perform his duty. My take is that despite such question that rise in mind, there must a factor that motivates the voter to come out and vote. That factor may be caste, religion, party, money (given by the contestant), or his commitment to the voting right. Hence, there has to be a motivating factor for some one to come out and vote. It will be better if the factor is in the interest of the nation.

Let us consider voting is our duty. Can there be a duty that is as easy as this? Is the duty of the voter gets fulfilled as soon as he clicks the button against the candidate’s symbol? His next turn of performing the duty comes only after 5 years? What happens to his duty during these 5 years? Does he have a way to express his approval or denial to the proposals of the Government from time and again in these 5 years? Ironically, he remains silent all through these 5 years. A few of them might raise a voice through newspapers, magazines, blogs and very few of them participate in the rallies of some political parties (if paid). Other than this, as a voter, who has a duty towards democracy, what does a voter do or what else can a voter do? The voter neither has the responsibility nor the accountability however; he bears the brunt of any wrong decision taken by the Government. Irony is, such decisions are taken in voters’ name! This is why I said, Elections have become a ritual in India.

Had we maintained the relationship perpetual between the voter and the ruler, by means of communication, perhaps, refraining from voting might not happen. Whether we like it or not, voting is our duty. As said earlier, our duty does not end with voting alone. In our representative system of democracy, people’s voices are never heard but political party’s voice is heard. Indeed, it is difficult to listen to 1 billion voices and make a decision. Still, the communication needs improvement. As on date, only monologue prevails ie only politicians speak and we listen. It does not happen the other way. To make it a success, people should not stop themselves from providing valid suggestions. Trivial issues like water supply and electricity can be dealt at the level of ward councilor.

Cable TV is an excellent media of communication that can bridge the gap between the voters and representatives. Like beaming new films in the local channels, why can’t the voter and the representative set up a discussion forum on a fortnightly or a monthly basis that will be beamed? This provides opportunity to gage the wavelength of the voter and would persuade the representative to act accordingly. The representative can be asked to present his performance, the utilization of MPLAD funds on a monthly basis. Thus, accountability will be brought and an open appraisal can be done.

I hardly doubt whether a portion of our population see the LOKSABHA TV. Those who pursue political science also are not watching this channel. There was a time healthy debates used to happen in the Houses. Even the vociferous BJP is not contributing in the House they used to do years back! Such is the awareness and interest in current affairs among our people in India. The press media, unless it is sensational (like MPs fighting), has made it a point not to cover the Parliamentary proceedings. They are not fools to waste their columns that would not attract readership. Who are we to suggest them? After all, they are here to make money and it is your fault to consider them as a pillar of democracy!

Like we enjoy the freedom of this democracy, we should be ready to accept the responsibilities of the duty - The duty to vote. Making it compulsory might sound odd but unless enforced certain things do not happen. I have been telling that compulsory voting is a must. The EC has to facilitate this by listening to the potential problems of the genuine cases where one cannot vote. If one does not prefer to tax the non-voter, extend some fringe benefits to voters. This might work in our country.

Experts need to analyze and present the real-situation to people on the harm of not voting. For illustration, in Kashmir, there were twelve constituencies where voting turn out was less than 30%. Out of this 12, 8 seats were won by the party that got an opportunity to rule the state. Is it not ironical? In the number game, the essence of democracy is lost.

¨ We get the right Government if we vote
¨ If one does not vote, he loses the opportunity to place our country on the path of progress
¨ Voter might not lose anything instantly but the country would lose its position in the global arena if right policies are not set. In the process, the voter too loses!

Considering these, one should not refrain from voting unless the reason is genuine. Will these things happen? Only time will tell us!