Party Ticket Dynamics
By Harish Bijoor
What does it take to win the ticket to contest a party seat?
Even as we chat this out, every party of any degree of significance has come out with its list of final candidates. These are the lucky ones who will contest on behalf of the party and fly as the faces of the party in the constituency carved out for them.
There are a lot of disgruntled faces all around. Remember, for every successful ticket-seeker, there are as many as five prominent contenders and as many as a dozen dark-horses that emerge from just nowhere, who are disappointed.
Therefore, in an election, there is more disappointment than joy. At least from the ticket-seekers’ perspective.
How are party tickets doled out then?
Many ways really. I have a list of 17 ways with me. Let me just mention 6.
1) The Rational Way: This is the way that is seldom followed really. Savvy political parties of the day have stopped depending on their old political war-horses to put forth names of who should contest and who should not. They see a bit too much of personal bias and anti-bias in this process. Also, a lot of the senior leadership of the party has been there for so long that they are seldom in touch with the real ground reality.
In a bid to bring a rational degree of objectivity to the process, third party political scientists, political artists and political philosophers alike are brought in to check out on each constituency. A whole list of 16 and odd names are given out to these ground level operators. A few blanks are left as well for them to fill in the blanks if any real solid names come by.
Ground level work is carried out in the constituency and the ‘winnability’ index is drawn out for each of the candidates. This considers every dimension there is. The religious, the political, the social, the economic, the history of work, image scores of the candidate, crimes to record, and more.
This ‘winnability’ index is then tabled and presented to the decision makers to take a call. At times, in the case of some parties (far and few), this list is considered sacred and sacrosanct. In the case of others it is seen to be a guidance docket.
2) The Jury of Executive Opinion: This is a wise-man’s conclave. There are some women in it as well, at times. Let’s remember, our politics is badly represented on the score of gender mix.
The wise men and women will include the local MLA’s who have won their seats in the last election, the sitting MP (who on most occasions wants the ticket for sure), the State head of the party, the Working President (which means there are Presidents who don’t work as well) of the Party, sundry-sets of party functionaries and an eclectic mix of people altogether.
They will all sit together and debate it all. Every positive and negative of the prospective candidate will be discussed and ripped apart. The individual agenda of every one of the participant will come to the fore. And everyone wants to win.
A priority list of candidates is then made out and sent up to the party leadership. The leadership can of course do just what it wants with this list. Just as it can do what it wants with the list generated the Rational Way!
3) Sons and Daughters and Relatives: In every list that I have been privy to see, there are always names of relatives of every kind. There are sons, daughters, sons-in-laws, daughters-in-laws, mothers, fathers, brothers and kins of every other legal and not-so-legal kind.
Most don’t succeed in attracting enough attention though. Unless you are the kinship is really, really close to the center of power.
4) The Supremo’s choice: This really is as irrational as it gets, but it does happen. Loyalty is an important measure in the realm of politics. And loyalty has its rewards. There sure are times when all the lists are just ignored. A dark-horse loyalist will emerge and the entire party machinery will need to rally behind this choice. Happens.
5) The Irrational Way: If there is a rational way, there sue is an irrational way. The local astrologer, the family séance and of course the wife and those closest to the decision maker and their all important role comes into play. Dreams play a good and important role as well, I am told. As does Numerology.
6) The Dummy to the fore: This is a negative choice really. When the party wants to sacrifice the seat to the opponent with whom it has a tacit understanding, or when the party wants to just split votes of a major religious segment or a caste segment for that matter, the dummy is put forth. This is the classical sacrificial goat. The goat knows it is not meant to win. The goat knows it will not win, but all the excitement of the election will be there for it to partake!
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Less vote, More don't!
Voting Shrinkages
By Harish Bijoor
Every progressive Lok Sabha election has seen a drop in percentages of people voting. From the corpus of eligible voters, the drop rates, if looked at from the point of view of the first election to the last one (14th in the series) concluded in 2004, the drop numbers look alarming. Alarming enough to wake up a whole new generation of non-voters. Finally.
Look at the numbers first. The first general elections the country went to in 1952 saw a voting percentage of 61.2 per cent. This largely has remained the highest percentile peg number that the Lok Sabha elections has attracted in the country. This simply means that out of every ten eligible voters, 6 voted. 4 did not.
In an era when accessibility to the polling booth was a moot point to address, and in an era when elections were new to the country, this was acceptable. Also in an era when the basic issues of food clothing and shelter were larger than life, anything was acceptable.
As the years passed by, and as India’s robust democracy became stronger and stronger, one expected a more robust participation in the electoral politics of the country by its citizenry. Sadly, this is not to be. Look at the numbers again. Numbers don’t lie. They tell a story. A story of gradual neglect of a right and a duty.
While the general elections of 1957 had larger numbers turning out to vote (62.2 per cent), subsequent elections have seen a trickle-out effect in the electorate at large. The 1962 general elections saw 55.42 per cent of the people vote. And then began the yo-yo effect. This yo-yo moved from 55 per cent to 61 per cent every alternate year. Even this was acceptable.
And then the yo-yo broke its pattern. In the last general elections of 2004 only 48.74 per cent of the people voted. For the first time in our electoral history we have an adverse voting skew. Less numbers vote and large numbers don’t. The fall-off in voting percentile numbers from 1999 to 2004 was a large 11.25 per cent. A tragic fall.
Why don’t people vote then? Why are lesser and lesser numbers of people voting with every progressive general election?
Voter apathy is a big disease then. As the nation gets younger and younger in its demographic profile, there is a distancing of politics from the young of this nation. Younger people have continuously and regressively believed that politics is the profession and task of the older person. And so being the case, the younger person has even desisted from exercising his right. A total abdication of the process has resulted in the vote shares among the young whittling away.
The first general election saw passion. Subsequent sets of elections have witnessed passion that is lesser and lesser in the participative culture of politics and governance. When there is no one big issue to unite and pull the people out for a referendum, elections are seen to be mundane and repetitive. A task not as important to participate in.
If the voting numbers are to show an impressive upsurge and if our democracy is to emerge as a truly robust one with mass participation, three segments of the stake-holders of India need to perk up on Election Day. The first is the youth of the nation. 54 per of the population of our country is below the age of 25. This segment needs to show responsibility, passion and a positive surge to vote. The second stake-holder is the woman at large. Normally, in every election we have had, women turn-out at the husting is approximately 8 per cent less than men. If this was to be corrected for a start, we will have a larger participation for sure in this democratic exercise.
And the final stake-holder sub-segment. The educated and the employed. It is important for this segment to perk up and vote. Using a voting day holiday to take off on that short-break vacation is not an option that can be exercised anymore.
If each of these three segments perk up and vote, expect a robust jump from our numbers which have crawled below the Plimsoll line of acceptance altogether. Only a 48 per cent participation in the electoral politics of India is not an acceptable number anymore.
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist.
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
By Harish Bijoor
Every progressive Lok Sabha election has seen a drop in percentages of people voting. From the corpus of eligible voters, the drop rates, if looked at from the point of view of the first election to the last one (14th in the series) concluded in 2004, the drop numbers look alarming. Alarming enough to wake up a whole new generation of non-voters. Finally.
Look at the numbers first. The first general elections the country went to in 1952 saw a voting percentage of 61.2 per cent. This largely has remained the highest percentile peg number that the Lok Sabha elections has attracted in the country. This simply means that out of every ten eligible voters, 6 voted. 4 did not.
In an era when accessibility to the polling booth was a moot point to address, and in an era when elections were new to the country, this was acceptable. Also in an era when the basic issues of food clothing and shelter were larger than life, anything was acceptable.
As the years passed by, and as India’s robust democracy became stronger and stronger, one expected a more robust participation in the electoral politics of the country by its citizenry. Sadly, this is not to be. Look at the numbers again. Numbers don’t lie. They tell a story. A story of gradual neglect of a right and a duty.
While the general elections of 1957 had larger numbers turning out to vote (62.2 per cent), subsequent elections have seen a trickle-out effect in the electorate at large. The 1962 general elections saw 55.42 per cent of the people vote. And then began the yo-yo effect. This yo-yo moved from 55 per cent to 61 per cent every alternate year. Even this was acceptable.
And then the yo-yo broke its pattern. In the last general elections of 2004 only 48.74 per cent of the people voted. For the first time in our electoral history we have an adverse voting skew. Less numbers vote and large numbers don’t. The fall-off in voting percentile numbers from 1999 to 2004 was a large 11.25 per cent. A tragic fall.
Why don’t people vote then? Why are lesser and lesser numbers of people voting with every progressive general election?
Voter apathy is a big disease then. As the nation gets younger and younger in its demographic profile, there is a distancing of politics from the young of this nation. Younger people have continuously and regressively believed that politics is the profession and task of the older person. And so being the case, the younger person has even desisted from exercising his right. A total abdication of the process has resulted in the vote shares among the young whittling away.
The first general election saw passion. Subsequent sets of elections have witnessed passion that is lesser and lesser in the participative culture of politics and governance. When there is no one big issue to unite and pull the people out for a referendum, elections are seen to be mundane and repetitive. A task not as important to participate in.
If the voting numbers are to show an impressive upsurge and if our democracy is to emerge as a truly robust one with mass participation, three segments of the stake-holders of India need to perk up on Election Day. The first is the youth of the nation. 54 per of the population of our country is below the age of 25. This segment needs to show responsibility, passion and a positive surge to vote. The second stake-holder is the woman at large. Normally, in every election we have had, women turn-out at the husting is approximately 8 per cent less than men. If this was to be corrected for a start, we will have a larger participation for sure in this democratic exercise.
And the final stake-holder sub-segment. The educated and the employed. It is important for this segment to perk up and vote. Using a voting day holiday to take off on that short-break vacation is not an option that can be exercised anymore.
If each of these three segments perk up and vote, expect a robust jump from our numbers which have crawled below the Plimsoll line of acceptance altogether. Only a 48 per cent participation in the electoral politics of India is not an acceptable number anymore.
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist.
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
Monday, April 13, 2009
The MP and his role
Constituency-based Manifestoes?
By Harish Bijoor
The Member of Parliament is a macro entity at large. He or she is the representative of an average 18 lakh plus people of voting age. This really means that they represent very truly double that number of 18 lakhs and maybe more, as there are lots of people of non-voting age as well. A big responsibility this!
When a Member of Parliament voted into the Lok Sabha represents a constituency, what does he really do? What must one expect from him? Few in the citizenry really know what to expect. At this point of time, one expects little or nothing at all.
Expecting nothing at all is a philosophical and safe thing to do, but not a great thing at all. It is an abdication of demand altogether. Something the MP would love, but something an active citizenry cannot afford to have.
I do believe there is a new need to re-define expectations from the ones we are going to vote into power. Come May 16, 2009 and we will have a representative voted into Parliament from each of our 543 constituencies. What can one expect from them?
Macro politics? Of the kind where there are key issues on debate and where they will contribute in terms of a debate (in very rare cases, as very few of our MPs really speak in Parliament. Possibly the election process and all the Public meets exhausts them for all of five years!) and a vote in favor or against a move. Quite like what every MP contributed on the Nuclear Treaty recently.
Or Micro politics? Of the kind where every MP runs to get his constituency into the lime-light of everything doled out? While an MP will claim the building of a large number of public toilets in his constituency, another will claim the putting up of a bridge in his. Is this what one expects from an MP? And did he really do it?
Let me cascade this demand into just one city. Let’s take Bangalore. We have all of 4 MP’s going into Parliament soon. One each from Bengaluru Rural, Benguluru Central, Bengaluru North and Bengaluru South. Each will either be a party person or an independent of repute. Whoever it is, an MP is an MP. Once elected he will represent all the electorate, never mind the color of the flag that flies atop the house or never mind the symbol the home stamped on at the hustings.
What to expect from our 4 MP’s from Bangalore then, when they make it there? Time to list this out then, so that we may get them to swear by these as part of their manifesto and agenda.
I do believe every city and every constituency needs to define for itself a manifesto. An agenda of action. Party manifestoes announced grandiosely mean precious little to individual cities. And in the guise of the macro, every micro need gets engulfed. Also, on more occasions than not, macro goals are difficult to measure. The metrics are macro and opaque as well.
Very quickly then, what must be the plan of action for Bangalore? What must the candidate pick as issues?
You decide. Lay out these issues in front of the candidate who comes up to you seeking your vote. Ask every candidate his or her agenda for Bangalore. Let it cover the basics for a start. Better roads for Bangalore? Better infrastructure of every kind that a modern and burgeoning city must boast of? Faster connectivity to the exit hubs of the city. To the airport, the railway station and the Inter-state bus hubs? A take on pollution? A take on a greener and ecologically correct Bangalore? The insulation of good water? The power insulation for the summer months? Garbage-management as the biggest issue ahead of us? Social issues such as managing the discontent of all those youngsters laid off and yet to be laid off in the coming months? An entertainment district for Bangalore? A take on moral policing?
Whatever the issue is, lay it out there for the candidate. This is the only chance. Take it.
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist.
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
By Harish Bijoor
The Member of Parliament is a macro entity at large. He or she is the representative of an average 18 lakh plus people of voting age. This really means that they represent very truly double that number of 18 lakhs and maybe more, as there are lots of people of non-voting age as well. A big responsibility this!
When a Member of Parliament voted into the Lok Sabha represents a constituency, what does he really do? What must one expect from him? Few in the citizenry really know what to expect. At this point of time, one expects little or nothing at all.
Expecting nothing at all is a philosophical and safe thing to do, but not a great thing at all. It is an abdication of demand altogether. Something the MP would love, but something an active citizenry cannot afford to have.
I do believe there is a new need to re-define expectations from the ones we are going to vote into power. Come May 16, 2009 and we will have a representative voted into Parliament from each of our 543 constituencies. What can one expect from them?
Macro politics? Of the kind where there are key issues on debate and where they will contribute in terms of a debate (in very rare cases, as very few of our MPs really speak in Parliament. Possibly the election process and all the Public meets exhausts them for all of five years!) and a vote in favor or against a move. Quite like what every MP contributed on the Nuclear Treaty recently.
Or Micro politics? Of the kind where every MP runs to get his constituency into the lime-light of everything doled out? While an MP will claim the building of a large number of public toilets in his constituency, another will claim the putting up of a bridge in his. Is this what one expects from an MP? And did he really do it?
Let me cascade this demand into just one city. Let’s take Bangalore. We have all of 4 MP’s going into Parliament soon. One each from Bengaluru Rural, Benguluru Central, Bengaluru North and Bengaluru South. Each will either be a party person or an independent of repute. Whoever it is, an MP is an MP. Once elected he will represent all the electorate, never mind the color of the flag that flies atop the house or never mind the symbol the home stamped on at the hustings.
What to expect from our 4 MP’s from Bangalore then, when they make it there? Time to list this out then, so that we may get them to swear by these as part of their manifesto and agenda.
I do believe every city and every constituency needs to define for itself a manifesto. An agenda of action. Party manifestoes announced grandiosely mean precious little to individual cities. And in the guise of the macro, every micro need gets engulfed. Also, on more occasions than not, macro goals are difficult to measure. The metrics are macro and opaque as well.
Very quickly then, what must be the plan of action for Bangalore? What must the candidate pick as issues?
You decide. Lay out these issues in front of the candidate who comes up to you seeking your vote. Ask every candidate his or her agenda for Bangalore. Let it cover the basics for a start. Better roads for Bangalore? Better infrastructure of every kind that a modern and burgeoning city must boast of? Faster connectivity to the exit hubs of the city. To the airport, the railway station and the Inter-state bus hubs? A take on pollution? A take on a greener and ecologically correct Bangalore? The insulation of good water? The power insulation for the summer months? Garbage-management as the biggest issue ahead of us? Social issues such as managing the discontent of all those youngsters laid off and yet to be laid off in the coming months? An entertainment district for Bangalore? A take on moral policing?
Whatever the issue is, lay it out there for the candidate. This is the only chance. Take it.
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist.
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
Saturday, April 11, 2009
How do voters decide who to vote?
Voter Decision Science
By Harish Bijoor
How does a voter decide whom to vote?
The question is a critical one. We therefore decided to do a study on the voter decision-making matrix. The sample size had to be small. Anything that you do as primary market research in India is bound to be small sample-size anyway. Remember, we are a nation of 1.3 Billion people! The sample size: 11,450 voters across 18 cities. Big cities such as a Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore and smaller Tier 2 towns such as an Agra, Tiruchy and Trivandrum, and smaller towns such as a Peddapuram and Hoshiarpur and many towns of their ilk.
The question: What goes into that one decision of who to vote?
The answers have just come in. Here go the logic patterns that seem to dominate the vote decision-making format.
1. The negative weeding out: This is where the voter is sitting out in judgment. Here she looks at anything negative that has come to the fore in the last five years with respect to a candidate or a party in question. Most of the time (82 %) this is party-based. Here, parties such as the Ram Sene have done damage to the image of the BJP in Karnataka. Moral policing is a positive and a negative though. In the bigger cities it is seen as a negative. In the smaller towns and villages it is seen as a positive. The BJP therefore gains from it in the smaller towns and loses precious votes because of it in the big cities. Raj Thackeray has similarly done damage to the vote sentiment in favor of the Shiv Sena in the bigger cities of Maharashtra and a positive impact on vote sentiment in the smaller towns.
2. Positive work by candidate: This figures high (43%) on the radar of decision making. Voters want to first quickly assess their voting constituency and then want to know the names of candidates. Once that is done, a quick and irrational decision even, is made. What counts at the forefront of decision making is the immediate good or bad work done by the candidate in question. History does not matter,. The last 14-18 months are important. The voter’s memory is reasonably short on this count.
3. The Issues-based pattern: These are macro issues that fashion out quick voter judgments. These are about the big phrases such as “Secularism”, “Nationalism”, “Patriotic” and “People centric” semantics.
:
4. Religion-based pattern: This is a big one in itself. A lot of association is built up by the person standing out there asking for your vote. If there are two candidates of the same religious tag, other details will be gone into. Otherwise, and sadly so, this counts a lot. Even today.
5. Caste-based pattern: Caste plays a major role. Is the candidate a Kamma? A Reddy? A Vokkaliga? A Lingayat? A Brahmin? 31 percentile points here.
6. Touch-based factors: Have I seen the candidate at all in Print, Television or in person? Has he come to my door for canvassing? Have I seen him in the field addressing a gathering? This counts. Never mind whether the candidate caused goose-flesh in me or not, this is important. It could swing a vote.
7. Positive work by party: Sadly the positive work done by a particular party comes relatively low down in the decision making matrix. Parties and their overall work seem to boil down to a very lowest-common denominator status. All parties are meant to do good work. This is not a differentiator, it seems. Parties gain precious little out here, just as long as they have not been debarred from political activity or just as long as they have not harbored terrorists with anti-India intent.
8. The anti-incumbency factor: I gave him or her a chance for five years. Time to pick the other party candidate and give him or her a chance. As many as 6% in the voter segments want to do this.
This is a tough game. Many things go into that one decision on the vote. This is a science. An art. A philosophy on its own.
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist.
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
By Harish Bijoor
How does a voter decide whom to vote?
The question is a critical one. We therefore decided to do a study on the voter decision-making matrix. The sample size had to be small. Anything that you do as primary market research in India is bound to be small sample-size anyway. Remember, we are a nation of 1.3 Billion people! The sample size: 11,450 voters across 18 cities. Big cities such as a Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore and smaller Tier 2 towns such as an Agra, Tiruchy and Trivandrum, and smaller towns such as a Peddapuram and Hoshiarpur and many towns of their ilk.
The question: What goes into that one decision of who to vote?
The answers have just come in. Here go the logic patterns that seem to dominate the vote decision-making format.
1. The negative weeding out: This is where the voter is sitting out in judgment. Here she looks at anything negative that has come to the fore in the last five years with respect to a candidate or a party in question. Most of the time (82 %) this is party-based. Here, parties such as the Ram Sene have done damage to the image of the BJP in Karnataka. Moral policing is a positive and a negative though. In the bigger cities it is seen as a negative. In the smaller towns and villages it is seen as a positive. The BJP therefore gains from it in the smaller towns and loses precious votes because of it in the big cities. Raj Thackeray has similarly done damage to the vote sentiment in favor of the Shiv Sena in the bigger cities of Maharashtra and a positive impact on vote sentiment in the smaller towns.
2. Positive work by candidate: This figures high (43%) on the radar of decision making. Voters want to first quickly assess their voting constituency and then want to know the names of candidates. Once that is done, a quick and irrational decision even, is made. What counts at the forefront of decision making is the immediate good or bad work done by the candidate in question. History does not matter,. The last 14-18 months are important. The voter’s memory is reasonably short on this count.
3. The Issues-based pattern: These are macro issues that fashion out quick voter judgments. These are about the big phrases such as “Secularism”, “Nationalism”, “Patriotic” and “People centric” semantics.
:
4. Religion-based pattern: This is a big one in itself. A lot of association is built up by the person standing out there asking for your vote. If there are two candidates of the same religious tag, other details will be gone into. Otherwise, and sadly so, this counts a lot. Even today.
5. Caste-based pattern: Caste plays a major role. Is the candidate a Kamma? A Reddy? A Vokkaliga? A Lingayat? A Brahmin? 31 percentile points here.
6. Touch-based factors: Have I seen the candidate at all in Print, Television or in person? Has he come to my door for canvassing? Have I seen him in the field addressing a gathering? This counts. Never mind whether the candidate caused goose-flesh in me or not, this is important. It could swing a vote.
7. Positive work by party: Sadly the positive work done by a particular party comes relatively low down in the decision making matrix. Parties and their overall work seem to boil down to a very lowest-common denominator status. All parties are meant to do good work. This is not a differentiator, it seems. Parties gain precious little out here, just as long as they have not been debarred from political activity or just as long as they have not harbored terrorists with anti-India intent.
8. The anti-incumbency factor: I gave him or her a chance for five years. Time to pick the other party candidate and give him or her a chance. As many as 6% in the voter segments want to do this.
This is a tough game. Many things go into that one decision on the vote. This is a science. An art. A philosophy on its own.
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist.
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
Friday, April 10, 2009
Independent Candidates in Indian Elections
Do Independents Matter?
By Harish Bijoor
Do independents matter at all in elections? If so how and why? Do independents ever stand a chance at all? What’s their role in shaping electoral politics, outcome and representation in the long run?
Many questions. The answers tend to float in the wind most of the time. This time as well. But let me grab at some strand of logic. Some strand of method in the madness that is the independent contesting an election.
The facts first. Karnataka alone will have a total of 400 plus independent candidates fighting the Lok Sabha poll battle 2009. Phase I of polling itself has a total of 226 confirmed independents. Let’s put the national number at 4,000 plus. Records of election after election indicate a climb in the total number of independents fighting elections.
The Lok Sabha elections 2004 saw a total of 2369 independents fighting for 543 constituencies. This out of a total of 5398 candidates in the fray. Add to this the fact that there are small parties that add to the melee. While there are a total of 9 National parties of any significance, as many 220 are registered as political parties and put up candidates who fight on the party ticket and money.
Two more bits of data. In election 2004 the largest number of candidates in the fray were from Chennai or Madras South. A total of 35. And the one guy who made it to the record books with the lowest number of votes polled was the honorable Mr. Ashok Kumar, an independent candidate from Chandni Chowk, Delhi, who polled a royal 45 votes and lost his deposit.
Why do independents fight elections at all then? Is there a rationale to it all? Do independents matter really?
Many reasons. Let me list just a few as usual. The top ones.
1. To make a point: There are people like Meera Sanyal, Mallika Sarabhai and my friend Capt. Gopinath who are renowned people from different walks of life. They just want to make a point. Make a point with a difference. Meera Sanyal will want clean governance and wants to focus on everything that is right. Gopi wants to fight an election without resorting to caste politics and everything else that is considered mucky in the national mainstream of politics, money power included.
2. To showcase a profession: There have been sex-workers, butchers and bus-conductors who have contested in the past. The idea is to showcase their individual professions and the ills that plague their plight.
3. To fight a cause: The idea is to clearly pit your might against a cause altogether. Corruption is a cause celebre for sure. As is terrorism.
4. To split votes: Prominent parties are known to put up candidates to split the opposition’s vote banks. Caste politics plays a major role here. In some cases, gender politics as well.
5. To rebel: The party has not given you a ticket. Never mind. If you truly believe in your worth, pitch in.
6. To gain in sheer publicity terms: Fighting an election is the cheapest and best way to gain publicity. If you are able to mobilize PR, and if you are able to do things differently, this is an excellent and in-expensive way of coming into the public mind-set. Do the right things; say the right things and you are made!
7. To act as a loop-hole candidate for the bigger parties: With election expenditure of individual candidates capped at Rs.25 lakhs, party candidates are known to put up dummy candidates to help them spend more. If you have 4 dummies in your constituency, these are 4 fronts that can claim 25 lakhs each. That’s a neat One crore to spend on the real candidate and his efforts.
8. To win: While the feeling is that all candidates aspire either overtly or covertly to win, there are indeed very very few who know they have a chance in the fiery hell of political battle, normally fought party to party. There are a few who genuinely believe they have a chance. Some in delusion and some with a sense of reality.
Do independents matter really? The very few who get through the fine sieve of party-besotted electoral politics in India have done precious little. Many are known to have sided parties and lost their independent voice. The few have done precious little to date.
Tomorrow is however a different day. There are new issues and new challenges we have here. Possibly an independent will really count in the future. Possibly in the next ten years?
The independent, at the end of it all, is a statement of intent. A very precious statement of intent. Good intent.
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist.
Email: ceo@harishbijoorconsults.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
By Harish Bijoor
Do independents matter at all in elections? If so how and why? Do independents ever stand a chance at all? What’s their role in shaping electoral politics, outcome and representation in the long run?
Many questions. The answers tend to float in the wind most of the time. This time as well. But let me grab at some strand of logic. Some strand of method in the madness that is the independent contesting an election.
The facts first. Karnataka alone will have a total of 400 plus independent candidates fighting the Lok Sabha poll battle 2009. Phase I of polling itself has a total of 226 confirmed independents. Let’s put the national number at 4,000 plus. Records of election after election indicate a climb in the total number of independents fighting elections.
The Lok Sabha elections 2004 saw a total of 2369 independents fighting for 543 constituencies. This out of a total of 5398 candidates in the fray. Add to this the fact that there are small parties that add to the melee. While there are a total of 9 National parties of any significance, as many 220 are registered as political parties and put up candidates who fight on the party ticket and money.
Two more bits of data. In election 2004 the largest number of candidates in the fray were from Chennai or Madras South. A total of 35. And the one guy who made it to the record books with the lowest number of votes polled was the honorable Mr. Ashok Kumar, an independent candidate from Chandni Chowk, Delhi, who polled a royal 45 votes and lost his deposit.
Why do independents fight elections at all then? Is there a rationale to it all? Do independents matter really?
Many reasons. Let me list just a few as usual. The top ones.
1. To make a point: There are people like Meera Sanyal, Mallika Sarabhai and my friend Capt. Gopinath who are renowned people from different walks of life. They just want to make a point. Make a point with a difference. Meera Sanyal will want clean governance and wants to focus on everything that is right. Gopi wants to fight an election without resorting to caste politics and everything else that is considered mucky in the national mainstream of politics, money power included.
2. To showcase a profession: There have been sex-workers, butchers and bus-conductors who have contested in the past. The idea is to showcase their individual professions and the ills that plague their plight.
3. To fight a cause: The idea is to clearly pit your might against a cause altogether. Corruption is a cause celebre for sure. As is terrorism.
4. To split votes: Prominent parties are known to put up candidates to split the opposition’s vote banks. Caste politics plays a major role here. In some cases, gender politics as well.
5. To rebel: The party has not given you a ticket. Never mind. If you truly believe in your worth, pitch in.
6. To gain in sheer publicity terms: Fighting an election is the cheapest and best way to gain publicity. If you are able to mobilize PR, and if you are able to do things differently, this is an excellent and in-expensive way of coming into the public mind-set. Do the right things; say the right things and you are made!
7. To act as a loop-hole candidate for the bigger parties: With election expenditure of individual candidates capped at Rs.25 lakhs, party candidates are known to put up dummy candidates to help them spend more. If you have 4 dummies in your constituency, these are 4 fronts that can claim 25 lakhs each. That’s a neat One crore to spend on the real candidate and his efforts.
8. To win: While the feeling is that all candidates aspire either overtly or covertly to win, there are indeed very very few who know they have a chance in the fiery hell of political battle, normally fought party to party. There are a few who genuinely believe they have a chance. Some in delusion and some with a sense of reality.
Do independents matter really? The very few who get through the fine sieve of party-besotted electoral politics in India have done precious little. Many are known to have sided parties and lost their independent voice. The few have done precious little to date.
Tomorrow is however a different day. There are new issues and new challenges we have here. Possibly an independent will really count in the future. Possibly in the next ten years?
The independent, at the end of it all, is a statement of intent. A very precious statement of intent. Good intent.
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist.
Email: ceo@harishbijoorconsults.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
Is an educated Member of Parliament necessary?
Is an educated MP important?
By Harish Bijoor
What is the role of the educated man in politics?
The question is thrown up all the time. Particularly in the urban context of our political lives. Remember, in the rural context education means something else altogether.
Urban folk love to talk the language of education. Formal education. As of all us really know, there is formal education in the format laid out for most of us in India by Lord Macaulay decades ago under the tutelage of the British. And then there is informal education by which norm every one of us in urban or rural area alike is fully educated. The older we get, the more rustic and the more diverse our sets of experiences, the more educated we are!
The question then is: Do educated leaders make a difference? Are educated leaders better for India? Are educated leaders less corrupt than un-educated ones? Are educated leaders more focused on public good than un-educated leaders?
A quest for the answers will need to take us through a quick journey of politics in India over the last seven decades.
I guess we started with a healthy mix of the educated. It is educated leaders who were pursuing reasonably lucrative professions, such as Barristers, Advocates, Doctors and Educationists who led us on in our thinking process that dominated the Freedom struggle. Education played a big part then. Opinion leadership mattered and those that led the way were intellectuals who were educated. Educated people who commanded a great deal of respect. And this respect came from the fact that not only were they educated, but the fact that they threw to the winds their respective lucrative professions to join the realm of public service and the cause of nationalism at large with a passion. This drew big respect from the masses at large.
As the decades went by, and as India settled into a democracy that was getting to be truly representative of its masses, as mandated by the Constitution of India(framed by these very educated people who helped steer the nation to freedom), education became but a non-important qualification to own in order to occupy the chair of public representation. And rightly so.
Just imagine that you represent a constituency that is totally illiterate in the formal sense, totally impoverished and totally deprived. Let’s say in Bihar. The true-blue representation of this consistency is best done by a person who can emote the local mood, mind, tone and tenor. True-blue representation meant education of the formal kind was not important at all. In many ways, the representative would be a person who could capture the imagination and trust of the electorate at large. A demagogue would do. A person who really emoted with issues at the ground level would be the best person to have as a Member of Parliament representing the area.
Our entire system of seat reservations and indeed every covenant of our affirmative action processes at play in India ensured this got deepened into the polity at play.
As the decades crawled by, we have had a wide spectrum-set of people occupying the hallowed position of a Member of Parliament, a Member of the Legislative Assembly or the Council of a State. And these cascade down to every level of local self governance we have in place.
The current debate is really an urban one. It is all about the empowered urban person saying that education of the formal kind instills a sense of right and wrong. It is the urban clamor that says that an educated person is more concerned about social work. And of course the end argument that an educated person is less corrupt than a person without the flavor of a formal education.
I do believe all of this is wrong. The most corrupt of our politicians are possibly the most educated. Those that do precious little for the electorate have also been the most educated, at times. In many ways, education really does not matter.
What matters is the ability to emote with an electorate. An ability to forcefully represent. An ability to be honest. An ability to be inclusive. An ability to stand by a cause. An ability to be un-relenting in the pursuit of social good.
If all of this is available in an un-educated (of the formal kind) man or woman, so be it. And if all of this is not available as part of the trait profile of the educated, so be it.
Education is an ethos. Those without a formal exposure to education have it at times. And those who have had a formal education have it not, at times.
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist.
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: +91 98440 83491
By Harish Bijoor
What is the role of the educated man in politics?
The question is thrown up all the time. Particularly in the urban context of our political lives. Remember, in the rural context education means something else altogether.
Urban folk love to talk the language of education. Formal education. As of all us really know, there is formal education in the format laid out for most of us in India by Lord Macaulay decades ago under the tutelage of the British. And then there is informal education by which norm every one of us in urban or rural area alike is fully educated. The older we get, the more rustic and the more diverse our sets of experiences, the more educated we are!
The question then is: Do educated leaders make a difference? Are educated leaders better for India? Are educated leaders less corrupt than un-educated ones? Are educated leaders more focused on public good than un-educated leaders?
A quest for the answers will need to take us through a quick journey of politics in India over the last seven decades.
I guess we started with a healthy mix of the educated. It is educated leaders who were pursuing reasonably lucrative professions, such as Barristers, Advocates, Doctors and Educationists who led us on in our thinking process that dominated the Freedom struggle. Education played a big part then. Opinion leadership mattered and those that led the way were intellectuals who were educated. Educated people who commanded a great deal of respect. And this respect came from the fact that not only were they educated, but the fact that they threw to the winds their respective lucrative professions to join the realm of public service and the cause of nationalism at large with a passion. This drew big respect from the masses at large.
As the decades went by, and as India settled into a democracy that was getting to be truly representative of its masses, as mandated by the Constitution of India(framed by these very educated people who helped steer the nation to freedom), education became but a non-important qualification to own in order to occupy the chair of public representation. And rightly so.
Just imagine that you represent a constituency that is totally illiterate in the formal sense, totally impoverished and totally deprived. Let’s say in Bihar. The true-blue representation of this consistency is best done by a person who can emote the local mood, mind, tone and tenor. True-blue representation meant education of the formal kind was not important at all. In many ways, the representative would be a person who could capture the imagination and trust of the electorate at large. A demagogue would do. A person who really emoted with issues at the ground level would be the best person to have as a Member of Parliament representing the area.
Our entire system of seat reservations and indeed every covenant of our affirmative action processes at play in India ensured this got deepened into the polity at play.
As the decades crawled by, we have had a wide spectrum-set of people occupying the hallowed position of a Member of Parliament, a Member of the Legislative Assembly or the Council of a State. And these cascade down to every level of local self governance we have in place.
The current debate is really an urban one. It is all about the empowered urban person saying that education of the formal kind instills a sense of right and wrong. It is the urban clamor that says that an educated person is more concerned about social work. And of course the end argument that an educated person is less corrupt than a person without the flavor of a formal education.
I do believe all of this is wrong. The most corrupt of our politicians are possibly the most educated. Those that do precious little for the electorate have also been the most educated, at times. In many ways, education really does not matter.
What matters is the ability to emote with an electorate. An ability to forcefully represent. An ability to be honest. An ability to be inclusive. An ability to stand by a cause. An ability to be un-relenting in the pursuit of social good.
If all of this is available in an un-educated (of the formal kind) man or woman, so be it. And if all of this is not available as part of the trait profile of the educated, so be it.
Education is an ethos. Those without a formal exposure to education have it at times. And those who have had a formal education have it not, at times.
Harish Bijoor is a Brand and Political strategy specialist.
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: +91 98440 83491
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Caste Mathematics in Indian Elections
Caste is an equation
By Harish Bijoor
Why is caste a part of Mathematics? Why is Caste an equation at all?
Come election time and Pundits of every hue (and here I am not referring to a particular caste, please!) are forever busy totaling up the numbers. Totting up the numbers of every caste spectrum there is to examine within a constituency.
As an aside, do you know for instance that there is a Caste Map of India that actually maps the caste equation of every constituency, listing out detailed splits of every caste there is? And this sells like hot cakes during an election. The base buyer is the Political Party, the individual candidates and of course the Psephologist at large, who is trying to grasp at whatever there is that paints a profile of the political battle-ground.
What is this Caste politics all about? And why should it be there at all? Is it for real? Does it really work?
My involvement in election-strategy work across the last decade tells me it does. It works in Bihar (which has a 90: 10 Rural-urban skew), just as it works in the newly carved out Bangalore Central (which has a 5: 95 Rural-Urban skew). Bangalore Central the Parliamentary Constituency, not the Mall!
Caste politics is not as old as most of us believe it to be. Right up to the elections of the years of the 1970 series, elections were largely fought on issues. Issues that were truly national and issues that were economic even. Come the years of the 1980’s series, in came the dominant role of the Caste. In many ways the Mandal debate spurred it all on.
Caste is today a major factor in every constituency. Tickets are doled out on the basis of caste. Caste in many ways dictates the 'winnability' factor of many a candidate. Over the last twenty years plus, the dominance of the caste factor in election-day performance is something that has risen its head like nothing else has. While most thinkers would ideate and say that the Caste factor is all about narrow jingoism and that it is vanishing altogether, the ground reality is totally different. Caste is consolidating!
Caste today is growing in appeal. Growing in the depth of passion that a voter indicates towards it as well. Every electorate is drawn out today into Caste blocks. Take Karnataka for instance. Our 5 crore plus population is spread out across the two dominant caste factions of the Lingayat and the Vokkaliga, each sharing a 17 and 15 per cent share in that order. Add an 8 per cent Kuruba vote to that. Garnish it with a Muslim vote of 10%. And divide that into the Shia vote and the Sunni vote. Add a sprinkling of the Christian vote. Segment it into the Catholic and the Protestant vote. Cover all of this with the umbrella of a 23 per cent Dalit vote, and the delightful dish of Karnataka caste politics is complete.
Every state of the Indian Union is witnessing a resurgence of caste based politics. Why?
In a rather simplistic manner of an answer, it is indeed all a part of the affirmative action syndrome at play at large, particularly with the specific legislative actions that have resulted in the polity that is India over the last two decades.
Every caste block and faction is really looking at the elections as a representative process that throws up leaders who represent causes and issues that are largely skewed in favor of or against the caste blocks at large. The reservation of seats syndrome has deepened the fissure. Allocations of ministries by governments that occupy the seat of power, the allocation of portfolios to bureaucrats on the basis of caste blocks and indeed the entire cascade of governance that follows is a reason for sure.
The reality as I see it on Ground Zero of electoral politics is a simple one. The key fact is this. Caste blocks vote not for political parties, their manifestoes and the debates that ensue. Instead, caste blocks vote for leaders. If the leader is a Vokkaliga, there is swing in the Vokkaliga heavy constituency. And if there are two dominant Vokkaligas pitted against one another, this is where the votes fracture. And that’s when you need to look at all those dummy candidates your party will put up to fracture the vote of the opponent as well. The fun begins.
Spin doctors of political parties who sit in the back-rooms typically work out the caste equation on their unique low-tech caste-calculators all the time, right up to the date of withdrawal of nominations. The thinking gets deeper and deeper still. If there is caste, remember there is sub-caste as well. The complexity deepens.
Why is caste important in Indian politics then?
When there is no one big issue at hand to vote on, one lapses back to caste. If and when there is, the voter will vote on the issue at large, like in the good old days just about Partition.
If for instance there is a war with Pakistan today, India will dump caste-based politics for that one election, and will vote with its heart in the issue. And then get back. To basics.
Harish Bijoor is a Business and Political-strategy specialist.
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
By Harish Bijoor
Why is caste a part of Mathematics? Why is Caste an equation at all?
Come election time and Pundits of every hue (and here I am not referring to a particular caste, please!) are forever busy totaling up the numbers. Totting up the numbers of every caste spectrum there is to examine within a constituency.
As an aside, do you know for instance that there is a Caste Map of India that actually maps the caste equation of every constituency, listing out detailed splits of every caste there is? And this sells like hot cakes during an election. The base buyer is the Political Party, the individual candidates and of course the Psephologist at large, who is trying to grasp at whatever there is that paints a profile of the political battle-ground.
What is this Caste politics all about? And why should it be there at all? Is it for real? Does it really work?
My involvement in election-strategy work across the last decade tells me it does. It works in Bihar (which has a 90: 10 Rural-urban skew), just as it works in the newly carved out Bangalore Central (which has a 5: 95 Rural-Urban skew). Bangalore Central the Parliamentary Constituency, not the Mall!
Caste politics is not as old as most of us believe it to be. Right up to the elections of the years of the 1970 series, elections were largely fought on issues. Issues that were truly national and issues that were economic even. Come the years of the 1980’s series, in came the dominant role of the Caste. In many ways the Mandal debate spurred it all on.
Caste is today a major factor in every constituency. Tickets are doled out on the basis of caste. Caste in many ways dictates the 'winnability' factor of many a candidate. Over the last twenty years plus, the dominance of the caste factor in election-day performance is something that has risen its head like nothing else has. While most thinkers would ideate and say that the Caste factor is all about narrow jingoism and that it is vanishing altogether, the ground reality is totally different. Caste is consolidating!
Caste today is growing in appeal. Growing in the depth of passion that a voter indicates towards it as well. Every electorate is drawn out today into Caste blocks. Take Karnataka for instance. Our 5 crore plus population is spread out across the two dominant caste factions of the Lingayat and the Vokkaliga, each sharing a 17 and 15 per cent share in that order. Add an 8 per cent Kuruba vote to that. Garnish it with a Muslim vote of 10%. And divide that into the Shia vote and the Sunni vote. Add a sprinkling of the Christian vote. Segment it into the Catholic and the Protestant vote. Cover all of this with the umbrella of a 23 per cent Dalit vote, and the delightful dish of Karnataka caste politics is complete.
Every state of the Indian Union is witnessing a resurgence of caste based politics. Why?
In a rather simplistic manner of an answer, it is indeed all a part of the affirmative action syndrome at play at large, particularly with the specific legislative actions that have resulted in the polity that is India over the last two decades.
Every caste block and faction is really looking at the elections as a representative process that throws up leaders who represent causes and issues that are largely skewed in favor of or against the caste blocks at large. The reservation of seats syndrome has deepened the fissure. Allocations of ministries by governments that occupy the seat of power, the allocation of portfolios to bureaucrats on the basis of caste blocks and indeed the entire cascade of governance that follows is a reason for sure.
The reality as I see it on Ground Zero of electoral politics is a simple one. The key fact is this. Caste blocks vote not for political parties, their manifestoes and the debates that ensue. Instead, caste blocks vote for leaders. If the leader is a Vokkaliga, there is swing in the Vokkaliga heavy constituency. And if there are two dominant Vokkaligas pitted against one another, this is where the votes fracture. And that’s when you need to look at all those dummy candidates your party will put up to fracture the vote of the opponent as well. The fun begins.
Spin doctors of political parties who sit in the back-rooms typically work out the caste equation on their unique low-tech caste-calculators all the time, right up to the date of withdrawal of nominations. The thinking gets deeper and deeper still. If there is caste, remember there is sub-caste as well. The complexity deepens.
Why is caste important in Indian politics then?
When there is no one big issue at hand to vote on, one lapses back to caste. If and when there is, the voter will vote on the issue at large, like in the good old days just about Partition.
If for instance there is a war with Pakistan today, India will dump caste-based politics for that one election, and will vote with its heart in the issue. And then get back. To basics.
Harish Bijoor is a Business and Political-strategy specialist.
Email: harishbijoor@hotmail.com
Mobile: 0 98440 83491
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
