In less than a week from now, people will know who has political control over India. The verdict will come at the end of what’s often been a tumultuous campaign. Besides determining who shall be Prime Minister, the outcome will also answer a very big question that was raised in the beginning of the campaign. At that time it was stated that these elections would be more presidential in character than any previous poll. Has it indeed been that?
Last year, after the appointment of Narendra Modi as the Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidate, the question that arose was whether this poll would reverse the trend of several general polls since 1989.
The election for the ninth Lok Sabha that saw Vishwanath Pratap Singh becoming Prime Minister was the last time when a single issue held sway over a considerable part of India. Though the polls in 1984 had a greater national footprint, being held as they were after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, the issue of corruption in high place played out significantly in 1989.
But thereafter, all polls became an aggregate of several local polls, at times aggregated either constituency by constituency in some extreme instances, or at state and sub-regional levels on most occasions.
Every single election since 1991 has not been influenced significantly by a single issue. If at all they were, barring in 2009 when the Congress was given an improved mandate following a string of pro-poor policies of the government, parliamentary polls were affected by a negative vote, like in 2004 when the BJP-led government was voted out.
By the middle of 2013, however, it appeared that the emergence of Mr Modi as the electoral mascot of BJP had led to a situation where endorsing or rejecting him would become the single largest issue in this election. In the early stages, the election had not appeared to be becoming a virtual referendum on Mr Modi, but by the end of the campaign this is what appears to be the case. It is therefore not wrong to say that this election can be described in one word — Modi.
But what would construe a Modi wave — either in its success or failure? To say that the Modi wave swept India, there has to be a significant increase in the BJP’s individual tally from 206, the number of seats won by the Congress party in 2009.
But even in a situation where the BJP tally falls short of this mark, a final score that is significantly higher than 183 (that the BJP won during the Vajpayee years) would be considered to be a result of Mr Modi’s stewardship of the BJP’s campaign. While the acceptance of Mr Modi would indicate the return of a single issue poll, his rejection could also happen due to several state level issues.
This raises a vital question — is the return of a single issue as a predominant one in the polls good for India or not?
The entire campaign of the BJP has been based on a singular principle and been pitted against the syncretic nature of India’s political culture. The issue of growth has been framed in the context of limitations of a coalition government.
For a considerable period of time Mr Modi has suggested that a growth oriented political system where rights are available in limited doses is a better bet than a messy democracy. When he began his march to Delhi in serious intent after the Assembly polls of December 2012, Mr Modi’s first target was diluting the collective leadership of the BJP.
Just as he reduced the party to one with only one individual being in charge, he has asked for a similar mandate from the electorate. In recent interviews, Mr Modi has claimed that the mandate this time will be the strongest endorsement of a single party after the result of 1984.
Does India need a government with a brute majority at the helm to make economic progress? Does a government need to undermine the political rights of individuals and select groups to provide a stable government? Would Mr Modi have failed to initiate economic policies and push development in Gujarat, like he claims has been done, if he did not have the kind of majority he has had since 2002?
It must be recalled that the first major decision of the Vajpayee government in 1998 after assuming office was to direct the nuclear testing. This decision provided the backdrop to all subsequent developments in India’s internal security and other issues in the sub-continent. The Vajpayee government was an omnibus coalition as his party had only 183 seats in Lok Sabha.
Similarly, some of the most significant policy initiatives of the UPA government were taken during its first tenure, when it had a weaker mandate than what it secured in 2009. This clearly demonstrates that a massive majority in Parliament is not essential for effective governance and important policy steps. Good governance is possible by even the barest of majorities but this can be done only by a consultative process which clearly has been anathema to Mr Modi.
Any leader seeking a sweeping majority is looking to acquire political power far in excess of what is required for governance. Temperamentally, Mr Modi does not like the consultative process and eschews consensus building. Many of his personality traits are similar to Indira Gandhi’s.
Just as she sought and gained a massive majority in 1971, by promoting fears of destabilisation to acquire brute political power, Mr Modi’s campaign has also projected him as a messiah for all ills that threaten to destroy India.
This campaign has been all about Mr Modi acquiring absolute political power and less about development. What he will do with the power, if he gets an endorsement from the people, is a different issue altogether.
The writer is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, the Times
