On February 10, 2015, the AamAadmi Party (AAP) caused a major electoral upset in Indian politics when in the state elections, which in the Indian political system are held at different times from the general elections, it routed theBharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in the Indian capital. That the Delhiites changed their verdict so soon and so completely when only last year the BJP had swept the polls in the Indian general elections, makes one wonder what caused such a cataclysmic change in the public mood.
The AAP evolved out of the movement launched in 2011 by the activist Anna Hazareagainst corruption. One of his associates, Arvind Kejriwal, went on to establish AAP in November 2013. The AAP has now come of age and enjoys the support of the poor and middle classes and a host of activists and intellectuals inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy of peaceful, mass protests and agitations against the powers-that-be. Corruption has been rampant in Indian politics for a long time now and that has generated a constituency for political mobilisation against the abuse of power, the worship of Mammon and other problems that proliferated as a result. Analysts have noted that the AAP made very smart and efficient use of social media and succeeded in communicating its message with great success, notwithstanding the backing of the corporate sector to the BJP. The Congress has been discredited by corruption, nepotism and dynastic propensities and while the BJP did win three seats, the Congress did not even one.
Was the mandate given byDelhi’svoters an indictment of the BJP’s performance after it came to power at the Centre and in the Indian capital last year? In one senseit is and no amount of prevarication can evade such an inference. To imagine that the people of Delhi voted whimsically and capriciously because the masses are by nature essentially fickle and unreliable is not warranted at all. The BJP has taken the rhetorical position that the vote is not against the BJP but is a vote for the AAP. The argument is that the BJP had been in power in Delhi only for a few months. For a fair evaluation of its performance more time needs to be given to it. There is a grain of truth in this but I think the Indian voters have, over the years, learnt to cast their vote with discretion and intelligence. Ever since the BJP has been in power the communal factor has been in the air more markedly while delivery of services to the people has remained unimpressive. Therefore, when an opportunity to express their concerns and disappointments arrived so soon after the BJP’s clean sweep of May 2014, the people of Delhi made use of that opportunity and rejected the BJP in Delhi. Such behaviour is proof of the maturity and sophistication of the voters rather than anything else.
The founding fathers of modern India, from the very beginning, committed to parliamentary democracy based on the one-man-one-vote principle without any discrimination of caste, creed and colour. Regular, free and fair, periodic elections only undergirded such principles. A brief interlude of authoritarianism was placedunder Indira Gandhi when she imposed an emergency during 1975 to 1977, during which time she suspended civil liberties and acquired dictatorial powers. She was severely punished by the voters for such behaviour in the elections of 1977, only to be voted back into power in 1980 because the Janata Party failed to provide a stable and coherent government.
In political science we are now increasingly aware of the importance of institutions and supportive practices in determining the direction and quality of the politics of a country. The path-dependency theory suggests that adherence to the rules of the game of modern democracy lends prestige, sophistication and resilience to democracy while constant interruptions by military coups or other forms of authoritarian manipulations enfeeble it and render it brittle and precarious.
However, what is needed besides emphasis on institutions and practices is the role of ideas and ideals. India was conceived as a secular, parliamentary, pluralist and inclusive democracy. These values were incorporated into the Indian Constitution. The long premiership of Jawaharlal Nehru (1947 to 1974) greatly helped such ideas get entrenched.In spite of deviations and regressions, which no doubt have taken place, the system has remained robust.
I am now even more convinced than ever before that not only is secularism central to the democratic project of the contemporary epoch, it is the absolute pre-condition for all other things to happen to produce and sustain democracy. Thus, for example, when Imam Bukhari and some Christian leaders instructed their co-religionists to vote for the AAP, MrArvind Kejriwal rejected such gestures saying that he did not want to indulge in vote-bank politics. Rather, the AAP is for all Indians and people should vote for it on the basis of its manifesto, which emphasises inclusive democracy. In true Gandhian fashion, the objective is not to sharpen the contradictions between the rich and poor but to create a moral order in which all classes and individuals stand a fair chance of having their interests and rights protected and respected. How this will be achieved remains to be seen. What is more important is to know if this is an outcome confined to the peculiar situation and circumstances of Delhi or a trend that will produce similar results elsewhere in state elections. On the whole, we should try to learn from this Indian experience in our own battle for democracy.
The writer is a visiting professor, LUMS, Pakistan, professor emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University, and honorary senior fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. Latest publications: Winner of the Best Non-Fiction Book award at the Karachi Literature Festival: The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, Oxford, 2012; and Pakistan: The Garrison State, Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947-2011), Oxford, 2013. He can be reached at:[email protected]