The Clean Image Mirage
By Suraj Kumar Thube
25 May, 2016
Countercurrents.org
After a series of recently concluded elections in five states of India, there is one question which keeps baffling the layman and academicians alike. What exactly leads a voter to cast her vote for a particular politician? Is it the overall political acumen which has to be judged based on her recent track record? Or does she have to project an image of dynamism and at the same time that of a pragmatic leader who tries to reconcile perennially intractable issues? More so, do the voters really care about the much touted meta narratives like 'social justice',' women empowerment' and 'sustainable development' especially at the sub national elections? If the above question is answered in the affirmative, then one of its logical derivation would be that the voters, by and large, believe in electing politicians with a clean, non corrupt image for good governance. However, the statistics provide a bewildering scenario wherein more often than not, it is the corrupt, venal politician that manages to convince the voters about her vision of a desirable change.
According to the Association for Democratic Reforms ( ADR ), a New Delhi based think tank, shows that the maximum number of politicians charged with criminal charges are found in West Bengal followed up by the state of Kerala. In the last few years, this proportion of politicians with a tainted background has gone up, especially in the case of Kerala which is otherwise lauded for its human development indicators. The statistics for serious criminal charges is also remarkably high in these two states which includes murder, rape and theft among others. It has seen a rise from 32 to 37% in West Bengal and an astounding rise from 42 to 62% in the case of Kerala. Another glaring fact which needs to be taken into consideration is that it is the Communist Party of Indian ( Marxists ) that constitute the majority of this tainted list of candidates who have won their respected seats. Criminalisation of politics is a topic that has been studied in great details in the recent past where scholars have argued about the benefits of fielding tainted individuals to shore up the declining fortunes of a given party. ( Milan Vaishnav ). At the same time, one also needs to ponder upon the possible reasons from the voters side to understand what motivates electorates to exercise their voting rights in the way they eventually do.
Unlike the issue of criminal charges that fails to arouse any collective conscience among the masses while voting, corruption is one issue that seems to top the list of something that forms the base of a voters decision. But is that really the case? Praveen Chakravarthy had argued a few months ago that the very fact that tainted individuals like A Raja, Jayalalitha and Lalu Prasad Yadav managing a resounding comeback to power should force us to problematize the romanticising of the famed embedded nature of democracy that will keep the evil forces at bay. Jayalalitha, defying all odds, successfully managed to retain power even after a string of massive accusations regarding embezzlement in certain welfare schemes. The marginalised voter along with the aspirational middle class seem to be increasingly veering toward those politicians who remain practically relevant to fulfil their everyday needs. The ideological baggage and her long term planning of policy making and strengthening of institutions for instance takes a back seat. The short term goals have arbitrarily appropriated the pole position with an active indulgence of both the party manipulation and a wilful allegiance to the same by an increasingly restless electorate that more or less includes voters across the scale. It no longer seems a viable political tactic to project politicians as 'moral exemplars' collectively working to strive toward a better tomorrow. Corruption as a mobilizing ploy is getting more ambiguous day by day as nobody is sure as for whom is this question of coming out with a clean image being posed to. Similarly, the complexity gets accentuated even further when one looks at surveys conducted by newspapers and pan India magazines which have reportedly listed the issue of 'corruption' as the single most important issue that voters have in mind while casting their vote. Has this got to do anything with the changing, nuanced understanding of 'corruption' not essentially being only an individual act but a wider systemic malice that implicates all inside it by default? Or is it plain ignorance on our part to recognise the deeper ramifications of our political choices that are going to have a large bearing on shaping the psyche of prospective electorates?
More than the alternatives that the parties offer in terms of policies ( which aren't many in any case ), it is becoming more of an issue that revolves around what mobilises particular voters at a given point of time. In this context, one can possibly discern that voting patterns based on one's social identity ( something that has been a dominant paradigm ) should be juxtaposed with an equal weightage given to economic angle of the same. To use Immanuel Kant's concepts, are Indian voters discarding the virtues of a 'moral politician' by embracing the 'political moralist' who couches the negativity attached to corruption under the guise of 'pragmatism'?
Suraj Kumar Thube is currently pursuing his MA in Political Science from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He is interested in Indian politics and Indian political thought. He spends most of his time reading books, playing football and listening to Hindustani classical music.