VOTE FOR CHANGE BUT WHOM TO CHANGE

TODAY we have sets of alliances that would have seemed unlikely even a few weeks ago. And we ought not be surprised if more surprises are in store, some before the process of election to the Lok Sabha 2009 is completed but many more once the results are declared in May.

Politics, we are often reminded by politicians, is the art of the possible. Politics, we have learnt to our cost, is hardly an art in the Indian context; it is a craft as nebulous as it is crude, bereft of scruples and utterly without honour.

There are no permanent friends in politics, we are told that an enemy’s enemy is a friend. But in India, it seems a friend’s friend can become an enemy, an enemy’s enemy can become an enemy, a friend is by definition an enemy, and every enemy is a friend in waiting.

You will agree that a general election can for the most part therefore only be an exercise in choosing one undesirable over another. In short, our system stinks. We are being exhorted to cast our vote. We are told that the sins of perfidy of sloth of incompetence and of corruption exist in public life because we are not bothered sufficiently to want a change and that a change can only come about if we fetch up at the polling booth.

Through advertising campaigns, television programmes and blogs to get more Indians to vote in the general election are therefore ill-advised. It could be argued that their pupose is to ensure continuity, not provoke change. On the evidence of the Lok Sabha we have seen in recent times, our system of Parliamentary democracy has succeeded in creating leaders out of people. Included in the ranks of those who have been MPs are murderers, extortionists, kidnappers and an assortment of other criminals. Many of the candidates chosen for the forthcoming election are similarly qualified, if that is word we are looking for, for a stint in Parliament House. That will not change if more of us vote.

We have also had lawyers, economists and journalists but the process of a parliamentary election in our scheme of things and of subsequent political survival makes it incumbent upon the non-criminal and the criminal to depend on each other. And when such dependencies are born they create agreements that brings criminals into decision-making.

In fact, we do not have a “No Vote”. We do not have provision in our laws to reject an entire panel of candidates and thus force parties to offer candidates from among whom a meritorious one could be chosen, We do not have the right to recall an MP. These are natural extensions of the right to vote. In their absence we do not have the power to effect real change.

The youngsters are told they must take their responsibilities seriously. Why? Because they represent the future. But how many youngsters are in the fray, if there are any, majority of them are sons, daughters, nephews and nieces of those politicians responsible for the problem.

Sixty years on our political debate remains confined to the same issues—secularism, socialism, and growth but the answer is gripped in square. Is any political party serious about the need for introspection? Will any one of them assure the public that it will revisit basics to democracy meaningful? Common sense tells us that unless that happens our vote will not make a difference.