|
|
General elections 2009 – party representatives or people representatives
Aftermath of general elections in India, we saw psephologists interpreting the results and elaborating upon the reasons that could explain the results. We also saw journalists quizzing the politicians for likely explanation to their poll performance. Political parties, whose results were below their expectations, have cited various reasons for their poor show, which range from leadership, campaign strategy, choice alliance and so on and so forth.
Majority of the reasons shown by the parties / psephologists are related to the election per se and do not appear to have anything to do with the issues, problems or concerns of the constituencies that they vied for. Basic assumption behind poor performance appears to be flawed election strategy. What happened in the last couple of months is said to have emerged as decisive factor. These parties are not even hinting at the fact that they might have failed to make a difference, leave alone a meaningful difference in the lives of the people that they represented in the last five years.
There exist many instances where candidates fielded did not have an idea of what the issues are in the constituencies from where they were seeking the mandate. It is astonishing when one thinks about what mandate were they seeking? Mandate for what? Obviously it could not have been for the work that they did for the people of the constituency. At best it could have been for the promise that they were now coming with. These were the candidates who were counting either their image that comes with their background or profession, or on the image of the party they represented, oratory skills, campaigning strategy, style, inter personnel skills etc.
A spokesman belonging to a political party had said that in these elections they could not reach out to rural areas, but the question is if it tried to reach out to rural population in the last five years. As a mater of fact none of the political parties did that, though schemes such as NREGA and loan waiver for farmers might have had some impact on rural population.
Thrusting celebrities on the people has been one of the most popular ploys in the election. Past record says that many of such celebrity representatives had little time for the parliament and how can they be expected to take out time for attending to the needs and aspirations of the people in their constituency.
Whenever elections are held, there is general feeling that democracy in India is thriving and flourishing, which is correct without any doubt. At the same time democracy is not simply about holding elections, it is also about people electing their true representatives, who understand the people in the constituency, their concerns, and their aspirations and have realistic knowledge of ways of improving livelihood of those people. We are talking of the kind of representatives who work for the cause of their people and also ensure that benefits of Government policies / schemes are derived by the people in the constituency.
Instead of indulging in post elections blame game, political parties in the country must focus on developing leaders at all levels - right from grass root levels, who are committed to the cause of the people in the area and sensitive to their needs and expectations with enduring relationship with the people at the core of it all. In a nutshell, purposeful and meaningful leadership at grass root level will take our democratic institution to higher levels of functioning and satisfaction.
|
|
|
