Nitish embracing BJP, a mockery of voters

In India, political leadership matters, although you don’t get to choose it. You only choose your direct representative — be it the Member of Parliament or the Member of the Legislative Assembly. While these two may not change during their term, the political leadership often does. 

 

The chief ministers change, and so do the prime minister, without any election conducted, in the middle of the government’s terms. Coalition politics cultivates these tendencies. And such leadership alterations happen with an utter disregard for the preferences of voters. Everyone talks about the choice of the new leader, no one discusses whether this is a desirable practice in a democratic process.

The resignation and re-appointment of Nitish Kumar as chief minister in Bihar is just one such example. Bihar is the third largest state in terms of population and one of the poorest states of the country. It is indeed unfortunate that a state that needs political stability and economic development so desperately, one observes petty politics and opportunistic behaviours by its political leaders.

Votes are small packets of confidence and trust. Each vote carries the emotional burden of voters, carrying it to Patna or New Delhi. We vote with the face of the leader in our minds, and we send our honest hopes to be aggregated. These are high hopes, they demand respect and trust. At the very least, they demand commitment.

Indian political arena has not the best of platforms to discern high degree of moral behaviours, exacerbated in recent times due to coalition politics. When it comes to coalition politics, an ex-post trading of power share erodes the value of the mandate with which party has formed the government.

Let’s look closely for Bihar, how has the mandate been destabilised. The Mahagathbandhan (Grand Alliance) of the RJD, the JD(U) and the Congress came as a response to devastating defeats these parties suffered in the Lok Sabha elections in 2014 when BJP won 16 seats and JD(U), RJD and Congress won two, three and one seats, respectively.

The 2015 assembly results brought a mammoth win for the Grand Coalition with 71, 80 and 27 seats for JD(U), RJD and Congress. Note that they had single joint candidates in all the constituencies, so that they do not internally compete, reflecting solid teamwork.

Of the total, 101 candidates came from JD(U) and RJD each and 41 from Congress, and each representing the Grand Coalition. People who wanted to vote for, say JD(U) in constituencies where it did not contest, voted for RJD perhaps. They were voting for RJD, thinking that their vote goes to JD(U). After all, they belonged to the same coalition.

Interestingly, the RJD had received the highest seats share in the coalition and yet the chief minister came from JD(U). We know, vote share is a more accurate indicator of people’s preferences. It is worth noting that the Mahagathbandhan received around 42% of total votes polled whereas the BJP and its allies received around 34% votes. The RJD and JD(U) individually received 18% and 16% of votes, respectively, whereas the BJP received 24% votes. With RJD out of the picture now, 18% of voters are betrayed on their face.

Why would Nitish Kumar do this? In fact, the charges of corruption against Lalu Prasad were worse at the time they formed coalition back in 2015. Why sudden heightened concern for Nitish Kumar about corruption charges? Was it not clear to begin with when they formed alliance with RJD?
Restricting competition.

Contrary to what many would guess, Nitish formed the government again with the help of BJP. But why would BJP support JD(U)? It seems that BJP does not want to let Nitish to rise as a potential candidate for the prime minister’s position in the next elections. Thus, by supporting JD(U) to form government now, it probably is aiming to reduce the possible rise of Nitish Kumar as a national leader. It can be thought of as the conventional accumulation of capital where the bigger capitalist takes over the smaller ones to restrict competition.

Whatever the case, the political instability of this kind is disturbing news for the voters of Bihar who had shown confidence in the idea of Mahagathbandhan. In our work published elsewhere, we have examined the quality of win in terms of the difference of vote share and seat share for 2015 assembly elections against the 2010 assembly elections in Bihar.

The quality of win in terms of representation had surely improved in 2015, thanks to the Mahagathbandhan. Now, in just two years’ time, facing a political debacle, it comes as a mockery on the voters of Bihar.

It also comes as a shock to those who thought that this coalition will actually rise as the third front to fight against BJP in the near future. This kind of opportunistic behaviour by Nitish Kumar diminishes trust factor for other parties in future, and gives a chilling effect for future coalitions. This leads to a gross decay in the electoral competition in general. The BJP continues to have a stronger control over the national politics. Furthermore, this only causes unrest in the already vulnerable and poor region of Bihar.

When we vote during the elections, we not only choose our MP or MLA, but also choose a party to rule. For many, the choice of candidate is a result of her preference for a party, not the candidate. The election victory of BJP in 2014 Lok Sabha and Aam Aadmi Party in 2015 Delhi Vidhan Sabha are cases in point.

Reshuffling of coalitions, and reproducing new leaderships in the middle of the terms, reflects hollowness of government’s emotional bond with their people. Yet, sadly, coalition politics has become a new normal in Indian democracy. We have thoughtlessly internalised reshuffling of coalitions so much that we forget how it erodes the sanctity of once-held elections in the region.

(The writers teach economics at O P Jindal Global University, Sonepat, Haryana)