What the mandate means

To the ruling NDA: Democracy is about consensus-building, not brute majority; to the I.N.D.I.A bloc: Be a vigilant, constructive Opposition

Now that the new government has been sworn in, let me begin with the delicious irony of the general election result: the party leading the formation that has won and has formed the government feels it has lost; and the party leading the formation that will sit in the Opposition feels it has won. From the perspective of India’s democracy though, the people appear to have made their choice judiciously and delivered a near-perfect mandate: the government has done reasonably well and has a vision for the country’s future, so let us vote for continuity; but the ruling party was threatening to become too strong for its own good, so we will reduce their numbers to teach them a lesson. We need a strong Opposition, so let us strengthen them; but they need to learn to be a responsible Opposition and do not yet have our trust to form the government, so we will stop them short.

The political leadership on both sides of the parliamentary aisle would do well to read the subliminal messages in the mandate: First, to the Opposition I.N.D.I.A bloc: India’s democracy is alive, healthy, and thriving, else you would not have got as many seats as you did. So be responsible instead of churlish, do not cry wolf to the world making specious and facile statements about India’s democracy and Constitution being in danger. Play the role of a constructive and vigilant Opposition without being obstructionist. 

To the ruling National Democratic Alliance: Democracy is not autocracy, nor about brute majority. It is about consultation and consensus-building. You need to work with the Opposition and strengthen the parliamentary processes, enable informed debate, and accept constructive criticism. Both the Treasury and the Opposition benches must remember that they are meant to serve the greater good of the public and the country. Together, you must restore and legitimise parliamentary democracy, facilitate the development and maturation of India's democratic institutions, and reinforce legitimacy in their operating principles.

Second, the central purpose of politics must be to drive social change and improve development outcomes. The political class must recognise that an important mission is to strengthen India’s human development trajectory, and a collective responsibility to extend social protection to the disadvantaged and vulnerable people. The public discourse extant across political formations and parties does not suggest that our political leaders have necessarily drawn lessons on this imperative, nor does it appear entirely clear what they believe these lessons might be. 

The fault lines in our democracy can be located in the design of the political enterprise itself. What kind of politics is implicit in the design? The politician today pretends to make an analysis of the problems of the citizen, of hunger and deprivation, of unemployment and wage poverty, and of health poverty or education poverty. However, these vital problems are not studied because of the significance they have in themselves but only insofar as they can be causes for electoral gains or losses. Rhetoric rather than reality characterises most political utterances of both the ruling and the Opposition leaders today, driven by one aim alone: win elections by any means -- fair or foul -- regardless of the public and its problems.

The problem is not that the discourse on politics and development mix; after all, in the political economy of development they do combine, with some winners and other losers. More important and challenging than an analysis of what is happening is to find workable solutions to the problems that appear widespread: Unemployment, inequality, and climate change adversely impacting livelihoods. The ruling and Opposition coalitions would do well to recognise that neither Mandir nor Mandal can address these problems. So, don’t indulge in false narratives.

Third, India is intrinsically a plural society. In at least two ways, India's demographic diversity is significant. It exemplifies extensive cross-cutting diversity along religious, linguistic, caste, and tribal lines. In terms of linguistic diversity, the census lists 22 official languages and 122 major languages. In recent decades, religious and caste divisions have sharpened in national politics. Individual rights and liberties continue to be an important and threatened line of defence in the fight to preserve pluralism in contemporary India. Some of the most prominent demands of minorities in India today concern the failure of State agencies to enforce the rights of all citizens to security, freedom, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity, as well as the impunity enjoyed by those who violate the rights of the vulnerable.

Preserving our plural society requires the non-partisan energies of all newly-elected parliamentarians, in public life, political life, and civic bridge-building. If the ruling coalition and the Opposition coalition work together as responsible representatives of the citizens, there can be little doubt that India will remain a beacon as a plural, multi-cultural society. The NDA and the I.N.D.I alliances must rise to this challenge.

Finally, the people expect their elected representatives to provide enlightened political discourse. There is no other path to a more equal and informed society than the path of democratisation and consensus. This entails an open mind to appreciate an opposing perspective, a willingness to abandon unexamined dogmas, and a critical thinking approach that diminishes superstition, religious bigotry, and pseudoscience. 

In the contemporary material age, and the venal politics that drives politicians toward self-aggrandisement and self-centred success, there is perhaps nothing more important than for our elected representatives to conduct themselves in an ethical and statesman-like manner. The citizens expect broad agreement between the ruling party and the Opposition in matters of the common good; where they do differ on some aspects of national development, as they must, it should provide a discussion base for good faith disagreement, not boycotting parliament and obstructing parliamentary debate. In the end, they are after all elected to strive toward a common goal -- the making of a nation. The people expect them to be non-partisan, ethical and fair parliamentarians. Is that too much to expect?

(The writer is Director, School of Social Sciences, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)