We must aspire more from elections!

Results of recent assembly elections have proven beyond doubt that we have only poor aspirations from elections. The simplistic analyses satisfy us. The propaganda machinery of the ruling establishment and the mainstream media are trying to convince us that the return of Yogi Adityanath in Uttar Pradesh indicates a mandate in favour of good governance and the better delivery of a centrally sponsored scheme of providing essential commodities to the poor section of society during the pandemic. Another argument is also being forwarded that Hindutva has taken roots deep into the minds of common men and people have voted under its influence. When we combine these two separately made arguments, a clever political statement comes out of it: Hindutva can create a good governance model. Does it have any basis?

The Indian media has long abandoned its yearning for objective inquiry and can accept any lie without questioning it. Do we need any rocket science to evaluate the performance of Yogi Adityanath? Have we not seen the management of the pandemic across the states? Who is unaware of the fact that dead bodies were floating in the Ganga or buried at its banks during the pandemic? Simple facts are there that expose the hollowness of better governance. We have seen how migrants from Uttar Pradesh traveled on foot for hundreds of miles.

We must compare Kerala and Uttar Pradesh on the Human Development Index. There is hardly any comparison between the two. Even a superficial comparison will reveal that the state is yet to get rid of the yoke of feudalism and the oppressive bureaucracy it has inherited from British rule. The fragility of the state economy could be seen in the inability to recruit those who have passed various state-level competitive exams. Thousands of vacancies exist in government departments, and Yogi never showed any inclination to fill them. There is no need to assert that some of the regions in the state compete with sub-Saharan regions in economic and human development parameters. Who is unaware of Yogi's priority? It is well known that he has been concentrating on religious celebrations and issues that can divide people on religious lines.

The question is which of the two brought the second time Yogi to power: Hindutva or governance? It is clear that he performed poorly in governance. This was not evident only in his performing poorly in health, employment, and education, but also in maintaining law and order. His period witnessed gory incidents like Hathrus and Unnao. A police inspector was killed by a rowdy mob, and some policemen killed an innocent young man without any apparent reason. So, there is no reason to buy this argument that he has been reelected on the issue of governance. Then comes the issue of Hindutva. Poor analysis of election results will only push people to accept this. People are arguing that had it not been the case, the Samajwadi Party could have performed better in western Uttar Pradesh, which was the test case of communal divide. They argue that the claim of the farmers' movement to bring Jats and Muslims proved to be hollow and that the majority of Jats voted for the BJP. However, peasant leader and former psephologist Yogendra Yadav has pointed out how the alliance of Jayant Chaudhary and Akhilesh Yadav performed in 19 constituencies in four districts of Muzaffarnagar, Shamli, Meerut, and Muradabad. This region was the epicenter of the movement and had a background of deep communal divides. The anti-BJP alliance won 13 seats, and three leaders who were known for their roles during communal riots were defeated by the alliance. Doesn't this imply that Hindutva received overwhelming support in the recent elections, which may not be the case?

If governance and Hindutva were the two most important factors in the elections, what other factors were there? This question forces us to analyze results in an objective manner and brings us to the larger question of the state of democracy in India. The most important point for us to note in this context is the total absence of the Election Commission of India. It hardly tried to enforce the Model Code of Conduct. Leaders invoked both caste and religion and sought a vote on it. A police commissioner resigned his post and fought elections while he was part of the election process. After the announcement of elections, the entire administration comes under the direct control of the ECI and every officer becomes part of the Commission. If someone contests or supports a party, he violates the election laws and his action amounts to influence the polls. However, the Commission took no action. The failure of the ECI can also be seen in enforcing the Model Code of Conduct so far as campaigning is concerned.

Its decision to conduct polls in seven phases has been in controversy. One can see how the Prime Minister and others address a meeting in an area where polls are scheduled in another phase, and this comes live on TV channels. The Commission did little to ensure a level playing field and the coverage in print or electronic media was mostly favorable to the ruling party. No action was taken against any newspapers or channels that were openly canvassing for the ruling party. The Commission apparently failed to inspire confidence among opposition parties. We also saw how the Enforcement Directorate was conducting raids on the people associated with the opposition parties. Do these aspects of the election not warrant our immediate attention? Isn't this a troubling sign for our democracy?

We need to give serious thought to the decline of our democratic institutions. There is little attention to the low percentage of polling in Uttar Pradesh. It is a matter of concern that even a high-pitched campaign could not bring people to the polling booths. We should avoid a simplistic analysis of election results.

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)