Indian society has less than a hundred years of experience to form a government or remove a government through elections, but the impact of the election process in the society is very worrying. There has been a disease of portraying the opposition parties as inferior and villains of the society during the selection of public representatives through elections. No democratic government can run without capable and capable opposition parties. But we have started trying to convince the public in the election that the person nominated by my party is the only watchman of your interests, everyone else is in your detriment.
Clearly, we are making the process of election an opportunity for the glory of the individual and the monopoly of the parties, rather than democracy-building. This creates a backdrop of complete political intolerance and limited dictatorship. To turn the election into a tumultuous and deadly contest is to create a contradiction between elections and democracy. One of the conditions of the election is to fight it in a friendly spirit, as the candidates of different parties are in the same boat. Whether it is victorious or defeated, without placing the helm of democracy in the hands of candidates and parties, our boat will be doomed to get bogged down in the quagmire of monopolism. This threat has also come to the fore in Africa and Southeast Asia. First a particular party gets a huge majority, then on the basis of number strength in the house, making the whole system a party based, and after electing one person for life as President or Prime Minister, democracy on the basis of people’s vote and claim of majority. The work of burying itself has been done from Nigeria, Uganda to Indonesia and Malaysia.
The time has come to bring the challenge of winning elections among parties within the purview of a certain code of conduct. For example, to become champions in the game of cricket or football, all teams are responsible for their best performance, but the freedom to injure players of the rival team or terrorize the referee or umpire of the match to fulfill the desire to win the trophy. Can’t be given to anyone, because scoring goals or taking wickets with gusto will end the game. Similarly, are we not lighting the pyre of democracy by criminalizing elections and linking electoral victories and defeats with the disease of death? In this, the leaders of the parties have the biggest responsibility.
The need to respect the sanctity of the election process when we snatched our right to freedom from the hands of the British Raj and after almost three years of analysis and consensus-building through an inclusive Constituent Assembly, admitted the country to the school of democratic revolution. Everyone took the responsibility. Therefore, the party that won the majority gave equal importance to the minority parties and spokespersons as to the members of its cabinet. This was considered conduct in the spirit of healthy rivalry. But now the victorious party and the hero are seen suffering from the disease of claiming themselves to be the sole public representative and the country’s servant. And, parties that fail to get a majority accuse voters of everything from the legitimacy of the election process to stupidity. Both of these are unfair.
If seen, we are still learning the fate of democracy. There is a lot of improvement left in our polling. In this one wins or loses, but the challenge of continuing the work of democracy-building from pre-election till post-election cannot be deflected. That is why, nowadays, from the announcement of the election to the coming of the complete picture of the election results, the type of attitude and language style displayed, sometimes looks ridiculous, and often looks suicidal.
In this context it is natural to recall that when Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia filled his nomination from Phulpur parliamentary constituency in the 1962 election against Jawaharlal Nehru, Nehru wrote a letter not only wishing Dr. Lohia good luck, but also expressing hope. That during the election campaign, the work of public education will be done on policies and programs in the context of the challenges to the national interest from both the sides. Similarly, in the dreadful environment of the Emergency of 1977, when the Janata Party formed by Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan through his moral force got a strong majority, Jayaprakash Narayan urged the newly elected MPs of the Janata Party to become an ideal public servant by reminding the newly elected MPs of Bapu at Rajghat. After that, the former Prime Minister, who had been defeated, reached Indira Gandhi’s house to meet her. When Jayaprakash met the defeated Indira Gandhi, he, both on his own behalf and on behalf of the victorious Janata Party, assured her to be sure of personal security.
It is customary in America that after the completion of a long election cycle of serious debate, the newly elected President holds a cordial dialogue by inviting all his predecessors. Despite the differences in the parties, the winner is held responsible for the half-hearted steps taken by the defeated person in the national interest. On the other hand, from Pakistan to Argentina and Mexico, there is a tradition that the victor either takes the defeated person captive or forces them to leave the country.
We need to tie our electoral victories and defeats with decent conduct. The winning person and party have become entitled to a majority for certain reasons. In this, instead of giving importance to country, time and character, it is neither proper for oneself to make oneself like Ravana and Kansa, nor does this work become natural on the conditions of building democracy.
(These are the author’s own views)