Maharashtra Politics – Voter Is Becoming Irrelevant

The recent move of a big chunk of MLAs to join the BJP-SS government has created a virtual earthquake in Maharashtra politics. The Epicentre of this earthquake may be Maharashtra but its devastating effect will be felt in national politics too. However, its collateral damage is the common citizen, the voter. I will look at this event and also offer a proposed solution.

The political fallout –

It is the beginning of the end of Sharad Pawar era in Maharashtra politics where he thrived on his strong political grounding, control over the administration and IAS lobby and manipulative skills. With maximum 22.6% of vote share at its peak in 1999 to 16.7% in 2019, and MLA strength touching 71 in 2004 with only 18.7% vote share due to alliance with Congress, Sharad Pawar always punched beyond his weight, successfully. His rise began with splitting Congress in 1978 to become become Chief Minister of Maharashtra. He joined Congress again but split away from Congress in protest against a foreigner, Sonia Gandhi, leading the government and the party, only to be part of the alliance again. He is one of the rare politicians to have survived and thrived after leaving Congress.

However, all this is now history. He will soon become irrelevant in Maharashtra politics. Falling a prey to Dhritrashtra syndrome, he lost grip over the party. His last ‘master stroke,’ hailed by the media, turned out to be only a pyrrhic. How blinded or clueless he was is proven by the fact that his own friend Prafulla Patel who was like his shadow, and appointed by him as the current working president of NCP, ditched him. This is the reason it is curtains for the grand old man of Maharashtra. Devendra Phadnavis needs to be credited for the insolence of challenging the most feared politician in his own home ground though he was criticised and ridiculed for his irreverence.

In national politics, Sharad Pawar’s strength was his ability to bring in a chunk of MPs for the opposition alliance and his networking among the opposition leaders. However, now he is a shadow of his former self. There are many cadre-less, follower-less leaders in the seemingly formidable grouping of 26+ opposition parties. Its strength is some groups of MPs from a few political parties that form the core, and this is made of only Congress culture parties. Regional parties with larger numbers are only TMC and DMK. Most of the other powerful regional parties are out of this motley group of disparate parties. With this aura of a powerful leader controlling Maharashtra destroyed, he will become one of the many rootless, memberless leaders spouting oft repeated wisdom in front of TV cameras.

Contrary to many predictions, I believe Congress will gain in Maharashtra as the only genuine opposition party against the Hindutva alliance. NCP voter outside Ajit Pawar’s NCP will move to Congress. Shiv Sena of UBT is neither here nor there. It has lost its ideological moorings. It is difficult to imagine it getting loyal secular Congress votes. It might add some ‘minority’ votes to counter Hindutva parties strategically but not much.

BJP will gain hugely in 2024 and I believe this alliance has been forged with 2024 in mind. There is no obvious reason to take up this complicated manoeuvre. Whether BJP will be able to retain its massive lead in Maharashtra state after lot of efforts on the ground to become number one party, is a question only time will answer. How it is able to fend off rebellion within the party with fewer opportunities in elections and cabinet needs to be seen. Its negotiation skills will be tested to the maximum while ticket sharing is done in Maharashtra assembly elections, and before that big municipal corporation of Mumbai election.

The social and ethical fallout –

These are my views as a concerned citizen of Bharat. Voter is supposed to be basic share holder in democracy. The voter elects the representatives based on their party ideology and to some extent on candidate’s personal credibility and work he/she does for the people. In recent times, politics has been reduced to head hunting (of important politicians) and take over and mergers – persuasive or hostile. This has been done by parties across the board so no party can seek higher moral ground. Very few changes in party affiliations are driven by ideology.

Politics has become corporatised where maximising the gains (of the party and the individual) is the main goal. Then, logically, shouldn’t political parties think and operate like corporates? Corporates have to go to their shareholders every year and sometimes any time to seek approval, specially in case of merger or takeover. But, in case of our democracy, the voter has no voice for the next five years. Elected representatives behave in the manner that suits them after getting elected, forgetting they haven’t received a blank cheque from the electorate. They should have moral obligation to seek their electorates’ approval for such changes in affiliations. Today, the voter feels confounded, fooled, and helpless.

It was an amusing sight on TV to see once sworn enemies now on the same side. Chhagan Bhujbal, who was the sacrificial lamb of Sharad Pawar when he was under attack, is a minister now. Tatkare family has a running feud with the Rane family in Kokan. Infact, Rane was brought into BJP to fight his muscle and money power. Now they are on the same side. Dhananjay Munde whose political career is built on attacking BJP is now is in bed with the same BJP. One can forget about Ajit Pawar’s logic. What has changed?

Where is the accountability? Nitish Kumar gets elected in the name of one alliance and switches sides half way. He has done it multiple times. Uddhav Thackeray gets big numbers in the name of Modi ji and BJP alliance and switches sides. NCP voters voted for Congress alliance and for a ‘secular’ party but NCP moves into ‘communal camp. (I am quoting political terminology stuck on the parties by the left illiberal analysts). How does a voter feel? I think, voters must be feeling exploited, if not misused and being taken for granted.

I have begun feeling that some accountability must be brought in this period of uncertainty and political alignments and regroupings. We are passing through tumultuous times of changes in socio-political environment. Thus, I am not talking of strait jacketing political parties and their elected representatives. I will not go so far as to talk of recall of elected representatives.

Possible solution -

In today’s digital world, can we talk of mobile secure voting system, where an elected representative tells his/her electorate that he/she or his/her party wishes to change affiliation or alliance. It can be a kind of referendum. Depending on voters’ decision, the person can change sides, or not change sides if voters disagree. In latter case, the representative has an option of resigning and getting re-elected on the new platform or lose seat. This will give stability to the politics of the state and centre, will remove the dictatorship of the party leadership and whips or risk of disqualification. At the same time, it will retain the loyalty of the electorate. It will make democracy more representative.

Today secure mobile digital solutions available. Since, this virtual referendum falls outside the purview of Election Commission, these tools can be used. If candidate decides that he/she does not wish to go by the voter dictate, he/she has liberty to resign and get re-elected. That is when the Election Commission comes into picture. Arvind Kejriwal talked of the “Direct Democracy” of town square. It is not practical and is a sham. This suggestion is practical and possible.

Idea is to give true power in the hands of the voter, give the voter the respect he/she needs to be given and get rid of this ‘take-over’ and ‘head hunting’ business.

I do hope, conscious and enlightened people will look beyond the Maharashtra episode, taking sides based on their biases; and find ways to make the entire political loyalty issue more practical that takes into account voter preferences, changing times and proposes to seek their mandate before the elected one decides to change the path for which he/she was elected.