Mumbai: Now that the dust has settled on Karnataka results and B S Yeddyurappa has gone ahead with resignation in absence of a majority, neither natural nor manufactured, we need to look at the bigger picture.
It was indeed a queer scenario: The BJP has got more seats but less than majority, the Congress has got more votes but less seats, Janata Dal (Secular) has got least seats but has the support of the Congress to form the government. It is obvious that BJP could have got 9 more MLAs to make government only by breaking Congress or JD(S). So, when called first, only resorted to horse-trading.
As for Congress-JD(S) combine with 118 MLAs, 5 more than majority, and with 2 independent MLAs support, they are in a position to make the government on numbers, though no one can tell about stability. Stability is an issue of the future, numbers make the government in the present.
In the given context, Yeddyurappa had the only option to resign. And since he failed and the Supreme Court virtually censured the Governor by bringing 15 days window to just 24 hours, in fitness of things, the Gujarat Governor and a long-term RSS man, builder by profession, and a Modi loyalist by politics who quit his seat once for Modi to be elected first time as MLA, should now resign as Governor.
Uniformity in principles in case of hung legislatures:
The Supreme Court ruling in the Bommai case in case of hung Legislatures notes that Governor should call:
(A) Leader of the pre or post poll combination which is most likely to provide a stable government; if not, then
(B) Leader of the single largest party; if not/fails, then
(C) Breakdown of Constitutional Machinery leading to a new election.
Based on this, in Goa, Manipur and Meghalaya recently, the Governors called the leader of the largest post-poll combination of parties, and not the leader of the largest single party to form government. So, why did we see dithering in case of Karnataka this time? India needs to seriously debate on whether to have separate weightage for seats and vote-shares as in many democracies, and whether to continue with ambiguity in the powers of the Governors, etc.
Only united opposition can combat BJP:
Results show that in spite of higher vote share (38 per cent) Congress could not win more seats than the BJP (36 per cent), and if the opposition votes of Congress, JD(S)and BSP are added, they have a sweeping victory in Karnataka with 58 per cent, as noted by the West Bengal Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee. Hence, politics in every state ahead will take a bipolar character: BJP and non-BJP, similar to what it was like Congress and non-Congress just a decade ago.
It is also significant to note that Congress leader Siddaramaih had reposed faith in his AHIND formula of uniting Muslims, Dalits and tribals who together account for 39 per cent of the electorate. But the combination seems to have got split between Congress and JD(S)-BSP combine as their constituencies are similar. Thus, Congress lost out on major mass vote counts.
However, the failure of BJP in its attempt to manufacture majority in Karnataka this time would now lead to an opposition unity as it is clear pre-poll unity of all non-BJP forces is the only route to combat BJP, as was the case when all anti-Indira forces united to hand down a befitting defeat to Indira Congress after the Emergency in 1977.
Corruption is the new normal; winnability counts:
The success of BJP in this context also proves that corruption was a non-issue in the polls since the Chief Minister face Yeddyurappa had to resign last time on corruption charges, but was still given leadership, and the mining scam tainted Reddy brothers of Bellary had been given 8 seats by BJP.
Association of Democratic Rights says that 37 per cent of BJP candidates have criminal cases, with 27 per cent having serious cases like murders and rapes, while the corresponding figures are 25 per cent and 14 per cent for Congress. However, 94 per cent of Congress candidates were crorepatis while 93 per cent of BJP candidates were the same.
For all major parties only winnability counts, whether based on identity considerations or resources they command, to make an impact on ground during electioneering, and not corruption or wealth amassed.
Populism & regionalism not yielding results:
Siddaramaiah first tried the Jayalalitha way of populism by bringing in succour for the BPL families, through guaranteed cheap rice and pulses, and low priced cooked food. But this did not cut much ice with a large section of the poor electorate. He then ran a campaign based on Bihari versus Bahari model of Nitish Kumar of Bihar, but failed. He tried to capitalise on slogans like 'BJP is a North Indian party' or 'affluent South Indian states are funding regressive North Indian states' after this issue came up in the last Finance Commission meeting. From playing the Lingayat card, caste vote banks, rooting for separate state flag, and leading a tirade against Hindi, Siddaramaiah tried all tricks and failed. These did not go well with the middle class either.
Hence, substantive social security measures in the form of a better public education and healthcare (as being done in Delhi state), coupled with a national perspective to politics which is not antithetic to local interests, alone can carry the poor and the middle class together.
Big money meets big data & uses WhatsApp for polarisation:
To simplify the Big Data approach, if a party (or a candidate) has a good idea of the political views and likes/dislikes of as many voters as possible, it can use this information to fine-tune its own outreach to voters and influence their votes, and a new ploy like this can indeed decide the outcome when elections are won and lost over a margin of a few votes. All parties used this. This brings us to the next attack on the gullible voter: Funds. This was arguably also the costliest election of its kind in India so far. Money and muscle power are now replaced by money and data power.
In place of social engineering, it is time for social media engineering.
Elections in India are now fought and won on WhatsApp. Debates and rallies give cues to be whatsapped with a deadly concoction of factoids and lies. In this high profile election, seen as a preview of India's national election next year, the country's two major political parties noted that they each amassed more than 20,000 WhatsApp groups, thereby claiming they could reach more than 1.5 million loyalists in minutes.
But many of those messages have been false and inflammatory, twisting the words of political opponents and ratcheting up tensions between Hindu nationalists and the country's Muslim minority. WhatsApp as a personalised amplification tool is expected to be heavily used ahead in electoral battles and if unchecked can wreak havoc.
Concerns for the long run:
Karnataka marks the beginning of a new trend in politics –armed with all the relevant information about the voters, technical wizkids were out to manipulate their behaviour. Post-truths had a field day. Pushed out of the agenda were all the issues that mattered to the citizens, like corruption, welfare measures, peace, infrastructure, farmers' woes, etc. Democracy in its content may remain intact but it will be flagrantly violated in spirit if these trends continue.
That is the sad essence of the Karnataka election.
