Single Party Dominance #1: Characteristics

How does the same party keep winning elections for abnormally long periods? Like the Left and Mamata (until this time) in Bengal? Like the BJP winning elections across the country for almost 15 years (except the last national election)? Like how the Congress used to win from independence onwards?

 

This is the question Raghu S Jaitley analyses and it makes for interesting reading. One would imagine that a party should not win continuously for long periods:

“Economic underperformance naturally produces anti-incumbency, unemployment translates into anger, inflation gets punished, and that, over time, voters simply get tired.”

What then explains all the “aberrations” listed in the first para? Why didn’t “anti-incumbency… mechanically restore equilibrium”?

 

Jaitley only focusses on the Congress and BJP because, at their prime, they were (are?) winning continuously both at the national level and at multiple state levels, and therefore they are relevant to all Indians, not limited to a few states only.

 

The Congress at its peak was like a “big tent”:

“Congress thrived over the years by absorbing contradictions. It was less a political party than a sprawling tent under which socialists, conservatives, industrialists, secularists, caste leaders and regional aspirants all coexisted uneasily. Every new social movement eventually found its way into the Congress tent.”

 

On that front, the BJP is very different:

“People do not enter the BJP expecting ideological negotiation. They enter accepting an ideological hierarchy that’s cast in stone… Leaders from different backgrounds may join, but they are expected to align themselves with this existing ideological framework rather than reshape it.”

 

Today, the BJP is unique in having all these attributes simultaneously:

“Ideological coherence, welfare politics, charismatic leadership, booth-level mobilisation, and a permanently active cadre ecosystem (anchored by the RSS).”

Ideological coherence, clarifies Jaitley, does not mean ideological consistency!

“The BJP speaks the language of aspiration and subsidy simultaneously. It invokes markets when convenient and redistribution when necessary.”

 

Setting aside the obvious differences and contradictions within themselves, notice the common thread across the Congress and BJP?

“Successful dominant parties are rarely ideologically pure. But they are emotionally coherent.”

 

Emotionally coherent. That’s an interesting perspective. View or views that appeal to many at an emotional level, not necessarily at a rational level. Like many attempted explanations, I feel it may/may not be right, and it certainly doesn’t provide a playbook for the next party that hopes to dominate for extended periods…

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Need for an Informed Aadhar Debate

As Aadhar increases in scope, supporters consider it necessary, says L.Viswanath : “We have Aadhaar getting linked to ration cards, NREGA payments, PAN cards, bank accounts, mobile SIMs, mid-day meals in schools, school admissions, university admissions…the list is endless. In a country plagued by corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency, the hope is that Aadhaar will help eliminate fraudulent identities, thereby saving the direct and indirect losses to the nation.” Conversely, opponents don’t cite concrete use-cases of how it might be abused apart from throwing phrases (“Orwellian state”) that sound scary. Until its opponents provide such details, supporters will win the argument by simply asking why Aadhar should be restricted only to subsidy schemes, as Subhashis Banerjee points out : “Admittedly there are substantial leakages in these schemes, but surely the need for de-duplication and strict record keeping and audits are as much, if not more, in the domains of tax co...
Read more

Nazis and the Physics Connection

When the Nazi government seized power, they started removing Jews from more and more positions, including the civil services, and the science departments of Germany. Those physicists who saw the writing on the wall fled to either UK (like Schrodinger) or the US (like Einstein), writes Adam Becker in What is Real?   The great physicist, Enrico Fermi, wasn’t a Jew. But when Mussolini aligned with Hitler, Fermi came under suspicion since his wife was a Jew. To make matters problematic, Mussolini’s new laws had made it illegal to take “more than pocket change” out of Italy. Neils Bohr broke an unwritten rule of the Nobel and told Fermi that he (Fermi) was in the running for the Nobel that year. Perhaps Fermi, should he win, could consider escaping from Stockholm with the prize money to start a new life? Fermi agreed, but it was touch and go – his wife’s passport had been confiscated, which meant she couldn’t come to Stockholm. Fermi managed to pull a few strings to get her passport...
Read more

Apartheid Crash Course

The standup comedian Trevor Noah’s autobiography, Born a Crime , is about his life in South Africa only , so it doesn’t talk of his career as a comedian or life in the West. What it describes about the apartheid regime in South Africa is horrifying. Unlike many evils of the West, this is a recent one that continued till the 1990’s. It is thus not something that can be brushed aside as “It was a different era, you can’t apply today’s standards to older times”.   Apartheid was created after “studying” the institutionalized racism of Australia, America and Netherlands.   America, for example, moved the natives to specific areas called “reservations”, practiced slavery and then moved onto segregation. In South Africa, they did all of the above to the same group (blacks). The outcome? “The most advanced system of racial oppression known to man”.   A system built on the idea that races should not mix has to declare inter-racial relations (romance, marriage, children) i...
Read more