When we first elected them did we know that Rahul Gandhi would hardly ever attend Parliament, Sidhu would find a lucrative alternative career in media and Somnath Bharti would use vigilante machismo to cover up a questionable past?
I quote these examples not to denigrate the concerned individuals but only to point out that for first-tmers, no matter what their earlier track record, it is tough to assess how effective they would be as legislators once elected. This is important as in a month or so, we will all be voting in an election in which well over 50% candidates will be first-timers.
Some notions become truisms without ever having faced adequate scrutiny. That all our ills will dissipate once we start sending only the best into parliament and state legislatures is one such. A few decades ago, we used to blame our ills on a parliament in which over 40% MPs were undergraduates. While that percentage has shrunk, the performance of parliament has only become worse.
There is no denying that long-term advantages of sending good people are obvious and significant.
Better legislators mean more responsible and responsive law-making, a higher degree of accountability and a better example set for the public. In addition good legislators will hopefully exert significant influence on shaping the core philosophy of their parties and also create pressure on them to give tickets to better and better candidates in the future.
Does it therefore follow that we should give up party allegiances and focus on electing better individuals? This is where the issue becomes more complex.
First, a basic issue.
What do we expect from our legislators? What makes for a good legislator? Or bad? How do some legislators manage to get elected time after time? Does that make them ideal? No easy answers.
It is easier to identify a bad legislator rather than outline what a good legislator should be like. One who does not contribute to the process of law making, is not available to engage, has no interest in his constituency or has questionable integrity is obviously no good. But in real life choices are never so easy.
What about a legislator whose reputation is spotless but is ineffective. Or another who refuses to attend parliament but is effective? Or yet another who toils for his constituency but lacks the networking skills needed to get things done? Or one who lacks the clout within his party to influence its strategy? Or one who has the skills to get things done but has questionable integrity?
Second, how much do we actually know about our candidates?
The three examples of Rahul, Sidhu and Bharti are instructive. No one expected Rahul and Sidhu to play truant and Bharti to be of questionable integrity. The truth is we know only as much about our candidates as they choose to tell us.
Uness he or she is an incumbent or otherwise in the public eye as a distinguished lawyer, sportsperson or actor, there is never enough data available to evaluate a first-time candidate even if we try hard. In any case, does a great track record in, say cricket, or films or even social service actually qualify you to be an effective legislator?
And the situation is far worse for candidates who are parachuted into constituencies just prior to the election? You have virtually nothing to go by.
Third, would your candidate, if elected, have any say in his party? Or will his contribution be limited to getting the gutters cleaned before every monsoon?
With disappearance of inner party democracy a few decades ago, there is a natural ceiling to what your representative can possibly achieve. None of the parties, not even AAP which is the youngest of them all has any pretence of being run by its members. All strategic decisions are taken by one or a handful of people at the very top.
In such an environment what can a legislator of your choice really achieve except perhaps get a couple of roads repaired or a hospital passed? And there is a good chance that would have happened even without that MP.
As we enter a more 'competitive' phase in our political life with more than two options in a majority of the states, suddenly ideology, which had all but vanished since the nineties, is making a come back into our political landscape. With the entry of AAP as a super-socialist party of the sixties, suddenly we have the classic extreme left, extreme right and middle of the road streams.
For the next couple of elections but certainly for 2014, wisdom lies in establishing the path our country will and should take going forward. The time has come for us to use our vote to give a strategic signal through our vote. What is the India we want to create and leave behind. And that can best be done by voting in a party of choice.
The upside of a saintly legislator is limited but the downside of opting for an ideology we do not agree with may be terrifying.
No comments:
Post a Comment