|
|
|
There is no doubt that before the first round of pre-electoral
politics is over, the advantage has clearly gone to the BJP.
This is not because of any surge in popular support for the BJP.
There is no indication yet that equations at the ground level,
formed since the 1989 elections, between communities, local
interests and political parties, which created compulsions for
coalition politics, have changed or are likely to change in a
significant way, in the near future.
The 'acceptability' of the BJP suggested by recent defections and
alliances, is the direct consequence of the failure, rather
hypocrisy, of the so-called politics of secularism practised by
the United Front. It is also due to a leadership vacuum in the
Congress.
These have helped the BJP to re-secure and hold on to its support
bases, which began to dissipate during the time when the UF
coalition government enjoyed 'unconditioned' Congress support,
causing severe internal dissensions in the BJP. It is doubtful
whether this sudden change in the attitude and perceptions among
some party politicians and factions in the favour of BJP, will
bring significant new electoral support to the BJP.
It is certain is that the BJP will now be able to hold on to its
support and remain united, even add to it in some measure through
new allies. But this is least likely to take the BJP and its
allies to a clear electoral majority. Despite the distinct
advantage the BJP has achieved by projecting Atal Behari Vajpayee
as an able leader, and itself as a stable party or coalition,
nothing like a 'wave' is developing for the BJP.
Manufacturing majorities post-electorally, by parties fighting
elections against each other, amounts to the negation of people's
mandate. Elections today are seen by people not as an abstract
=91national sport played by the national elite. Terms like
secularism and nationalism are finding their embodiment in
concrete concerns at the local and regional level where choices
are presented and made in terms of representation of interests as
well as identities.
These can be only coalesced through a power-sharing arrangement
among parties responsive to such concerns, and not through ad hoc
ganging up by all and sundry for power. In this sense, the
defecting politicians do not even serve as political weather
cocks indicating the direction in which the wind blows. They only
serve the self-serving policies of politicians, rather than their
ability to grasp the mood of the people.
It seems that the real drama will unfold after the elections
results are out. There are many fence-sitters and dark horses in
the game. While there is no doubt that the BJP and its allies
will emerge as the single largest formation, larger than their
strength in the dissolved Lok Sabha, they may face an unfillable,
if not unbridgeable, gap of about 50 to 60 seats required for a
majority.
This means that the majority will still be with non-BJP parties.
But is there a possibility of forming a post electoral non-BJP
coalition by these parties? The likely scenario is that the anti-
Congressism of the Left and other UF partners will once again
prevail over their politics of secularism. With the Congress
again denied its share proportionate to its mandate in the
coalitional arrangement, the BJP may find greater 'acceptability'
among some Congress factions and fence-sitters.
Thus, the BJP's increasing acceptability has more to do with the
failure of 'secular politics' than with the BJP's dilution of its
communal image. What this will do to the 'Hindutva party is a
different matter. But there is no doubt that after the 1998
elections, the politics of secularism will be defined on new
terms - and the BJP and its allies will be a significant element
in this discourse.
(D L Singh - Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing
Societies)
 |
||
|
||
|
||
