The last column in this space was about the cheery peace we enjoy before elections. But how about after? Election campaigns become such highly charged affairs eventually that though all political parties wax eloquent about what they would do for the people, if elected, the people themselves are strangely forgotten in this equation. People they say, would be given this boon or that. Each party tries to outdo the other, it seems, in this race to empty public coffers with handouts.
But the people themselves are never really asked as one entity, what they aspire to. Of course, it is assumed they all aspire to a better life, and that’s about right, of course, they do, who doesn’t? But how so? By what exact means? Aspiring to a better life does not mean the same thing for various political parties. They all have their individual idea of utopia. But the people have no doubts about it. They all aspire to a better life, and sometimes, it seems, the politicians have to be given a primer about what exactly the people aspire to.
If that is to be done, the people, it is easy to estimate, want above all to better themselves. They want something more, and this means categorically that they do not want to be in the same place. They want better economic circumstances, with the stress on better. They may or may not want to change the Government with this end in mind. But whether they elect a new Government or opt for the same one already in power, they want something more than what obtains now.
There is no mass of voters that ever voted that said, as long as we could live the same way we always have, that’s enough for us. Aspiration almost by definition means better, and something substantially more. Of course, some politicians may feel that the people would be worse, not better off, if their opponents are elected.
HANDLE
But no party is saying that if they retain the status quo in terms of people’s economic circumstances, that would be enough. But the reality may of course, be quite different from this aspirational vision of the people. It may in fact be that voters should be happy if a new Government doesn’t do damage and keeps things on an even-keel, and retains the status quo intact with regard to people’s general circumstances.
But that sentiment is never articulated by voters when they make a choice. What is articulated is change. Even if they keep the same lot in power, the voters still want change, and they want a better life. If this reality is acknowledged, any slogan that infers ‘with us there would be no hardships’ is not tenable, because the people have already taken that for granted. Yes, of course, they never elect a Government to go back to hardships. They elect one to make sure that they have something more than what they have now, and it’s upto them to decide if a new lot of rulers could deliver that, or the current lot already in power could.
People certainly don’t opt for chaos, insecurity and damage to the economy, but sometimes they get that instead of the lofty aspirations they prayed for. So, part of each political party’s solemn promise should be that no matter what happens, they would maintain law and order, and that they would ensure that there are no tensions that boil over, and create more problems than are there for this country to handle.
Perhaps, it would be a good idea if every party is to make that pledge. All the candidates vying for office at this Presidential election are pledging with great fervour to improve people’s lives. But people would perhaps like all of them to pledge also that they would not disrupt people’s lives, and that they would maintain the peace, and ensure there is a smooth transition of power when the formation of a new Government is imminent after elections.
This may not be articulated, because these are the bare minimum basics, as stated earlier, that the people take for granted. They do not ask for political parties to pledge that their lives would not be worse off – that there would not be breakdowns in law and order – because they think that it should be obvious that new leaders wouldn’t make their lives worse.
But given what has happened in this country, it should probably be a good idea to elicit that law and order pledge from all contenders for the Presidency. Of course, if a party has a declared policy to bring miscreants to book, for instance, a Government has to do that observing due process.
But the impatient may not want due process. We have seen transitions of this sort, where the new broom, so to speak, led to new aspects of chaos that were hitherto not seen. The last Government elected was a good example. Sixty-nine lakhs of people wanted a new Government that would deliver on their aspirations for a better life.
Deteriorated
But instead of that, people saw their lives taking a dangerously wrong turn. The economy rapidly deteriorated, and on top of that, law and order broke down with cases of arson and sometimes murder being reported on a regular basis as the situation worsened. It’s in this backdrop that the promises of candidates with regard to security and law and order need to be revisited.
Law and order related content or statements – or more precisely the lack thereof – by candidates are alarming, especially having regard to how the Presidency rapidly degenerated into farce the last time around, and people were quickly treated to the spectacle of anarchy on the streets.
There is also a need to explain to the people about how and when a new President could dissolve Parliament when elected, and how a general election could be held after the Presidential poll is concluded.
That’s because the people need to know about the mandate a new President requires in order to count on a legislature that he can have the support of.
These are real issues that the candidates should shed some light on, because the lengthy manifestos don’t guarantee or so much as say anything about a peaceful transition of power, which is the matter that comes absolutely first in the order of priority to people, when a new President is elected. What’s important is this, and the other little matter of how an interim administration can ensure a proper general election in the current climate of a less than abundant Treasury, to put things across as gently as possible.
Civil society is remiss if they want to walk the people into a powder-keg located in a blind alley, to mix metaphors if that’s permissible. Those responsible actors that have set themselves up as sentinels and watchdogs should anticipate possibilities for violence in the aftermath of what is in effect one of the most decisive elections in our lifetimes.
Before people want bread, or bread and circuses, they want to ensure that they are secure, and that their kith and kin and the property they own is safe. Which party or Presidential candidate guarantees that in this election in 2024? None as far as this writer is aware.
That is not compatible with the values that we cherish in a democratic process, particularly at these critical political crossroads. It is a positive trend that people seem to have confidence in a free and fair election in this country. But that’s certainly not enough.
They should also have the confidence that no matter who wins, due process would prevail and that there is no instance of justice by mob. It was not the experience of some people who were the victims of the riots in 2022, however necessary that Aragalaya may or may not be considered in the historical context.
Being cautious is not to be mistaken for scare-mongering. Perhaps, the candidate that wins, whoever he is, would be able to keep the party support base calm and there would be a peaceful transition of power after all. But making sure that there isn’t the remotest chance of the contrary happening is the responsibility of all parties and candidates that want the public to repose their trust in them, at this forthcoming election.
