Political parties in democracies are formed on the basis of ideologies. Sometimes they emerge from social movements, or offer a concept of economics they prefer, and a better style of governance. As such they have distinct identities so that voters can have clear choices. India’s parties generally conform to this pattern and as a result have ‘votebanks’ that support them. There are also charismatic leaders that represent these parties and ideologies. They are expected to have the expertise to implement the policies and promises made by the parties.
However, over the years, this clarity has greatly reduced with extraordinary compromises being made for the sake of acquiring and retaining power. Many have turned into dynastic entities, with sons and daughters of founders believed to have biologically inherited the ideological understanding. With this watering down of the distinct identities, the objectives of their politics become unclear. Presently, the ideological divide that seems to exist is between the Hindutva of the BJP and the ‘anti-fascist’ parties of the opposition that actually comprise every colour of the political spectrum. It becomes difficult, under the circumstances, to develop a united front for the long haul. It is possible to present a show of solidarity on a specific cause with the occasional walkout in Parliament, but a cohesive approach is difficult at the grassroots, particularly during election time. Each party is perceived to be stealing the other’s agenda.
A realisation is growing about the contradictions of this approach. A prime example of this is the strategy adopted by Asaduddin Owaisi’s AIMIM. It has been going it alone in most elections now because it does not just oppose saffron politics, but also the appeasement approach of other mainstream parties, best exemplified by the record of the Congress during its term in power. Owaisi has understood that, while these parties gather the Muslim vote claiming to protect their interests, they treat them mostly as taken for granted votebanks. After winning elections, they expect Muslims to be content that they are ‘safe’ and ‘protected’. Otherwise, they are denied representation in power and kept on the margins. Owaisi rightly believes that, if there is a Muslim votebank, then it should obtain direct representation through the constitutional process, even if it is smaller in number. At least the issues that need to be raised will not be compromised.
This realisation is also dawning on other interest groups, such as the Dalits, and non-dominant OBCs. In time, this will lead to better representation in the assemblies and Parliament, not numerically, but identity wise. What shape politics takes after that remains to be seen.
