---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shiva Shankar <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Subject: Analysis of 2009 elections
To:
'... Goal of all peace and development loving parties should be
marginalization of BJP. BJP is most inimical towards Dalits, even more than
it is against Muslims or Christians. It is primarily to keep SC/ST/OBC in
subjugated position they attack Muslims and Christians. ...'
------------------
An analysis of 2009 general election and some recommendations for secular
parties.
ANIL KUMAR, JNU.
The following facts suggest a (BSP + Congress + SP) grand-coalition with a 5
to 10 member Executive Council that would have equal power vested in each of
the members of the executive committee. It should include one or more
Dalits, Upper Castes, Muslims, members of UBC (Upper of BC) and members LBC
(Lower of BC) as members of the Executive Council of UP (SCUP) on the
pattern of Swiss Executive Council. If that happens in UP, it may take UP a
long way in the direction of becoming first South Asian Switzerland!
1. From the first table shown below it is clear that currently there four
parties with nearly equal share of votes in UP. Actually in most states
there are two dominant local rivals (X & Y) for power in addition to the two
national rivals: The Congress Party (C) and BJP/RSS (B).
2. From the second table below we should note that most of the time the
party getting largest percentage of votes is beneficiary of
disproportionately larger number of seats, which is characteristic of FPTP
election system.
3. From the above two facts it should be clear that for any of the future
elections if B, C, X and Y do not form alliances, the results are likely to
be very unpredicatable, as can be seen from the results of 2009
parliamentary election: In spite the largest percentage of vote of 27.4%,
BSP was third in the number of seats won. With a similar distribution of
seats in any of the future Assembly elections none of the parties will be
able to form a government all by itself. It is also clear that if any two of
the parties form an alliance, the other two will be forced to form a counter
alliance even if they are ideologically far apart because otherwise the
latter two would be wiped off from the Assembly. This is what happened in
Bihar in 1995 state Assembly election. Janata Dal (Lalu) + Congress wiped
off Samata and BJP, which were not allied to each other. Even though BJP/RSS
have been and continue to be hated by most people as well as parties, Samata
felt forced to join BJP, and the result was a very creditable performance
from them in the 1996 parliamentary election. Samata, currently under the
name JD(U), continue to be in uncomfortable forced alliance in spite of
sharp ideological differences.
4. I am glad to note that the fact and deductions mentioned above were clear
to Behen jee, and hence she has thrown her ?unconditional support? behind
the UPA government at the center, in spite of the fact that SP too is
supporting UPA from outside. Thus currently UPA government has outside
support of both of the local rivals BSP as well SP in UP.
5. However, Congress party may be thinking that it is a resurgent party in
ascendancy. If it thinks of going it alone in 2012 state election of UP,
that will be most unfortunate. That is because having seen the uncertainties
of 2009 parliamentary election, both of the local rivals will be
aggressively looking for an alliance with one of the major parties. With
Congress going it alone, both BSP and SP will be willing to join the NDA
alliance led by BJP. As a result, NDA will be in a position to extract
agreement with one of the two local rivals favorable to itself. If that
happens, and Congress continues to be in a mood to go it alone, NDA is
likely to sweep the election. On the other hand, if Congress comes to senses
and accepts the other party into UPA alliance, the two sides (UPA and NDA)
will be fairly balanced and the outcome will be hard to predict. Even if NDA
does not win, it will continue to be power to reckon with.
6. The Congress Party has a good many covert supporters of BJP, who are
looking forward to a bipolar situation when UPA and NDA are the only
entities ruling India, with power some times going in the hands of UPA,
other times in the hands of NDA. As such, it will not be inclined to see BJP
go off the horizon. Nonetheless, Congress will never join hands with BJP
because then it will not be able to wave the secular flag and the other two
local parties will join hands, which, together is likely to command support
of a good majority of voters.
7. There are people who say that Congress, with covert oppressors of the
oppressed segments of India, is worse than an overt enemy like BJP/RSS. That
an overt enemy is easier to see and can be eliminated as long as we see it
and are aware that it is a monster. I beg to differ vehemently. This is
because, the overt oppressive policies, attitude and slogans, BJP/RSS is
likely to fully polarize its supporters into powerful monsters. On the other
hand, with the relatively more civil Congress in power, the same group of
people is likely to behave in a more civilized fashion, and have fairly good
number of genuine democrats in favor of truly uplifting the lower segments.
Given that we cannot totally marginalize the powerful BJP party, the
oppressed sections of the society would be better off being in alliance with
the milder and more democratic variety of them like the Congress Party. It
will keep most of the common constituents from becoming howling monstrous
supporters of BJP.
8. In view of the above, best option for the local state level opponents
would be to share power and try to pull Congress into their alliance. If
Congress does join the alliance of the local allies, they will totally
marginalize NDA. Otherwise the Congress itself will be marginalized together
with BJP/RSS. It will be worth keeping in mind that BJP/RSS is the truest
enemy of the oppressed segments of India as well as of India itself. It will
be easier for the local parties to totally marginalize BJP/RSS with the help
of Congress than without the Congress. Thus what I am advocating is a grand
coalition of all parties other than BJP/RSS. If a party like BSP can form
alliance with BJ/RSS, they can certainly form alliance with other more
civilized parties.
9. While BSP as well as SP have both resolved to support UPA from outside
the Indian Government, this is the right time for these parties to start
coalition negotiation. Basically ?negotiations? entail seat-sharing formulas
or agreements. Needless to say, in the seat-sharing negotiations each of the
parties try to maximize the number of seats from which they will contest the
elections from. With 27.4% of votes in the parliamentary election against
23.3% and 18.2% for SP and Congress respectively, BSP would seek to get a
lion share of seats. Congress appeared to be a resurgent party in ascendancy
in UP, so its workers and supporters are going to seek better seat
proportion than the proportion of 18.2 to 27.4. SP would like to claim to be
spokesperson for the whole OBC segments, and would want bigger share of
seats than what their vote share shows. Under these circumstances the
negotiations would be tough and chances of their breakdown would be very
high. Difficulties in reaching an understanding over seat-sharing should be
apparent from the fact that in spite of their genuine intentions to form an
alliance, Congress, RJD and LJP could not reach a mutually acceptable
agreement in Bihar. In UP too Congress and SP failed to reach an agreement.
BJP and BJD could not reach an agreement in Orissa, and so forth.
10. If they could pay a little attention to the situation beyond the
election, about who would be the Chief Minister, perhaps it may help them
reach a seat sharing agreement more easily. If there is going to be a single
CM for the whole of five years after the election, each of them would try
its best come out with the largest number of seats after election. In fact,
so much so that even after some kind of hobbled seat-sharing agreement, they
will try to defeat as many of their other partners as possible so that the
former would emerge as the largest party and hence claimant of Chief
Ministerial position. This can be best resolved with some kind of sharing of
Chief Ministerial position. They could time-share the CM position, as has
been done earlier in UP. It may be hard for someone working as a CM,
suddenly to lose the privileges of an autocratic CM, and reduce himself or
herself to the position of a mere minister. I think it may be easier for
someone to spend the whole five year as a less than autocratic CM in a Chief
Ministerial Council (CMC), with equal power vested in all, and try to run
the State Government in a consensual manner. A Chief Ministerial Collective
would have other advantages like transparency, congeniality and healthier
democracy.
11. With just three persons (one each from SC, OBC and OC (Oppressor
Castes)), there is greater chance of coalition wrecking disagreement.
Besides, in the above formula of one each from the three caste groups, a
significant group like Muslims would be left out because they don?t even
have a party. Further, Lower of the Backward Castes (LBC) separate from the
Upper of BCs (UBC) also deserve empowerment. In view of these major
subdivisions, the CMC should consist of 5-10 members, but probably no bigger
than 10. They should be able to pick them (CMC) from inside the Assembly, or
from both outside as well as inside. It may be best for the whole Assembly
to cast two votes for two individuals, declaring the highest vote getters
from the five segments: SC, LBC, UBC, MBC and OC to be winners of the CMC
seats. For a bigger than 5-member CMC, they could allow up to a max of two
from each of the social groups mentioned above. Different states may need
different formulas. Wherever they have Scheduled Tribe (ST) groups, they
have to be included, obviously. If it were not for the Assembly as a whole
to decide, a question would arise as to which party is going to have the
right to nominate a Muslim or LBC individual(s) within the CMC.
12. Once the parties have settled the issue of government formation after
election, they still would have to tackle the question of which party would
contest from how many and which seats. It would be best for them to let the
public decide these things for the parties. Otherwise they would end up
trying to hoodwink each other by threatening to go their own way.
Free-list-PR election would be the way to go for the way for the public to
decide the question of which party would contest from how many and which
seats, as outlined below.
13. Each of the voters could be given five votes to cast for five different
candidates. The candidates may all be from the same party or different ones.
The voters could do so by saving the fliers of five candidates they happen
to like best, or have their names written on a piece of paper, take them to
the polling booth, stuff them into an envelop supplied there, seal it and
drop it into the ballot box. Votes for individuals would also be added to
respective party the candidates are affiliated with. Each party would be
assigned a number of seats (party-quotas) in proportion to the number of
votes they collect via their candidates. One could then make a master-list
of all candidates in order of votes received by the candidates. Off the top
of the master-list candidates may be declared elected from top. As each of
the candidates is declared elected, status of party-quota various other
kinds of quotas would also be kept in mind. As soon as a particular quota is
filled, candidates within that category would be dropped out of the
master-list. Also, as a candidate is declared elected, s/he would be free to
pick a constituency (not taken so far) s/he would like to contest the
following general election from. In this way finally all of the party-quotas
as well as Assembly seats would be allocated to one or the other candidates.
14. There is one little snag in the process described above. Suppose women?s
quota happens to be 33.3%. There is women?s party that received 30% of the
total votes cast, giving it a party-quota of 30% seats. The women?s party
does have women with good number of votes however, its party-quota of 30% is
already filled. Suppose in the other parties no other women receive
significant number of votes (say, none receive more than a fourth of what
top women?s party candidates not yet elected have ? that is as if none of
these other women received any votes at all.) In that case, to fill the
women?s quota women from the women?s party should be elected as over hang
beyond the total number of seats supposed to exist in the Assembly. Similar
overhang is allowed in German Reichstag. If a party wins more seats in via
FPTP part of their MMP election than what their PR seat quota allows, the
party is allowed to keep the excess of seats won via FPTP part or election
process.
15. After the free-list-PR process described in the above two paragraphs,
the parties are not left with any scope for negotiation. Everything has been
decided for them by the vote of the public. The public has to feel happy
that nominees of the grand party alliance have been nominated with their
votes in a very transparent manner. They will elect the grand alliance
nominees with overwhelming number of votes in the following main election.
The process would also familiarize public, political leaders and political
workers with the fl-PR process. It will enable them parliamentarians to give
fl-PR an educated consideration as the method for holding the nation?s main
general election.
16. Goal of all peace and development loving parties should be
marginalization of BJP. BJP is most inimical towards Dalits, even more than
it is against Muslims or Christians. It is primarily to keep SC/ST/OBC in
subjugated position they attack Muslims and Christians.
17. In view of the last paragraph above, it would make sense for BSP to try
to make friends with SP. This would not only put BSP in a better position to
bargain with Congress as well as SP, it may lead to a grand coalition of
BSP, Congress, SP, and rest of the secular parties all together! If such a
coalition becomes a reality, BJP/RSS would be totally wiped off the map of
UP. It would also improve relationship among their constituents Dalits, OBC,
Muslims and the oppressor castes.
18. Such a coalition would be beneficial for Dalits, as BSP will try to
restrain OBC with the help of Congress, and BSP will try to extract better
terms for SC as well as OBC from the upper castes with the help of SP. As
already stated, (BSP + Congress + SP) grand alliance would be better than
(BSP + Congress) alliance. This is because simply (BSP + Congress) alliance
would almost certainly force (SP + BJP) alliance, just like (RJD + Congress)
alliance forced (JD(U) & BJP) in Bihar. (SP + BJO) alliance would be of
nearly equal strength to that of (BSP + Congress). This would not only make
the election outcome an uncertainty, it will unite OBC + oppressor castes
against Dalits and Muslims.
19. The above could become a pre-cursor of nation-wide grand-coalition to
uproot communalist BJP/RSS, just as Swiss have a grand coalition of all
parties allied against their racist SVP party. It may force BJP/RSS to give
up their anti-minorities and anti-oppressed caste orientation and attitude.
UP Parliamentary Election 2009
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
SP 23 23.3 28.8
Congress 21 18.2 26.3
BSP 20 27.4 25.0
NDA 15 20.8 18.8
Independents 1 0.5 1.3
Total 80 90.2 100.0
NDA = BJP + RLD
BJP 10 17.5 12.5
RLD 5 3.3 6.3
NDA tot 15 20.8 18.8
Seats won by parties getting largest percentage of votes in UP Assembly
elections from 1991 through 2007
Year Party Seats won votes % % seats won
2007 2 . BSP 206 30.43% 51.12%
2002 7 . SP 143 25.37% 35.48%
1996 2 . BJP 174 32.52% 41.04%
1993 1 . BJP 177 33.30% 41.94%
1991 1 . BJP 221 31.45% 52.74%
UP Parliamentary Election 2009
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
SP 23 23.3 28.8
Congress 21 18.2 26.3
BSP 20 27.4 25.0
NDA 15 20.8 18.8
Independents 1 0.5 1.3
Total 80 90.2 100.0
NDA = BJP + RLD
BJP 10 17.5 12.5
RLD 5 3.3 6.3
NDA tot 15 20.8 18.8
UP Assembly Election 2007
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
1 . BJP 51 16.97% 12.66%
2 . BSP 206 30.43% 51.12%
5 . INC 22 8.61% 5.46%
14 . RLD 10 3.70% 2.48%
17 . SP 97 25.43% 24.07%
Total 386
Ind & others 17
Total seats 403
UP Assembly Election 2002
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
1 . BJP 88 20.08% 21.84%
2 . BSP 98 23.06% 24.32%
5 . INC 25 8.96% 6.20%
7 . SP 143 25.37% 35.48%
Total 354 77.47% 87.84%
Ind & others 49
Total seats 403
UP Assembly Election 1996
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
2 . BJP 174 32.52% 41.04%
5 . INC 33 8.35% 7.78%
8 . BSP 67 19.64% 15.80%
13 . SP 110 21.80% 25.94%
Total 384 82.31%
Ind & others 40
Total seats 424
UP Assembly Election 1993
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
1 . BJP 177 33.30% 41.94%
4 . INC 28 15.08% 6.64%
5 . JD 27 12.33% 6.40%
7 . BSP 67 11.12% 15.88%
64 . SP 109 17.94% 25.83%
Total 408 89.77%
Ind & others 14
Total seats 422
UP Assembly Election 1991
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
1 . BJP 221 31.45% 52.74%
5 . INC 46 17.32% 10.98%
6 . JD 92 18.84% 21.96%
8 . JP 34 12.52% 8.11%
10 . BSP 12 9.44% 2.86%
405 89.57%
Ind & others 14
--
ANIL KUMAR M.A 3rd sem( S.C.S.S)
Jhelum Hostel
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Delhi India
--
http://venukm.blogspot.com
http://www.shelfari.com/kmvenuannur
http://kmvenuannur.livejournal.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
