Parting with Party

Parting with Party

Whom do we vote for? A specific party or a specific individual? Yes, the questions are distinctly specific! The first one means, irrespective of the person, should our decision be party-dependent. Whereas, the second question asks whether to consider the “person” all-important, relegating the party to irrelevance.
Apart from various other factors, these two too, add to the dilemma during elections while one prepares to exercise or not exercise the franchise. Generally, with the given democratic political system people tend to go with the parties, making the choice of the candidate secondary. Since it is a party, which needs the required number of seats to form the government. But then this has a serious inherent lacuna. True, by opting for the party first, we can make sure that our party of preference has a major, if not exclusive (given the coalition theory in vogue), say in the governance. And this makes us assume that the party, through its candidate, whosoever it might be, will bring about improvements of the amenities in our area. Our problems will not be treated as insignificant. But the fact of the matter is that once the elections are over, the party as a whole doesn’t have the time nor does it spare the time to look into the problems of the different constituencies individually. It is considered to be the prerogative of that representative of the party, people have selectively chosen, to push for their cause. I don’t deny that this is how the system works and the circuit is completed, but somehow in general, the problems, instead of getting solved keep compounding. The reasons are two fold. Primarily the candidate once chosen, drifts into “selective amnesia”, wherein the promises made to the people of the constituency are conveniently forgotten and only the means of personal gratification are remembered and engineered. Since they carry on them a transient baggage of ideologies, shedding it is quite effortless!
The second reason, in this context crops up when the person concerned does put in the effort for the purpose but meets with the resistance of and from the party, who by then have already prepared a post-poll priority list of “things to do”. That person can only try to make the other party members see the merit of the cause. But only to an extent. Thus far and no farther. Farther, would render his/her action an act of indiscipline and push him/her farther from the party! Because party has the final say. Solution of the problem is at the mercy of the sympathy of the party, but invariably it meets with apathy.
Then the option left is to vote for a person-specific. This too has two implications. That candidate might belong to a party with which one has an ideological contradiction. In that circumstance voting in favour, would mean hypocrisy. When one doesn’t agree with a party’s policies but still votes for it simply because the candidate is liked, then voting right is not exercised in a proper manner.
The second option for person-specific case is that of an independent candidate. Under such a situation, the decision-making becomes easier. All the more, when the candidate is known to be a person of impeccable integrity, unquestionable commitment, unwavering sincerity and who is a workaholic as well. We, the people then can rest assured that a sincere effort shall be made for our cause. Such a person truly feels him/her self, accountable to the people. Being unfettered, that comes with the independent stature, will fight for the case without any inhibition. The result, notwithstanding, our faith in that person shall be vindicated and reinforced.
But in spite of all good intentions, the execution can come only if the powers-that-be supports the cause. For that to occur, in the context of this piece as also the various others I have doled out on the related issues, the “power structure” needs to change.
How can that be done?
I know the answer that I propose is next to impossible, as that would imply a total overhaul in the system.
The first thing that needs to be done is to prioritize the issues involving the citizens. Then finalizing a sincere blueprint for tackling them needs to be prepared, followed by an earnest effort towards its execution. I am not sure of the ways this can be done with a party or parties at the helm of the government. Primarily because parties function on very vague and transient ideologies. And the members of the parties are knitted together by these very ideologies! Consequently, they try to become more important than the cause.
Contrary to this scenario, if we can have a situation in which earnest individuals, courageous enough to fight for the cause come together, all unfettered by reins of a party. And a single and simple ideology of serving the nation and the people acts as the cohesive force. The motto being to serve the country in its truest of senses, they will not find it hard to overcome the ego problems, when the time comes to choose the captain of such a team. The need for election will not arise, the purpose being easily attained by selection! A captain is necessary for various reasons and with sincere and committed team members, the captain can take decisions knowing that their execution will be proper.
I know I am proposing a highly idealistic situation and it is easy to theorize sitting in front of the computer, but still don’t you think that such a situation will be simply wonderful. I myself feel incapable of doing anything for the cause directly. So I am trying in the only possible way I can, that is through my words. I hope that in some ways these words shall catalyse an improbable revolution and cause a humongous evolution of the system. I am not purely against the existing system, but the human vices cloud the vision of our leaders to an irreparable extent. And I shall keep waiting for the day when I can truly call an elected government to be caring for us, as a guardian. Though very frequently citizens are made to feel like orphans, with unabated attack from terrorists: both internal and external.
That is why I feel that Party Politics is basically Petty (no use trying to insert “r” between “p” and “e”!) Politics based on invisible ideologies. Policies are harder to fathom for common people, with “transparency”, in the governance, finding no place in the dictionary of words liked by our representatives.
When the country is attacked leaders feel that we need the permission of other countries to take the necessary rightful action. As if in the instance of a burglary in the house and knowing the perpetrators, the same people would first go around generating consensus amongst the neighbours to take appropriate action against the culprit/s. Such a reaction to counter a heinous and dastardly act of terrorism not only compromises security and sovereignty, but also compromises on the dignity and prestige of an “IN-DEPENDENT” nation. An insult inflicted by external forces and propagated by internal entities. Which one is more Anti-National?
If such were the governance, necessitated by the policies of Party, it is better to PART WITH PARTY. Instead a team will do, comprised of heterogeneous members who are homogenised by a collective singular ideology of “for the people of the nation”. Each shall play their PART effectively by not being PART of a PARTY. BY PARTING WITH A PARTY, WE TRULY SHALL HAVE A DEMOCRACY WHOSE THEME WILL BE, “OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE”.

Sushmita Mukherjee,
25th of May, 2009