Vote Bank Politics.

Written In April 2019

This is the season of election and we are in the middle of Lok Sabha election. The term “vote-bank politics” is being used negatively by all and sundry - they may be politicians,  journalists, election analysts and others.

I wish to put other aspect or side of this subject matter.

Let us understand what the politics is, and what is democracy? In its crudest form politics is all about “who gets what”. And “democracy” is all about representation (anyone who links it to merit or regret merit not getting its due in democracy, does not understand democracy at all). If we combine who gets what and question of representation, it will be easy to understand “vote bank politics” in positive sense.

Now let us understand what is meaning of “Vote-bank politics”- it denotes political appeals made to voters on the lines of caste, language, religion, and sect.  Even though, model code of conduct etc. bans this, over the years, this has become a phenomenon and political parties across the spectrum have used it to their advantage to nurture groups of dedicated voters who align with their agenda and support them during elections. Further many of political parties have been created or are in existence to cater to a specific caste, language, religion, and sect. Please remember, if a political party makes promises to a single section of society that it is going to fulfill their specific demands, it is within the party’s rights to do so.

Also, over the years, a perception has been created among the masses that being called a “vote bank" is an insult to them as citizens. This is again questionable. Being part of a vote bank could make voters more aware of both their individual strength as citizens and collective strength as hailing from a particular strata of society. It doesn’t always reduce one’s identity, as is often claimed. Rather, it enhances one’s bargaining power within the democratic system. It also makes for heterogeneity in popular representation.

But, many scholars point to this as a drawback of vote-bank politics, as it has a tendency to widen identity fault lines. As a result, almost no political party wants to be seen as one that indulges in such politics, but covertly always practicing it right from selection of candidate. This theory or line of thinking suggests that vote-bank politics is low-level politics, which political parties should refrain from.

The larger question, however, is whether in light of definition of politics and democracy, given above, “vote-bank politics” is essential part of democracy and unnecessarily we have painted it bad.It is considered dangerous because political parties try to woo particular caste groups and communities by making promises that are specific to those groups. It is done selectively and yardstick changes with constituency. Though the “vote banks" in turn see this as an opportunity to get their demands fulfilled, if their choice of party comes to power. Puritan argue that in such a scenario, parties start favoring only certain groups that form the core of their support, thereby hampering overall societal development due to conflicting priorities. But, if every group and community is catered to by some party or the other, is it still a bad phenomenon? India’s electoral history has shown that balanced vote-bank politics has provided both stable coalition governments and strong oppositions, where the interests of every section of society are represented. Apparently, it is the pressure of “vote banks” that keeps a check on parties once they are elected to power. And his is essence of democracy.

Conversely, when people have voted overriding caste lines and vote banks in support of a single party, it has resulted in wave elections, such as in 1984 and 2014, which subsequently led to majoritarian tendencies within the government.

How then did the term “vote-bank politics" acquire such a negative ring? Is such politics really synonymous with divisiveness? The answer lies in how one understands the term. If a political party or a politician appeals to one section of society in the name of a caste or religion, it may not necessarily be bad unless the act of appealing to that single section of society extends to positioning that group against others or the rest of society. Further, some caution would be in order, if the demands, and their fulfillment, of a particular section of society could overwhelm or harm the interests of other sections of society in the process of getting their demands fulfilled, creating unrest and violence. It is only when the either one of condition-pitting one community against other gives rise to problems.

Further, those who fear heterogeneity and diversity often make the most strident arguments against the concept, for they know that vote-banks are symbolic of the demands of different sections of society. A culture is being propagated in India that seeks to homogenize voices and reduce diversity, but its proponents should recognize that in a country like India, which is founded as a nation-state on the principle of celebrating diversity, it is but natural for different sections of society to speak in different voices, make different demands and have different opinions that may be mutually opposed.So, vote-bank politics is not a bad as long as while catering to aspirations of specific group, common objective of coexistence with a sustainable economic growth is achieved. In the event of abuse of vote-bank the idea is highly inflammable. Therefore, when media houses, political parties and politicians cry foul over vote-bank politics, they need to be questioned by citizens who may themselves be part of a vote-bank. The duty of political parties, civil society and media is then to bridge the divergences that arise from this process of conflicting interests of various sections vying for power. Sadly, however, this basic duty is not being fulfilled. A few person/parties want everyone to speak in one voice, even as their actions in the political domain have the effect of pitting one faith against the other, one caste against another, and so on.

To conclude Vote-bank politics in itself is not a bad notion as long as is serves an essential objective of polity and in turn the nation to grow economically, socially and culturally, with coexistence.