2014 General Elections: Rahul v/s Modi??

Political commentators across the country had in 2009, termed the then general elections as the semi-final to be contested between two rulers (Manmohan Singh and L.K. Advani) who were supposed to be regents (or night-watchmen, to use the BJP term) for the kings to follow (Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi respectively). And with every assembly election, the same commentators now wish to draw attention to the 2014 elections as a contest between the two leaders, notwithstanding the highly diverse and plural electorate of this country which can't be captured by just two persons, and other reasons also. Want to understand? Here it is.

Firstly, any general election in India today is no longer about the centre or mood of the people against the central govt. only. In reality, it never would have been. After all, every election involves a contest between candidates where every single voter decides his voting decision based on a no. of factors, ranging from caste, creed, sex and even religion to other indicators such as performance in terms of development, law and order and sometimes even protection from religious riots and prevalence of peace, in addition to the candidate's personal record, the party he/she belongs to and others. In such a condition, to say that people vote only based on Modi or Rahul Gandhi (or for that matter just a person) is a completely naive view of Indian politics.

The second major issue is the way any general election can be summarized: as a sum of state elections. And if we look at states, there is no reason why the general election should be termed a battle between Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi. When one looks at the states which contain a dominant share of Lok Sabha seats, one can certainly come to this conclusion. Be it Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Bihar or Andhra Pradesh, one can safely say that the condition of both the parties in these states is not necessarily good on their own. Both the parties can never win any of these states in any assembly election on their own.

What saves them therefore, or can save them, is the nature of their alliances. The Congress won the 2004 and even the 2009 elections not only because it did well (at least in 2009) but also because it had alliances which performed. On the other hand, the BJP suffered a terrible defeat on account of either a lack of the alliance (West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh) or a lack of a performing alliance (Maharashtra). Only Bihar showed a spark, and that too may be a product of social engineering moves played by Nitish Kumar combined with the resentment to the Lalu regime, though it can't be said for certain too. And no Rahul or Modi can change these ground realities in just a few days. It takes enormous amount of ground work on a consistent basis to change the fortunes of a political party, and both seem quite uncapable of undertaking it, since both are personality-based leaders who want votes based on their charisma (more true for Modi outside Gujarat as opposed to inside Gujarat, while for Rahul its entirely true).

The third issue however goes even beyond the alliances. One of the most common characteristics for both Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi could be authoritarian nature, with the only discernible difference being that Modi would show more of it compared to Rahul in public. But in an alliance govt., autocratic or authoritative behavior may not be really an advantage; in fact it may very well lead to a break up of govt. sooner or later. More over, both Rahul and Modi would not like to be perceived either as weak leaders or prime ministers heading a corrupt regime (ala Manmohan Singh) which could be very much the norm now that alliances are formed based on short-term rent seeking as opposed to long term ideological or policy based measures. And both have not shown any ability or skill to manage coalition govts. like say Vajpayee. Therefore, it may be very much possible that both may not even wish to be prime ministers, considering it to be a path full of thorns.

So to state that the next elections would be a battle between two men would be injustice to the extremely diverse polity of our country. The next election would be decided by the same factors which have worked in 2004 and 2009 and therefore, it would be the states which would decide elections, not so much Modi or Rahul. Moreover, whether they themselves would like to be prime ministers of an alliance govt. would be something to answer about considering allies would think about pliable leaders and not necessarily larger-than-life figures as prime ministers.

And there could lie the difference.