Kim's interview

VIEWPOINT: Democracy means more than just elections INDIA: SONIA TO THE RESCUE Rajiv Gandhi's Italian-born widow fights to save the family dynasty's once-mighty Congress Party from electoral disaster GOD'S ARMY: The militant BJP tones down its image	INDIA	March 2, 1998 VOL. 151 NO. 8
DEMOCRACY AT PLAY Indians need to learn that politics means more than just voting By Sunil Khilnani n the not so distant past, indian politicians took to the campaign trail with a personal astrologer in tow to advise on electoral prospects. Nowadays, they are more likely to be on their mobile phones to a new bree d of prophet: the psephologist, who scientifically studies poll data. In their short existence as a developed life-form, India's psephologists have had plenty of opportunities to perfect their algebraic arts-the country last week opened the polls for the fourth time in less than a decade. And for the fourth time, the world's largest and incomparably diverse electorate-now some 600 million strong-will, when the final tally is in, in all probability deliver an inconclusive verdict, leaving no single party w ith an overall majority in parliament. Why have elections become at once so ubiquitous in India, yet so unhelpful in settling governments? The current elections are not about judging the performance of the incumbent government, still less about choices among alternative ideologies or models of the economy. Their immediate cause is a long-running internal crisis within the Congress Party as i t struggles to come to terms with the loss of its near-monopoly-since 1947-on national power. In 1997 it experienced one of its most disastrous years. The blundering ambition of its leader, Sitaram Kesri, needlessly toppled two governments (to the exasper ation of most Indians), precipitated parliament's dissolution in only the second year of its five-year term, and then provoked a mighty hemorrhaging of members at the end of the year. Congress has of course discovered a new tonic, in the form of Sonia Gandhi. Her decision to campaign, at a moment of plummeting party morale, was a huge gamble. So far it has proved well-calculated. Her blend of composure and passion has made for an impre ssive presence at election meetings, and her speeches have skillfully interwoven national issues with a more personal tone. None of this is likely to cure the deeper malaise of Congress, but it may well be enough to dissipate the Hindu nationalist bjp's a spirations to usurp Congress as India's premier party. An earlier rise in bjp support appears to have leveled off (its most fervent adherents seem to be Indians abroad searching for "roots") and, despite cosmetic fixes, it is having difficulty effacing it s image as a party of northern upper-castes. The sparring between Congress and the bjp should not be mistaken for a sign that electoral politics has entered an era of two-party democracy. The truth-like any about Indian politics-is more complicated and uncertain. In fact, the crucial kingmakers are now the smaller regional parties, none of which sends more than a score of representatives to India's lower house of parliament, the Lok Sabha. Bolstered by economic liberalization that has devolved real powers to regional governments, these parties have acquired a taste for national power through participating in the outgoing United Front coalition government. Indian elections are being played out in neither a one-party nor a two-party system, but in something more original, where national and regional p arties are blurring into one another, and where parties often have only a mirage-like, one-election existence. But underlying this surface haze, the newfound ubiquity of elections has a deeper explanation. It is the product of a drastic simplification in the meaning of democracy. True, democracy has taken root in India. But as it has penetrated the society, spread ing a sense of political equality and subverting old hierarchies, it has also suffered a menacing reduction to a single meaning: elections. In any modern democracy, elections are part of a broader set of rules and habits that govern the exercise of power. Yet these rules and habits have come to be insouciantly shrugged aside by India's politicians, to whom democracy signifies simply a method of winning power. The inflated importance given to elections has troubling consequences for how political parties now muster support. Increasingly, they rely on inciting identities of caste, religion and region (a task for which criminals and corruption will do nicely). El ections have thus been transformed into spectacles of self-expression-for many, voting is now primarily a way to affirm an identity, rather than to weigh choices about the exercise of political power. And this regular incitement to new and more kaleidosco pic identities makes it still harder for any single party to try to represent the fragments. It is a classic double bind: the absence of a dominant national party provokes elections, but these in turn make it more difficult for such a party to emerge. Elections are necessary to the functioning of a modern democracy, but they are not the only requisite. The procedural manners of routine government are as important. If Indians are to spare themselves from an obsessive passion for elections, they must rec over the other meanings of democracy: moderation, rule-following, a capacity to learn and, above all, patience. This is asking a lot of India's political élite as well as its increasingly restless citizenry. But, as the latest experience of coalition gove rnment has shown in glimpses, there is a ramshackle way of doing it Sunil Khilnani, senior lecturer in politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, is the author of The Idea of India Photograph by Robert Nickelsberg for Time
time-webmaster@pathfinder.com

Indians need to learn that politics means more than just voting

By Sunil Khilnani

n the not so distant past, indian politicians took to the campaign trail with a personal astrologer in tow to advise on electoral prospects. Nowadays, they are more likely to be on their mobile phones to a new bree d of prophet: the psephologist, who scientifically studies poll data. In their short existence as a developed life-form, India's psephologists have had plenty of opportunities to perfect their algebraic arts-the country last week opened the polls for the fourth time in less than a decade. And for the fourth time, the world's largest and incomparably diverse electorate-now some 600 million strong-will, when the final tally is in, in all probability deliver an inconclusive verdict, leaving no single party w ith an overall majority in parliament. Why have elections become at once so ubiquitous in India, yet so unhelpful in settling governments?

The current elections are not about judging the performance of the incumbent government, still less about choices among alternative ideologies or models of the economy. Their immediate cause is a long-running internal crisis within the Congress Party as i t struggles to come to terms with the loss of its near-monopoly-since 1947-on national power. In 1997 it experienced one of its most disastrous years. The blundering ambition of its leader, Sitaram Kesri, needlessly toppled two governments (to the exasper ation of most Indians), precipitated parliament's dissolution in only the second year of its five-year term, and then provoked a mighty hemorrhaging of members at the end of the year.

Congress has of course discovered a new tonic, in the form of Sonia Gandhi. Her decision to campaign, at a moment of plummeting party morale, was a huge gamble. So far it has proved well-calculated. Her blend of composure and passion has made for an impre ssive presence at election meetings, and her speeches have skillfully interwoven national issues with a more personal tone. None of this is likely to cure the deeper malaise of Congress, but it may well be enough to dissipate the Hindu nationalist bjp's a spirations to usurp Congress as India's premier party. An earlier rise in bjp support appears to have leveled off (its most fervent adherents seem to be Indians abroad searching for "roots") and, despite cosmetic fixes, it is having difficulty effacing it s image as a party of northern upper-castes.

The sparring between Congress and the bjp should not be mistaken for a sign that electoral politics has entered an era of two-party democracy. The truth-like any about Indian politics-is more complicated and uncertain. In fact, the crucial kingmakers are now the smaller regional parties, none of which sends more than a score of representatives to India's lower house of parliament, the Lok Sabha. Bolstered by economic liberalization that has devolved real powers to regional governments, these parties have acquired a taste for national power through participating in the outgoing United Front coalition government. Indian elections are being played out in neither a one-party nor a two-party system, but in something more original, where national and regional p arties are blurring into one another, and where parties often have only a mirage-like, one-election existence.

But underlying this surface haze, the newfound ubiquity of elections has a deeper explanation. It is the product of a drastic simplification in the meaning of democracy. True, democracy has taken root in India. But as it has penetrated the society, spread ing a sense of political equality and subverting old hierarchies, it has also suffered a menacing reduction to a single meaning: elections. In any modern democracy, elections are part of a broader set of rules and habits that govern the exercise of power. Yet these rules and habits have come to be insouciantly shrugged aside by India's politicians, to whom democracy signifies simply a method of winning power.

The inflated importance given to elections has troubling consequences for how political parties now muster support. Increasingly, they rely on inciting identities of caste, religion and region (a task for which criminals and corruption will do nicely). El ections have thus been transformed into spectacles of self-expression-for many, voting is now primarily a way to affirm an identity, rather than to weigh choices about the exercise of political power. And this regular incitement to new and more kaleidosco pic identities makes it still harder for any single party to try to represent the fragments. It is a classic double bind: the absence of a dominant national party provokes elections, but these in turn make it more difficult for such a party to emerge.

Elections are necessary to the functioning of a modern democracy, but they are not the only requisite. The procedural manners of routine government are as important. If Indians are to spare themselves from an obsessive passion for elections, they must rec over the other meanings of democracy: moderation, rule-following, a capacity to learn and, above all, patience. This is asking a lot of India's political élite as well as its increasingly restless citizenry. But, as the latest experience of coalition gove rnment has shown in glimpses, there is a ramshackle way of doing it

Sunil Khilnani, senior lecturer in politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, is the author of The Idea of India

Photograph by Robert Nickelsberg for Time