Electoral Politics is always a comparative choice.

Js Adoor

2 April · Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia · 

Electoral Politics is always a comparative choice. There is nothing like an absolute choice in electoral politics unless one is slavish to a political party, leader or ideology. If you go by membership of political parties, less than three percent people are the active members of political parties even in Kerala. The most active political party, CPM has 3 lakhs members in a population of around 35 million. And if you add up active supporters and voters of all parties put together, it will be only 2 million out of 35 million people. This also means a large cross section of people are neither active members or supporters of a political party.

Electoral political choices are a function of political context, available choices, ideological position, comparative perspective of candidates, political party loyalties etc. While those who are members or active supporters will indeed advocate and argue for a party candidate or choose to follow their leaders, others may make their choices depending on other factors including a particular candidate or political context .

The track record of all political parties who formed government in the past and present are mixed. The track record of congress party which ruled the country for a maximum period has always been mixed. There have been good, bad and ugly in the governance track record of congress party .

My political position was shaped by my active protest against emergency, attack against sikh minority, destruction of Barbi masjid, and neo library corporate predominance. There are so many good policies introduced by the congress governments and there are also many bad policies .

However, in the present political context where there is a serious threat to the constitution, democratic principles and human rights, one has to make a comparative choice. And the available choices are limited at the national level . There are many things I criticized in congress and continue to do so. However in the present context the most articulate opposition against majoritarian politics, authoritarian tendencies, and communal polarization come from Rahul Gandhi. He has emerged as leader of national stature posing credible challenge to the Modi mode of politics.. Rahul also convincingly made his policy choices that are different from UPA 2 and NDA. I find many of his policy position on a comparative scale better in relations to other major political parties. So in terms of comparative political and policy position, Rahul Gandhi is more convincing than Modi and others.

I believe that established left political parties need to have a role at the national levels and state levels. I hope they will have enough presence in parliament to be a corrective force. I also have immense respect for Sitaram Yechury and many leaders in the politburo and central committee. I also hope left parties will win seats from Kerala and elsewhere .

However Rahul Gandhi 's decision to contest in Waynad unsettled many active members and supporters of two established ruling political parties in Kerala . This was based on assumption that Rahul Gandhi is fighting against the Left parties This resulted in a virulent personal attack against Rahul Gandhi, ridiculed, trolled and abused, very similar to that of Sangh parivar. This forced many of us to stand up supporting Rahul Gandhi, largely due to personal attack against him.

Rahul Gandhi is fighting for something, for democratization of politics and governance. He is not fighting against the state government. He is fighting against the policies and politics of present union government. He can indeed be critqued politically and must be done so in democratic politics .He is not contesting to Legislative Assembly. He is fighting for the parliament. He is contesting from only in one constituency and not in 20.constituencies. Of course BJP alliance also got more than 15% vote share in Kerala . LDF and CPM too are well established in Kerala. So why there is a virulent personal attack against one candidate? Why stoop to the level of third rate personal mudslinging? Why is it using the very same argument and trolls used by the sangh parivar?

Political parties and their members often indulge in personal abuse and attacks when there is lack of conviction and political argument . It is easier to ridicule another perspective or view . It is when a person or ardent supporter of a political party resort to name calling and react with intolerance , it often is due to internal insecurity and lack of political confidence . Violence in thoughs, words and deeds are often due to highly internalized insecurity .Such personal abuse happen across all the three political alliances in Kerala .We need to collectively reflect up on the political party culture in general .

I am not against social democratic left politics . In the context of kerala and at the national level there has to be constructive political forces with political confidence and positive approach . Left parties need to be clear about what they stand for rather than merely abusing anybody and everyone with a different view .

While at the national level on a comparative level , one may be supportive to the policy and political position , that doesn't mean that there will be an uncritical endorsement of congress . And whoever in government , citizens will have to monitor government and challenge wrong policies , seek accountability and claim rights . It is one thing to make a comparative choice and entirely different thing to have an uncritical endorsement . So in comparison to Modi ,one may support Rahul Gandhi . However that doesn't mean one is an uncritical camp follower . That is a very different position .

Political debate and policy debates are important for democratic politics . That need to be different from personal abuse . Every political position must be and can be challenged . Every political party and leaders also will be challenged .That is the core of democracy .

Democracy is both about dignity and dissent as well as on political debate .. We don't need to agree on everything to value and respect each other . We need to appreciate differences and different perspectives.. That is when democratic values become meaningful . Democracy is as much as about agreement as about disagreement . Disagree . Debate .Express Dissent . But do so respecting the dignity and rights of others . If we respect our dignity we will also respect the dignity of others , including those who disagree with us.
One can support or oppose a policy or political position without necessarily endorsing all the views of x or y political parties .

Because in bipartisan advocacy , there is a core approach : Resist where you must. Co-operate where you can. And be appreciative whenever a postive policy happens. We don't need to agree on everything to work together on certain issues of shared interest or compatible perspective . In good political praxis , building bridges is more important rather than burning the bridges .

JS Adoor