Democracy triumphs over conventional wisdom in India?
May 13, 2004 12:46 PM Subscribe
'In the event, it was a near-unanimous verdict for the politics of inclusiveness - economic, social and cultural - and against the rhetoric of divisiveness and xenophobia.' The 'stunning' victory of Sonia Gandhi's Congress (I) party in the world's largest democracy may force us to reconsider some of our preconceptions about India. To the headline writers in Britain and the US, it's the place that's 'stealing' jobs from the West (itself a simplification); to most Indian voters, though, the BJP's economic miracle doesn't extend beyond the major cities, serving to accentuate rather than alleviate the poverty gap. The verdict on the ground? That this is a vote against the limited capacity of globalisation to bring real change to developing economies. Some might accuse Indian voters of cutting off their noses to spite their faces, but for hundreds of millions of them, the BJP's promise of a 'Shining India' spoke of an entirely different world.
I agree, thanks.
My thought regarding this election is how many other governments in recent elections have moved "left". (I'm capitalist who disagrees with Bush’s policies).
I know W wanted to affect the world with change, but I bet he didn't expect to move it in the other direction. How many other governments have moved left since he has been in office? Besides war, will be a global backlash move toward the left be his legacy?
posted by thekorruptor at 1:51 PM on May 13, 2004
My thought regarding this election is how many other governments in recent elections have moved "left". (I'm capitalist who disagrees with Bush’s policies).
I know W wanted to affect the world with change, but I bet he didn't expect to move it in the other direction. How many other governments have moved left since he has been in office? Besides war, will be a global backlash move toward the left be his legacy?
posted by thekorruptor at 1:51 PM on May 13, 2004
The verdict on the ground? That this is a vote against the limited capacity of globalization to bring real change to developing economies.
I wasn't aware that Congress had run an anti-globalization campaign. Do you have any links detailing their position? (I'm not questioning your reliability; I'd just be curious to read more about it.) It surprises me somewhat, because I know that the Rajiv Gandhi and Rao governments were responsible for opening up Indian markets to the outside world. Has Congress reversed itself on market liberalization?
posted by mr_roboto at 1:51 PM on May 13, 2004
I wasn't aware that Congress had run an anti-globalization campaign. Do you have any links detailing their position? (I'm not questioning your reliability; I'd just be curious to read more about it.) It surprises me somewhat, because I know that the Rajiv Gandhi and Rao governments were responsible for opening up Indian markets to the outside world. Has Congress reversed itself on market liberalization?
posted by mr_roboto at 1:51 PM on May 13, 2004
I agree. Good post. I have to say that I'm shocked that Vajpayee resigned. I often equated the BJP with the Republicans and assumed that as long as Pakistan/China were still a threat, of sorts, the BJP could stay in power for much longer.
Unfortunately, I don't think Gandhi can do anything to bridge the ever-growing gap between the rich and poor, but through good social programs, perhaps India's infrastructure can benefit.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:52 PM on May 13, 2004
Unfortunately, I don't think Gandhi can do anything to bridge the ever-growing gap between the rich and poor, but through good social programs, perhaps India's infrastructure can benefit.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:52 PM on May 13, 2004
BlueTrain: I have to say that I'm shocked that Vajpayee resigned.
If you mean his resignation today, that's because he lost the mandate. It's customary for a defeated PM to formally resign and play caretaker PM till inaugaration. More likely, you were confused about why the elections were held now, even though they weren't due for atleast a few more months. That's because the NDA (ruling coalition) was overconfident and a)probably didn't want to wait till after monsoons b)wanted to ride the high tide of India-Pak thaw alongside the cricket series win. Needless to say, they grossly miscalculated.
I often equated the BJP with the Republicans and assumed that as long as Pakistan/China were still a threat, of sorts, the BJP could stay in power for much longer.
Foreign policy is a luxury (and unknown) consideration for the vast majority of rural Indians.
Unfortunately, I don't think Gandhi can do anything to bridge the ever-growing gap between the rich and poor
I don't think Gandhi intends to, either. Yes, I'm a cynic.
posted by Gyan at 2:06 PM on May 13, 2004
If you mean his resignation today, that's because he lost the mandate. It's customary for a defeated PM to formally resign and play caretaker PM till inaugaration. More likely, you were confused about why the elections were held now, even though they weren't due for atleast a few more months. That's because the NDA (ruling coalition) was overconfident and a)probably didn't want to wait till after monsoons b)wanted to ride the high tide of India-Pak thaw alongside the cricket series win. Needless to say, they grossly miscalculated.
I often equated the BJP with the Republicans and assumed that as long as Pakistan/China were still a threat, of sorts, the BJP could stay in power for much longer.
Foreign policy is a luxury (and unknown) consideration for the vast majority of rural Indians.
Unfortunately, I don't think Gandhi can do anything to bridge the ever-growing gap between the rich and poor
I don't think Gandhi intends to, either. Yes, I'm a cynic.
posted by Gyan at 2:06 PM on May 13, 2004
I've heard that she may not get to be Prime Minister, because she was born elsewhere. Is that so? The Times thinks she will.
And there's another generation of Gandhis on the rise, it seems. : >
posted by amberglow at 2:08 PM on May 13, 2004
And there's another generation of Gandhis on the rise, it seems. : >
posted by amberglow at 2:08 PM on May 13, 2004
I wasn't aware that Congress had run an anti-globalization campaign. Do you have any links detailing their position?
It wasn't so much 'anti-globalisation', I think, so much as questioning the BJP's focus on globalisation as the primary engine of economic development: that's to say, the Congress's argument was that no amount of call centres in Bangalore will translate into potable water for villagers in the rest of Karnataka. (In fact, that's the only significant difference in the party manifestos.)
It's curious that the Congress, being led by the aristocrats of Indian politics, traditionally draws upon the support of the masses, whereas the BJP, once associated with rabble-rousing Hindu nationalism, seems to have drifted the other way while in coalition government, to become associated with the technocratic urban elite.
Like Gyan, I don't think the Congress can make the difference that they've campaigned on, in part because of differences among the likely components of the coalition that will be formed, but mainly because Indian politicians only tend to value the poor at election time; but it does feel like 'old India' wanted a return to old models of governance, and the Congress managed to exploit both the complacency of urban, middle-class Indians who feel more independent of the state, and the sense of approbrium across those in rural India who do rely upon the state.
I'm sure Tom Friedman choked on his cornflakes this morning. But I'm also disappointed by headlines that claim this is a 'shock' victory for the Congress: reporting on the ground -- especially from the BBC's correspondents -- flagged this one up a couple of weeks ago.
Just to note: this gives the lie to Bush's strawman argument about those 'people' who apparently don't believe that brown people can hold elections. Many parts of India even had touchpad voting machines...
posted by riviera at 3:02 PM on May 13, 2004
It wasn't so much 'anti-globalisation', I think, so much as questioning the BJP's focus on globalisation as the primary engine of economic development: that's to say, the Congress's argument was that no amount of call centres in Bangalore will translate into potable water for villagers in the rest of Karnataka. (In fact, that's the only significant difference in the party manifestos.)
It's curious that the Congress, being led by the aristocrats of Indian politics, traditionally draws upon the support of the masses, whereas the BJP, once associated with rabble-rousing Hindu nationalism, seems to have drifted the other way while in coalition government, to become associated with the technocratic urban elite.
Like Gyan, I don't think the Congress can make the difference that they've campaigned on, in part because of differences among the likely components of the coalition that will be formed, but mainly because Indian politicians only tend to value the poor at election time; but it does feel like 'old India' wanted a return to old models of governance, and the Congress managed to exploit both the complacency of urban, middle-class Indians who feel more independent of the state, and the sense of approbrium across those in rural India who do rely upon the state.
I'm sure Tom Friedman choked on his cornflakes this morning. But I'm also disappointed by headlines that claim this is a 'shock' victory for the Congress: reporting on the ground -- especially from the BBC's correspondents -- flagged this one up a couple of weeks ago.
Just to note: this gives the lie to Bush's strawman argument about those 'people' who apparently don't believe that brown people can hold elections. Many parts of India even had touchpad voting machines...
posted by riviera at 3:02 PM on May 13, 2004
The Italian-born Sonia Maino married Rajiv to become a Gandhi back in 1968, and only entered politics officially some thirty years later. Sonia has been constantly attacked for not being native to India. For example, at the beginning of the month, BJP Chief Minister Narendra Modi, launched this broadside against her:
Can any of you tell me anything about Sonia Gandhi's background before she married an Indian? Can you give away the country to somebody about whose background you are totally clueless? This is not an ordinary election. This is a battle for the self-respect of one billion people and we can't hand over the destiny of these people to a foreigner.
After her 1999 election defeat, Sonia Gandhi learned to speak Hindi (in which she is still not exactly fluent), and her doggedness appears to have paid off. Her foreign birth seems to have been rather less of an election issue than the BJP would have hoped.
good post, r.
thanks
posted by matteo at 4:59 PM on May 13, 2004
Can any of you tell me anything about Sonia Gandhi's background before she married an Indian? Can you give away the country to somebody about whose background you are totally clueless? This is not an ordinary election. This is a battle for the self-respect of one billion people and we can't hand over the destiny of these people to a foreigner.
After her 1999 election defeat, Sonia Gandhi learned to speak Hindi (in which she is still not exactly fluent), and her doggedness appears to have paid off. Her foreign birth seems to have been rather less of an election issue than the BJP would have hoped.
good post, r.
thanks
posted by matteo at 4:59 PM on May 13, 2004
So, this suggests a lower level of ethnic bias in India vs. that in the US. But, does this also increase the chance that Arnold Schwarzenegger will get to run as a US presidential candidate?
posted by troutfishing at 9:01 PM on May 13, 2004
posted by troutfishing at 9:01 PM on May 13, 2004
Many parts of India even had touchpad voting machines...
BBCWorld commentators mentioned 'more than a million' electronic voting machines repeatedly yesterday. I wonder if they were as dodgy as the American Diebold Crapstations™ have been shown to be....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:08 AM on May 14, 2004
BBCWorld commentators mentioned 'more than a million' electronic voting machines repeatedly yesterday. I wonder if they were as dodgy as the American Diebold Crapstations™ have been shown to be....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:08 AM on May 14, 2004
I wonder if they were as dodgy as the American Diebold Crapstations™ have been shown to be....
Well, from the BBC coverage, they looked less hi-tech and more solid -- close to the old practice of sticking an inky thumbprint on a ballot paper. That the two makers are state-owned may help, too: the Bharat and ECIL EVMs were deployed across India, rather than the mixture of different machines bought by different states -- even different counties -- in the US.
There's no literal paper trail, though there's apparently a way to extract the entire sequence of votes cast if necessary, and the specs are pretty vague -- written in that style of Indian English which always comes across as breezy and jolly. But from what I can tell, the unit basically does the counting on an EEPROM soldered into the circuit board, and runs on an integrated circuit rather than in software. Which means you don't have the flash cards and hackable databases of a Diebold machine. That said, there are commentators in India who made the valid point that breezy prose doesn't make up for the lack of schematics. But it suggests that ballot hacking requires a soldering iron rather than logging into MS Access.
There were a few dodgy ones, but for something that looks like something assembled from a kit sold in the back of Popular Electronics, circa 1979, it seems to have worked pretty well. (And indeed, the integrated code was apparently written in 1979.)
posted by riviera at 8:53 AM on May 14, 2004
Well, from the BBC coverage, they looked less hi-tech and more solid -- close to the old practice of sticking an inky thumbprint on a ballot paper. That the two makers are state-owned may help, too: the Bharat and ECIL EVMs were deployed across India, rather than the mixture of different machines bought by different states -- even different counties -- in the US.
There's no literal paper trail, though there's apparently a way to extract the entire sequence of votes cast if necessary, and the specs are pretty vague -- written in that style of Indian English which always comes across as breezy and jolly. But from what I can tell, the unit basically does the counting on an EEPROM soldered into the circuit board, and runs on an integrated circuit rather than in software. Which means you don't have the flash cards and hackable databases of a Diebold machine. That said, there are commentators in India who made the valid point that breezy prose doesn't make up for the lack of schematics. But it suggests that ballot hacking requires a soldering iron rather than logging into MS Access.
There were a few dodgy ones, but for something that looks like something assembled from a kit sold in the back of Popular Electronics, circa 1979, it seems to have worked pretty well. (And indeed, the integrated code was apparently written in 1979.)
posted by riviera at 8:53 AM on May 14, 2004
« Older Going Poston! | Goodby Sunshine? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by homunculus at 1:29 PM on May 13, 2004