Political Disconnect, Swing Voters and the Propensity for Change

Written by admin on February 28, 2010 – 6:00 pm -

 

The results of the Constituent Assembly elections are pouring in and none of the political pundits or analysts could have foreseen the indicated outcome as being seen from the preliminary results. The last general elections were held in 1999. The mainstream political parties were facing the public pulse after a long hiatus of nine years. The Maoists were testing it after even a longer period of time. They started their insurgency movement in 1996, and 12 years later, after a sustained insurgency movement and a peace deal which followed, they were finally willing to tread un-trod waters and face the ballots in lieu of bullets. The results coming in show that the Maoists are leading heavily in the FPTP (First Past The Post) of 240 seats and are also leading with a wide margin in the nationwide PR (Proportional Representation) seats of 335. So what happened?

What was it that made the two main political parties, namely the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal – Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) show such poor outcome in the election results? And what was it that made the Communist Party of Nepal Maoists (CPN-M) show such strong results? And what was it that makes it look like that the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum (MPRF) will be the fourth largest party in the new post-election scenario?

It seems that the NC and the UML lost a lot of the votes because they have been so lax and in total disconnect with the grassroots and the general voters. They have been extending the mandate of the present Parliament for so long – the last elections were after all held in 1999 – that they seem to have forgotten that it also takes a lot of issue based campaigning to get elected. The first Constituent Assembly elections were scheduled to be held in June 2007. With the postponement of that scheduled date, the parties were not showing any inclination to taking their message – their political manifestos – out to the public. They were content on holding on to the position of power at the parliament – a parliament whose term had expired and whose mandate was to hold the CA elections as soon as possible. There was endless and pointless wrangling and haggling between the parties in the parliament. All of this – while very little actual work was being done. They almost never went out to the public at the grassroots level to find out what it was that the public actually wanted. This disconnect from the voter base has proved to be a costly point. And one has to remember that it was NC which was so insistent on having the FPTP system. They felt that it would benefit them as it had done in the previous general elections. Looking at the incoming results, they might have fared better with just the PR system for the elections. The CPN-UML certainly had shown preference for the PR only system.

How did the CPN-M do so well in the elections? To say that they have surprised everyone is an understatement. The CPN-M itself is surprised and overwhelmed with the results. Most analysts felt that they would come out the third largest party, at the best, the second largest. But the results show that they have come out as the single largest party with the two main parties, NC and CPN-UML lagging far far behind. There are many different reasons for such a strong showing of the Maoists in this CA election. Firstly, it seemed that they were the only ones who were doing serious campaigning. Their door to door campaigning had been going on for quite some time, while the other parties were just trying to do support rallies. It may be true that there was a lot of strong arm tactics involved in the districts when other parties were discouraged to go out and do the campaigning. In fact, some people felt that there was a “Vote War” going on. But still, is that enough to show such poor performance by the other parties and such strong performance by the Maoists?

The other thing that I believe helped the CPN-M gain so many votes are the youth vote. The Maoists put up more young candidates than any other parties. The population of Nepal, who are below 34 years of age, is approximately 73%. Of the voting percentages, figures from the Election Commission shows that the voters between the age range of 18 to 35 constitutes 50.75% of the total voters. In the CA elections, for parties fielding their candidates for the 240 First Past The Post (FPTP) seats, it was reported that the CPN (Maoist) had 126 (52.50%)young candidates across the country in the age group 25-40. The NC fielded just 17 candidates (7.08%) from the age group 25-40. Young people have a tendency to connect with other younger people. In the post-conflict scenario, when so much has been said and so little has been done, I believe that a lot of young people voted for someone they see as peers and on whom they had more confidence than the gerontocrats. In most of the countries where transition to democracy takes place, the country also witnesses the end of older generation rule – the political leaders and elite gets younger. For instance in Serbia when it moved towards the transition, 68% of its political elite was young was below 36 years of age. It seems the youth vote acted as a swing vote in the CA elections.

And last but not the least, I think it was the propensity for change which is reflected in the CA elections results. Many Nepalese had high expectations that we would experience prosperity and development with the restoration of democracy in 1990, people have now come to realize that without an active and informed citizenry, democracy is unresponsive to citizens’ needs. Due to the dismal showing of the political parties in the last decade and a half, many people have lost their faith in the political parties. The people gave opportunities to the political parties time and again, but the outcome was no different each and every time. Endless political wranglings, power struggle, nepotism and a total disconnect from the public. This kind of political insulation leads to a general feeling of apathy among the people and they will naturally react to a new party that offers a different approach, a new way of doing things, new opportunities and a new leadership. The CPN-M seems to have gained a lot from this propensity for change. Also, the need for change and representation seems to have worked very well for the MPRF and the other Madhesi parties. People voted for a change from the traditional voting patterns, where the big parties would get elected most of the time. The time for actual representation has come.

Nepal has undergone extraordinarily challenging circumstances: a de- escalating national conflict, massive human rights abuses, large number of internally displaced people, students and youth taking up violent protests and the ongoing formation of the Constituent Assembly. The leadership of all the political parties needs to be lauded for making the CA elections such a success. Now it is up to the same leaders to see to it that the peoples mandate is fulfilled. The function of the constituent assembly will be to take the identity and values of the New Nepal fashioned through social and political processes and give it constitutional recognition and expression.

Technorati Tags: Change, Disconnect, political, Propensity, Swing, Voters

Tags: Change, Disconnect, political, Propensity, Swing, Voters
Posted in Political Pundits | No Comments »

True Leadership in American Politics Requires Informed Voters

Written by admin on February 28, 2010 – 6:00 pm -

 

I have always been a political junkie. I mean, I love keeping abreast of both the local and national political scene. It intrigues me how citizens like you and I can rise to positions of power in local, state, and federally elected offices. Currently, we are witnessing a historic national democratic primary, facilitated by two popular candidates. On one hand, you have Illinois state senator Barack Obama who enjoys an almost rock star appeal. On the other hand, you have New York state senator Hillary Clinton who is using all of her power and influence to try to reclaim the White House. Now, I would agree that to the average political junkie like me (republican, democrat, or independent), this primary season is entertaining to say the least. Nevertheless I question, does the attainment of political office in today’s political atmosphere inspire leadership in our elected officials? Some may answer yes, citing former mayor of New York City, Rudolph Guliani’s handling of 9/11 as proof that American politicians are leaders. However, I’m not so easily convinced.

I am not so quick to agree with such arguments because even though American politicians have been using the term leadership in their campaigns since forever, I don’t think that we the American people require our elected officials to be true leaders. And when I say true leaders, I mean those that govern based on sound thinking, courage, vision, compassion, and don’t bow to the pressures of doing or saying whatever is necessary to be elected. For ever American politician that one can cite as having these qualities, there is another that displays the opposite. If this is the case, how can American voters decide on who to vote for in elections and shift the political conversation from simply elected officials to true elected leaders?

This question is hard to answer for the average American voter as political campaigns are loaded with high-priced consultants, pollsters, and spin doctors, all aimed to confuse you but still garner your vote. Every political season, American voters are bombarded with flyers, phone calls, advertisements, and pundits telling us either who we should vote for, or what issues should matter most to us. With this constant diet of propaganda, it is no wonder that so many Americans are disenfranchised with the political process and don’t vote on Election Day. However, the problem with this approach is that when we don’t vote, we are turning over our collective voice to the small percentage (relative to the total American population) that do vote. This means that any given candidate can get elected and claim to be a leader, simply by appealing to his/her party’s base (core voting group), leaving those that did not vote out in the cold if their views don’t coincide with the newly elected politician’s.

So, how do we demonstrate our collective voice and force our elected officials to govern as true leaders so that we get a political system that energizes the American public to participate? Well first off, you have to become an informed citizen. Informed in regards to:

How the political system works (the roles of the three branches of government: legislative, judicial, and executive)
How laws are created and passed
What the local, state, and federal election issues are, and how they can potentially impact you
Which candidates are running for which offices, and their corresponding platforms

In order to achieve all of this, that’s right, you have to research and read. I can’t stress this enough.
Doing your own research more than any other means of processing information, will remove your ignorance and disenfranchisement pertaining to our political process.

After learning about the political process, issues, candidates, and their platforms, you should observe the candidates in debates. Determine what you like and dislike about their responses, alliances, posture, appearance, etc. Listen to the political pundits as well, but not so they can determine for you, who to vote for, but for them to add to your wealth of information regarding the candidates and the issues at play. They may have access to information that you may not.

Also, try and discuss your political views in situations where you feel it is safe to exchange ideas without persecution or judgment so that you can get different perspectives regarding a given candidate or issue as it relates to other citizens that may not necessarily share your views because of a difference in background. But do be clear that this may be difficult for some to do because politics can be a testy subject to discuss if the environment is not supportive of open and diverse points of view.

Finally, vote!!!!!!! Vote for the issues or candidates that best serve you and your constituents’ purposes. Our elected officials can be true leaders if those that are voting make informed choices. Only then can the politicians that are put in office be expected to lead. Think about this as you evaluate those running for office in your hometown, state, and national offices this coming November.

Technorati Tags: American, Informed, Leadership, Politics, Requires, true, Voters

Tags: American, Informed, Leadership, Politics, Requires, true, Voters
Posted in Political Pundits | No Comments »

Monologue – What Are These Political Pundits Talking About

Written by admin on February 23, 2010 – 11:22 am -

Monologue – What Are These Political Pundits Talking About From Ellen Degeneres Show NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED

Technorati Tags: About, Monologue, political, pundits, Talking, These

Tags: About, Monologue, political, pundits, Talking, These
Posted in Political Pundits | 2 Comments »