| Author | Message | ||
Teluguhero Comedian Username: Teluguhero Post Number: 1603 Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 63.151.12.167 Rating: N/A |
http://www.niticentral.com/2015/11/08/bjp-loss-in-bihar-thre e-sources-it-can-learn-from-336694.html BJP loss in Bihar: Three sources it can learn from 2012 December. Modi once again won the elections in Gujarat rather handsomely. 2012 was around the same time UPA had taken the nation to abysmal lows. BJP central unit sensed that the mood of the nation was changing. A safer course for the BJP wouldâve been to fight the polls without a PM candidate or perhaps float 3-4 possibles among the top hierarchy in Delhi. One man, however, had different ideas. He was gradually but definitely building his own tunnel to be the partyâs most popular choice for that post. His support base, as Jaitley later noted, was an ever increasing groundswell manifesting into a clamour to name him BJPâs PM candidate. At the Goa meet, it took a few decisive minds (Jaitley and the then Goa CM Manohar Parrikar, for example) amidst several safe players to press the BJP to name him as their PM candidate much to the surprise of our pundits and the commentariat. The rest, of course, is history. How did Modi build this eligibility? Through a combination of being in power in Gujarat and, simultaneously, being a Shadow Prime Minister of sorts to the UPA rule, Modi went over the heads of media and his party bosses to connect directly to the cadre and the people. He had solutions to UPAâs mess. Those solutions could be found in his long tenure in Gujarat. The choice for the next PM became clearer. Same with Amit Shah. As a manager of elections since for decades, Shah had made winning a habit. His role in a Modi-led campaign was a no-brainer. The stunning results in UP in 2014 made him a strong contender to assume a larger role within the BJP. Again, just like in the case of nominating a âsafeâ PM candidate, the BJP could have selected a senior leader as the party president while giving Shah a larger electoral role. Shah, however, had unhesitatingly put himself at the forefront of a serious promotion. âIf he deserved it, he should get itâ was his underlying message. And the BJP made yet another courageous decision appointing him to lead the party reins. He continued his winning habit until, of course, Delhi and now Bihar have paused his juggernaut. Leaving psephology and data analysis aside, what I do sense from Indian elections since the days of Samajwadi partyâs stellar win in UP in 2012 is that the new young India has become more decisive than ever. It has become increasingly more conscious of the overall outcome of its vote than before. It does not reward ambivalence too well. See the mandates since 2012. Save Maharashtra, India has given a clear and, at times, thumping majority to a face it wants as the outcome of its vote. In the process, it may end up voting contrary to its natural proclivities. That, however, is hardly a concern. Many wonder why Bihar voted for Lalu in such heavy numbers. The answer is simple â it voted with the overall outcome in mind. Even if it meant voting RJD, the mandate was out and out for Nitish. Even Congress won a stellar 20+ seats. The Australian Cricket Team which, since 1999, has won all World Cups but one that India won, has one differentiating factor â it has made winning a habit. Not because the habit is naturally formed when it wins so often, but because it walks on the field with the confidence of a winner. There is extensive preparation and perseverance. Despite Steve Waughâs overpowering presence in the team, a Ricky Ponting would put himself with confidence as a force to reckon with such that he became an inevitable choice for captain which he followed with 2 successive World Cups for his country. While Ricky Ponting was at his peak, a Michael Clarke would make his presence felt in no uncertain terms. Not only existing players, Australiaâs biggest strength has been the par excellent quality of its bench players even if they never got a chance to play in big tournaments! Indeed, Australia slumped for a while after several legends exited at once. But look at how it bounced back in the 2015 World Cup and you realise what meat the winners are made of. Neither Waugh nor Ponting nor Clarke played mindless games to influence the Administration to cut other emerging players (and those who could ruthlessly replace them) to size. It is laissez-faire at its natural form. BJP has won handsomely in 2014. It has, thereafter, won several states equally convincingly. Even where it is not in power, it has sizeable mandate of people. It needs to make winning a habit. It cannot be like the Indian cricket team (I am a lifelong fan) which forgets its winning ways. How? Some suggestions: â In States or local governments it doesnât have power but a sizeable presence in representative bodies, BJP should actively encourage representatives to be shadow ministers/representatives on a full-time basis. There will be cutthroat competition and the inevitable mudslinging. What then? Well, Modi is the biggest inspiration. He faced it all. Yet, his perseverance is remarkable. He faced the worst brickbats with the confidence of a winner. When the state/local bodies go for elections, shadow representatives will have dossiers to expose the ruling party on misgovernance and misrule. Shah and Modi should encourage this more than anyone else. As recent trends show, elections in New India have significantly changed. Absence of local face(s) or last minute paratrooping does not seem to be working anymore. In UP elections, people are bound to ask âif not Akhilesh, who?â. Same in Bengal. BJP must have an entrenched system which rewards the persevering and the meritorious. The reason why, despite these setbacks, Modi enjoys tremendous popularity as PM and is the choice for Centre by far is that there is no credible political opposition to Modi. Congress is busy obstructing the Parliament or being utterly juvenile with its jibes. BJP must not go down that path. â Even if BJP does not encourage such a system or takes time to do so, local leaders must put themselves out there with perseverance, dedication and the confidence of a winner in such a manner that the BJP is compelled to consider them. Despite oblique remarks by the BJP central unit that Modi was in a hurry to be PM, Modi did exactly that. They must build a base and show overwhelming evidence of merit and popularity. â There may well be a fear that if one face is selected, there may be internal resentment. So be it. Surely, many in the BJP would have resented Modiâs rise. But the power of Modiâs appeal within the party itself was so much that the party would have lost some of its own cadre had Modi not been projected as the partyâs face. The results are there for all to see. The tendency to create âcampsâ may be there initially, but disappears once they see that the face so chosen is a highly popular choice. Look at Modi governmentâs top 4-5 ministers who have happily reconciled to Modiâs unsurpassable popularity. â Indeed, a win may not happen every time. Many a times, several unforeseen factors may swing election results. What matters though is that, with an atmosphere of encouraging and nurturing local talent, BJP would have at least fought like a winner. For most of the 90s and early 2000s, even if Australia lost, it didnât resemble a loser. To give voters a seriously credible choice even if one ultimately loses is far more respectable to the voters of that region than be ambivalent with your regional representation and (lazily) rely on your most popular leader all the time. In Modi and Shah, the party has much more to take from them than their personal popularity alone at the time of every election. What the party needs is the emergence of more Modis and Shahs and less of Modi and Shah (in the polls). |