Garga Chatterjee
An authoritarian two party system and a pluralist multi-party system play out this season
It is the season of a series of crucial assembly elections in the Indian Union whose consequences will be far-reaching. Simultaneously, the USA political drama is unfolding in the form of presidential candidate nomination contests of the 2 major parties. And a certain layer of brown people of the subcontinent are watching that eagerly, watching their English diction and debate flamboyance eagerly and then looking at some of their own politicians and sighing. They are also attracted by the discreet charm of an authoritarian state – ruthless and decisive. A pluralist, multi-party democracy is deemed to be inefficient by them. This is said keeping the USA in mind, the pre-eminent poster child of a two-party system. A two party system isn’t one which limits participation to two political poles. Rather, it’s a system that’s designed to keep dissenting voices out, or co-opt them. The fact that USA with 300 million has 2 parties to represent nearly 95% shows a serious representation crisis. This non-representation project is ably served by systemic forces including big corporates and mainstream media, who take it upon themselves to herd popular opinion along narrow pre-designed bipartisan lines. Such models are increasingly popular in the Delhi's media, academia and think-tanks and they are peddling it to the peoples of the Indian Union.
The outcome of US presidential elections has its ripple effects globally. USA is a powerhouse in many respects – economic, military and ideological. A slight twitch in the behemoth causes ruckus in other parts of the globe. When a US presidential candidate manages a turnout of 30000 at a rally, its considered outstanding, a groundswell of support and what not. In the subcontinent, similar turnout at a centrally located rally of a senior politician would be considered a failure. Few politicians would dare to even call a central rally if they think that the turnout would be around that figure. People's political participation in brown lands make US politics look like a niche opera performance, something Bernie Sanders has been able to breach somewhat of late. In USA, the political focus is often on trivial aspects of a politician like diction, voice, posture – the sad effect of near-total television media control of political narrative. Only a certain kind of grooming makes the cut, irrespective of political inclinations.
Subcontitental politics, due to its robust plural reality, with a million fault-lines, is a different game altogether. Here ‘big tent’ parties have their limits. Politicians of every level have to contend with more parameters than their US counterpart can ever imagine. This kind of politics requires a grade of acumen, understanding of people, posturing and brinksmanship that more homogenuous societies cannot even fathom. If one could hypothetically pit one brown mass politician against a US biggie, in such a contest, Laloo Prasad or Mamata Banerjee or Mayawati would bodyslam Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama every single time. Clintons of the world are simply no match for the mass-political rootedness of subcontinental mass-leaders.
Indian Union suffers from the colonial disease of centralization. Democracy and decentralization means nothing when one can achieve majorities with about 1/3 rd support, as in the Indian Union and then decide most aspects of the peoples of the states. Devolution means asking the powerful to give up power, of power moving from centre to states.
The states in the USA, though more homogenous, have lots of power and autonomy; in the Indian Union, the states are alm-seekers during the day, cash-cows at night. That the brown class that envies US political style also has a disproportionate influence in the Indian Union is most unfortunate.
