In the book, Why We’re Polarized, Vox’s Ezra Klein quotes Princeton political scientist Markus Prior on the nature of political coverage transforming over the years. According to him, the critical factor is not access to political information, but interest in the said political information. Prior says, “The digital revolution offered access to unimaginably vast vistas of information, but, just as important, it offered access to unimaginably more choice. And that explosion of choice widened that interested/ uninterested divide. Greater choices let the devotees learn more, and the uninterested know less.” This is one of the reasons Republicans and Democrats live in “nearly inverse news media environments”.
Since the current-day media presents us with a dichotomous picture, issues of electoral importance lose their balance on the scale. This interest in political information has given a choice to the voter to strengthen a narrative that he/she thinks is relevant. Digital penetration has skyrocketed in the last five years. Smartphones and cheap data have summoned democracy at their fingertips. This perception, amplified by the media, sometimes transforms into a concrete political agenda that parties rally on, like in the case of the “India Against Corruption” movement.
Charting new territory
Matters such as national security have made a foray, electorally, for the first time. Other primetime debates of the past in the likes of corruption, unemployment, and inflation have found their abode in the distant pavilion. An outward look at issues such as national security is in continuation with the narrative the BJP was building for the voters in 2014. If the 2014 campaign ran on the plank of development, 2019 was about a projection that said that the development could come only if there’s a certain sense of security. It seems logically linear to bring these issues up.
But like never before, national security has started negating electoral prospects for a party or a candidate, if the voters choose to act upon it. A certain degree of novelty exists in this discourse of laying importance on regional geopolitics. A lot of the criticism for the government came majorly from internal issues, and this effectively deflected them all. The Opposition remained divided. There was no single platform/issue on which the previous elections were held. The Opposition was not equipped with a response when these outward-looking issues spiralled during the election campaign. From a slightly more dynamic perspective, issues of national security are a relatively strong point for the BJP during the polls. Campaigning on national security was not just a useful talking point, but also a “masterstroke”.
In more ways than one, national security became a major electoral issue in the 2019 elections. Historically, it has been different. In 1965, immediately a year after the passing away of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, India waged war against Pakistan and secured a decisive victory. Despite these two significant factors coming into play, the Congress’ vote and seat share reduced, though they managed to form the government. In 1999, soon after the Kargil war with Pakistan, Atal Bihari Vajpayee won the general elections but couldn’t sustain it till the next Lok Sabha polls in 2004. After 26/11, one of the biggest attacks by a terror outfit on Indian soil, the UPA managed to bounce back in 2009. Before the previous general elections, there was a section of political pundits and election observers who said that issues of national security might not necessarily be taken seriously by all the voters. Without further ado, they were proven wrong. While unemployment, farmer distress, and jobs were the main concern for many, the Balakot airstrikes seemed to turn the fortunes for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Zero-sum game
The political spectrum in India has been chasmic, to say the least in recent years. The political differences are not layered anymore, unfortunately. These binaries have ensured that the political debates on any subject remain black and white. Centralising the blame on the Prime Minister for all matters, big and small, has earned the Opposition a reputation of being “compulsive contrarians” (as Arun Jaitley used to call them). The BJP may not have offered anything new on the platter, but the recent developments most certainly come with political baggage of the past for the Opposition.
For instance, a little more than a decade ago, Nepal faced a triangular power contest. India was responsible for brokering a deal between the rebel Maoists and the political parties. As soon as the Maoists dropped arms and decided to contest elections, they were voted to power in less than three years. The then PM Pushpa Kamala Prachanda visited India, created a buzz in South Block, hugged Dr Manmohan Singh, attended a special lunch hosted by Sharad Yadav and even spoke at business chamber meetings. Since then, there has been no looking back for the comrades in Nepal. This has put India on a very sticky wicket since then. Professing about what changes need to be made to Nepal’s policy seems packed with chicanery at this juncture, after everything that’s happened.
The memory-span of voters may be short-lived, but the Opposition needs to exercise precaution while flagging any criticism on matters of national security. Matters of national security and integration are a special, restricted plane of debate. It is not wrong to raise the right questions, but the approach has to be careful since these issues are subject to heavy public scrutiny. Stand by the government in times of crisis. Show some statesmanship. Offer better alternatives in terms of policies and leadership. Just being critical will not paint an image of offering a credible alternative to the BJP. National interests must be kept in mind, regardless of who is in power and who isn’t.
