Why Delhi Elections are Significant for Future Polls

The Assembly elections in Delhi have assembled together two polar opposites in Indian politics today. On one end is the social democratic vision of AAP which is banking on welfare and on the other end is the BJP’s majoritarian mobilisation based on religious polarisation. This contest will decide which direction Indian democracy will head in. However, the electorate and citizenry do not see this process in terms of a binary between welfare and majoritarianism. Not seeing a conflict between their social visions, they instead pitch for “Upar Modi, Neechey Kejriwal”, or for BJP government in general elections and AAP in the Delhi Assembly.

Public morality is at variance with ideologies. Incumbent Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal has signalled that his ideology is “work” and the pragmatic delivery of services. The BJP has pushed for a majoritarian ideology based on national security and public order. The citizenry seems to value both, but reserves the right to choose what works in Assembly elections as against general elections. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is important, trusted and credible, but he is not the only factor—as his party wants him to be—in deciding whom voters elect in the Assembly polls. Kejriwal is credited with social welfare schemes, but he may not be credible enough when it comes to national affairs. In general elections, as of now, Modi seems to be the only factor that matters. In other words, despite losing most Assembly elections, the BJP and Modi continue to enjoy popularity.

Public morality is fractured, diabolical and flexible. It can move seamlessly between lofty idealism and rugged pragmatism; or between shared ethos and empowerment and blind faith and submission; and it can shift from compassion to violence. Therefore, in these Assembly elections in Delhi, Shaheen Bagh matters to a majority of Hindus, but it may not be an immediate priority when weighed against their everyday concerns. It is significant to note that the citizenry, going by the surveys, have opted for AAP but have not rejected BJP.

If representative democracy, the first-past-the-post system and federalism allows voters to move without a hitch between local and national issues, more importantly, it allows them to shift seamlessly between two alternative, even polar opposite, social visions. Therefore, if the citizenry to consent to violence in one context, that does not mean they cannot be compassionate in another cause. If they assert their dignity in one context it does not mean they are unwilling to lay faith in someone in another context.

The Delhi election is a close contest because both AAP and BJP understood the possible contours. While Kejriwal attempted to appropriate the Hindu identity and distanced himself from Shaheen Bagh, the BJP tried to assert development while campaigning on the notion of an impending crisis. In short, the BJP managed to create a crisis that does not exist. Do the voters understand this? Yes and no: they see through the BJP’s foul play, but they also see it as a necessary retributive measure to reign in unruly behaviour and check the assertion of the religious minorities. So, they agree with the BJP, without necessarily believing in what it is doing.

It is very difficult to predict if such a public morality can be captured with precision. A normative vision and morality are mediated by symbols which can be manipulated through the media and the flow of information. But more than misinformation, the flexibility of public morality makes it fungible; open to different kinds of articulations. It is possible to capture the general context, that an electorate feels empowered by the right to vote, but people are also aware that in their everyday existence they are vulnerable. This kind of dystopian empowerment exaggerates the flexibility of the moral world-view. In it, the voter exercises a social power that is otherwise missing by making their normative choices unpredictable.

Moral fungibility is a way to resist the class power of the state. Their social vulnerability does not allow them to operate through fixed ideologies, categories and a moral world-view. If compassion can give them a sense of fulfilment, being retributive might also be cultivated for survival. They can shift from being spiritual to indifferent, depending on what is at stake.

BJP’s campaign and the brazen falsity of information it provides, the deliberate creation of a crisis and its hyper-masculine and violent rhetoric is an appeal to this flexibility in moral world-view. The exaggerated over-the-top rhetoric attempts to create hysteria in order to momentarily arrest the flexibility and freeze it. The RSS-BJP understand that this is possible, but they also know that it can escape those confines if some other symbolism is offered that can be more appealing.

The BJP, therefore, banks on last-minute campaigning, creating massive propaganda and tries to present something that can stick—for the moment. The Modi-Shah duo believe that they have understood the nitty-gritty of how public morality works. In it, psychological and emotional gratification matter as much as material benefits. One cannot, however, completely displace the other, which is where the BJP’s campaign in Delhi becomes susceptible to overkill.

Modi-Shah, following the digitalisation of campaigns and electoral politics, have converted the process into a digital game where you openly manufacture strategies. This confidence comes from their self-belief that they can trump everything else with the kind of narrative they generate. This narrative rides on their appeal, which is based on the relatively universal reach of the symbolism of religion, nation and nationalism and leadership. The citizenry willingly partakes of this game of virtual conflicts and rhetoric. If nothing else, it is entertainment at someone else’s cost.

Modi and Shah are creating a dystopia of cynicism where the citizenry becomes part of the game rather than mere players or viewers. The invitation to respond to slogans of “goli maaro” makes the game feel real. It is aided by the long run of cynicism due to failed welfarism and weak commitment to redistributive efforts.

AAP has created a more palpable reality where scepticism has given way to a possibility of moving beyond minimalist imaginations of a ‘good life’. Even this ‘good life’, as of now, is unreal for a majority of Indians. Therefore, it becomes part of the same game wherein they see reality in order to cope with immense everyday hardships. The result of the Delhi election will be significant as they will reveal whether the citizenry is willing to put their trust in a better life beyond digital images and empty narratives. For these reasons, this verdict will carry significant signposts for future elections.

The author is an associate professor at the Centre for Political Studies, JNU. The views are personal.