There could be two major reasons for the politicians to fear people. Both are related to elections. It is on the assumption that people do not make the right choice. The second reason is that people make the right choice. In either case, several politicians are there to lose power. It is those who are in power who fear the worst.
A good number of politicians who are involved in electoral politics, either as part of a political party or as an independent, engage in small and large electoral fraud. Some do not want the election to be held at all. They cling to power by pretending to be doing good for the people. Politicians who are members of the political organisations use the organisational support and force to dictate terms. They bully, intimidate, harass, browbeat, etc., members of the smaller organisations and independents. They even use amygdala hijacking on some people. In some cases, they narrate the advantages of unity in the absence of elections and the consequences of division among the people if an election takes place.
We have faced some extreme electoral fraud in recent years and, of late, in the college union elections.
Some of them are the following.
Illegal interference with the process of an election
Persuading the possible opponents to withdraw from contesting elections
Libel
Ad hominem attack
Finding accomplices
Working on the letter of the law rather than on the spirit of the law
Influencing the electoral officers for unfair actions
The situation is not different in educational institutions. For long, in the college/university union elections, students have also used almost every possible manipulation/fraud. Students fear other students. They fear fair elections and use unfair means to hijack elections. We need to train our students to come out of this. We need to help the students understand the real meaning of democracy.
In football/soccer, the term 'parking the bus' is used when teams operate with a lot of players behind the ball when out of possession. That is, they spend most of the time on their own posts rather than engaging in scoring. This is done when the particular team is leading. In elections, a similar thing is done by not letting others contest or campaign or both. People use several simple technical/clerical issues to disqualify the opponents. People also exhibit many unsportsmanlike actions to let opponents quit contesting.
It is difficult for a loser to accept the verdict of the election. If the loser does not consent to the defeat, the entire democratic process is jeopardised. Loser’s consent is generally obtained if the loser is given the opportunity to be heard on the doubts of the transparency and fairness of the election. Loser’s consent is doubtful if the losing margin is very thin. Recently, Mr. Rahul Gandhi claimed that 1,00,250 “fake votes” were created in one of the constituencies in India in favour of the ruling party. This count was on the basis of a manual search of the voter's list. However, nobody can prove that these fake voters voted in favour of the ruling party. Being a serious allegation, it is not difficult for the Election Commission to provide the digital voter's list, the hour-wise voting frequency in each of the polling booths, the voting machine data of the record of votes polled, CCTV records, etc. to come out clean. Even if, under the current laws, it is not a requirement, for a transparent system and to uphold the noble values of democracy, our rulers must follow in the footsteps of a noble king who abandoned his wife, who was under the captivity of another king. Our rulers have to prioritise the welfare of our country and should uphold dharma (righteousness) over their personal feelings. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.
In democratic systems, if the elected representatives, irrespective of being the office bearers or not, can be given more financial and administrative decision-making power, then losers’ consent is not very difficult. In India, the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) and the Member of Legislative Assembly Local Area Development Scheme (MLALADS) are very good examples of such procedures. However, financial allocation to these schemes has to be increased substantially.
Angry losers are a real threat to democracy. Rather than going ahead with the constitutional methods to challenge the elections, weaponising the anger and using the anger rhetoric have to be severely punished. As against the loser’s consent, the winner’s restraint is also an important factor establishing faith in the electoral process and thus in democracy.
For a democracy to be successful, rationality, respect, and restraint are very important.
