Students of Political Science who are usually branded as “pessimists” will definitely agree with me if I say that politics exists because here the people always disagree. But, before jumping to conclusion that politics is all about disagreement, let me make it clear that politics also makes two strangers bed-partners. Hence, conflict and its resolution are the guiding principles of any political activity.
In the recent Students’ Union Election, I got a chance to observe how people are befooled by the leaders through electrifying slogans and false promises. In the beginning, I like many others, fell prey to political apathy and decided to remain at arm’s length from the election but the element of political pessimism which is present in the DNA of every Political Science student finally pushed or compelled me to open my tight lips. It is rightly said that “you may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you.”
This time, the Union election was of course very unique and more political in nature because various political developments (Institutional and psychological level) took place. Here, elections are usually contested on the basis of regional lobbies Any leader having a strong base from any regional lobby is sure to win the elections. Lobbyism is very deeply rooted in the minds of AMU students, maybe because it is considered as the only tool of mobilising students. But, contrary to the previous election, some leaders have made personal appeals to the voters and hence have boosted the phenomenal of “spatial leadership”. However, it does not mean that lobbyism has been totally uprooted. Besides this the trend of black and grey propaganda against some leaders was also visible, but it seems very strange to me that destructive criticism against some leaders proved to be counter-productive. Some leaders were branded as ‘communists’ as it is the easiest way of maligning anyone in the campus. But, I am quite sure that those who earned a master’s degree in this activity do not even know the ‘c’ of Communism. When negative campaigning was at the peak, majority of the voters, in a display of political maturity, expressed their apathy against false propaganda and protested against it by casting votes in favour of the artificially tainted candidate.
Another sign of political maturity was the strong vow taken by students to cast their votes not in favour of those candidates who during campaigning showed their non-seriousness. Moreover, some candidates have focussed mainly on presentational factors such as personal appearance, hairstyles, dressing sense and so on. Sometimes these become more important in determining the political mandate.
One of the drastic changes was the fragmentation of each regional lobby into at least two fragments. For some, it is a positive sign. Yes, of course, it is .But looking deep into it, I think, in previous elections one lobby remained completely focused on one candidate and if that candidate lost the election it was perceived as a loss of the entire lobby. But now each lobby put its force behind one candidate or the other. So winning or losing of any candidate ultimately proved beneficial to one lobby or the other. In a technical sense, the elections remained a zero-sum game for any lobby now.
I observed that some candidates were “politically honest” and this time, the victory kissed the feet of only those candidates who mastered not in politics but in “politricks”.
In short, it all reminds me the theory of Statecraft of Machiavelli. I wonder that how some people could be in born Machiavellian. Any sensible person cannot turn deaf ears to the new stimulus and responses. Anyone who keeps his eyes protectively dim to these new developments really deserve the title of “idiot”, which was used for the politically insensitive people in Ancient Greece.
In the recent Students’ Union Election, I got a chance to observe how people are befooled by the leaders through electrifying slogans and false promises. In the beginning, I like many others, fell prey to political apathy and decided to remain at arm’s length from the election but the element of political pessimism which is present in the DNA of every Political Science student finally pushed or compelled me to open my tight lips. It is rightly said that “you may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you.”
This time, the Union election was of course very unique and more political in nature because various political developments (Institutional and psychological level) took place. Here, elections are usually contested on the basis of regional lobbies Any leader having a strong base from any regional lobby is sure to win the elections. Lobbyism is very deeply rooted in the minds of AMU students, maybe because it is considered as the only tool of mobilising students. But, contrary to the previous election, some leaders have made personal appeals to the voters and hence have boosted the phenomenal of “spatial leadership”. However, it does not mean that lobbyism has been totally uprooted. Besides this the trend of black and grey propaganda against some leaders was also visible, but it seems very strange to me that destructive criticism against some leaders proved to be counter-productive. Some leaders were branded as ‘communists’ as it is the easiest way of maligning anyone in the campus. But, I am quite sure that those who earned a master’s degree in this activity do not even know the ‘c’ of Communism. When negative campaigning was at the peak, majority of the voters, in a display of political maturity, expressed their apathy against false propaganda and protested against it by casting votes in favour of the artificially tainted candidate.
Another sign of political maturity was the strong vow taken by students to cast their votes not in favour of those candidates who during campaigning showed their non-seriousness. Moreover, some candidates have focussed mainly on presentational factors such as personal appearance, hairstyles, dressing sense and so on. Sometimes these become more important in determining the political mandate.
One of the drastic changes was the fragmentation of each regional lobby into at least two fragments. For some, it is a positive sign. Yes, of course, it is .But looking deep into it, I think, in previous elections one lobby remained completely focused on one candidate and if that candidate lost the election it was perceived as a loss of the entire lobby. But now each lobby put its force behind one candidate or the other. So winning or losing of any candidate ultimately proved beneficial to one lobby or the other. In a technical sense, the elections remained a zero-sum game for any lobby now.
I observed that some candidates were “politically honest” and this time, the victory kissed the feet of only those candidates who mastered not in politics but in “politricks”.
In short, it all reminds me the theory of Statecraft of Machiavelli. I wonder that how some people could be in born Machiavellian. Any sensible person cannot turn deaf ears to the new stimulus and responses. Anyone who keeps his eyes protectively dim to these new developments really deserve the title of “idiot”, which was used for the politically insensitive people in Ancient Greece.
- Imran Ahmad Kichloo, M.A. Political Science
No comments:
Post a Comment