Each of the two alliances, one seeking to continue running the Maharashtra government, and another wanting to oust it, claimed they would form the government after the vote count of the Maharashtra Assembly on Saturday (November 23). They cannot be expected to throw in the towel before the vote count. Ask anyone else the response would be vague or unconvincing.
Never before has Maharashtra seen such a complex election since its formation. One or two issues were on the forefront and the politics was never as broken as it is today. Ideology has been, if it has at all, on the back burner, and money has flown like water. The Rs 700 Cr seized during the poll is twice the BJP’s budget for the 2004 Assembly elections.
Milind Deora, a Rajya Sabha MP and a candidate for the Assembly against the Thackeray scion, Aditya had a piece of advice for TV anchors. The TV, he said, “with due respect” was “speculating the outcome to death” and he intended not to watch the TV except when the actual count started. You see, election shows fetch news TV revenues.
The whole thing is now enveloped in unpredictability, even the contests. Who knew that a sub-regional party, BVA’s candidate Suresh Padvi of Palghar would quit the party and support his BJP opponent? Who knew that Sushil Kumar Shinde, ex-chief minister, and daughter, Congress MP Praneeti Shinde would cast their vote early, and ask followers to support an Independent for a Solapur seat?
The Churchillian quote, “a riddle wrapped in an enigma” comes to mind and surprisingly some exit polls did come out with outcomes which broadly, a poll of polls or averages indicate the likelihood of the Mahayuti returning to power. It could well be true but unconvincing because this part of psephology has failed us in the past.
There is yet another reason why only the count put out by the Election Commission of India should be taken into consideration, that being post-facto, and not any guesstimates. The reason for it is the complexity of the ingredients that went into the making of this election where the richest constituency voted the least and the poorest voted the most.
One, this was an election where the electorate was asked to confirm which of the rival factions was the real party or express their affiliation to their leaders – Sharad and Ajit Pawars, or Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde. It is not their business to comply because other issues matter – inflation, government welfare support, and employment, for instance.
Voting for any one of them and ignoring another while the elections ought to be a judgment on governance and promises is not a wise thing to do so in a democracy. As it is, about 100 political families are seeking their confirmation by the voters, ideology be damned. Only after that would these other considerations about the parties would surface.
The presence of about 100 families on various party tickets or as Independents has nothing to do with governance, good or bad, but a play for local dominance in the constituencies, one side seeking to perpetuate it and another striving to snatch it. It, however, forms a brick-and-mortar of a power structure to be built post-elections.
I could be accused of cynicism by saying that almost each and every candidate, on behalf of a party, an alliance, or an Independent has the idea of offering governance but only to acquire the ability to acquire pelf and dispense patronage. Accessibility of the politician to “get work done” – a well in the village, an admission, a land revenue issue – is all most voters seek.
Good governance is the last thing in their minds too, especially after Hindutva is a dominant feature, overriding much else. The other factor is that they know that once the MLAs are sworn in, they will be in the game of getting things for themselves. Their expectations are modest because politics and the governance system are broken beyond repair. The promises and the manifestos are for show, not substance. Voters are convinced they are part of democracy sans accountability.
Of course, the Opposition had its counteroffer to the electorate about better schemes for the people’s well-being. Would a woman who gets a dole of Rs 1500 a month already go with the same government, which would enhance it to Rs 2,100 per month, or another, which has promised Rs 3000?
Two, would the legitimate head of the rival faction override issues of backbreaking inflation and agricultural distress due to a sharp drop in prices for produce? It could be argued that the leaders of the groupings would bring certain experience and competence to the governance table.
Three subsumed into these issues of loyalties and governance is the question of reservations for Marathas, either within the broad quotas for Other Backward Classes or outside of it. This could again be seen as only an anti-BJP, especially the anti-Devendra Fadnavis factor, but which of these strands have been captured by the exit pollsters?
Just don’t lose your sleep. This is how it is in India, worsening each election time.
| 
