Democracy basically means there will be elections periodically and people will speak their mind. It is democracy if those who lose play the role of opposition to those who won. It is democracy if those who won implement what they promised. It is not democracy if those who lose don’t call the election itself to be a fraud. It is definitely not democracy if those who lost the elections think that democracy is not and should not be about elections in the first place! These weird arguments are not being made by some random people. These arguments are being made by prominent media personnel, prominent political leaders and today India’s former National Security Advisor, Mr. M.K.Narayanan.

It was very sad to read this article today in The Hindu where he says that “elections could well degenerate into a ritualistic exercise, without truly reflecting the democratic will of the people.” Maybe I am not intelligent enough to understand this mesmerizing logic, so it would really help if someone can simplify this for laymen like me! How are elections not a true reflection of democracy? How?

He doesn’t stop there. “Of serious concern is that elections could hereafter become an instrument to traduce democracy.” The word traduce means the following – “speak badly of or tell lies about (someone) so as to damage their reputation” So India’s former National Security Advisor thinks that elections actually damage the reputation of democracy. Shouldn’t it bother us to the core that such a man was once responsible for India’s security apparatus? Or is this a mere reflection of the attitude of the government he had served under? Because we clearly know Rahul Gandhi’s party doesn’t care about elections in the first place.

After telling us that elections are not democracy, he goes on to analyse how the upcoming elections in states where BJP is not strong are going to be much better than in those where the BJP is strong. Here is how he begins the analysis on how BJP will try to achieve through “proxy means” – “In the southern States that will be going to the elections, there could be one significant variant, viz. , the objective of achieving power would be through proxy means.” BJP is in alliance with AIADMK. Obviously AIADMK is the larger party in the alliance in Tamil Nadu. Would the former NSA now call every minority partner in alliances as those who will “achieve power through proxy means”? Is our former NSA really that clueless on electoral alliances and the math behind them? What exactly is wrong if the people of TN end up voting for the AIADMK alliance? Oh wait, I know the answer to that question – the people are themselves wrong if they choose the BJP!

Their favorite Kerala can do nothing wrong. This is evident when he starts that analysis with “The election scene in Kerala is markedly different.” Why? Because apparently “Kerala has, however, not seen any communal violence as elections approach,”. This is staggering analysis really! Did Tamil Nadu see any communal violence? Did Puducherry see any communal violence? Did Bihar see any communal violence? West Bengal is seeing the worst political violence witnessed in recent times but let’s celebrate that Kerala did not see communal violence!

Assam also is going to elections, so what does our former National Security Advisor have to say about that? “In the Northeast, Assam is already a BJP bailiwick, and the attempt here would be to strengthen Central authority in contrast to regional autonomy.” The meaning of the word “bailiwick” is “one's sphere of operations or area of interest.” I don’t get the choice of these words because by this logic, the entire North East is BJP “bailiwick”! What “regional autonomy” gets disturbed if BJP wins to power has been explained by the former NSA. It is left to us to figure out what he meant by that comment.

The former NSA is also the former governor of West Bengal. So naturally he spares significant space for analyzing West Bengal. We are enlightened that “rallying slogans ‘Vande Mataram and Jai Sri Ram’ by rival groups are being projected as the battle cry of the Forward versus the Subaltern classes.”. Did you ever imagine that a former NSA would see Vande Mataram as a slogan that divides the people of our country? Should we be worried that such people were once holding very powerful positions in the government of India?

But what about the violence that’s going on in the state? He has an answer for that – “The BJP and the TMC are equally to be blamed for the aggravated communal violence, but the real ‘fall-guy’ has been democracy.” Whatever happens anywhere, the BJP must be at fault! This is a state ruled by the TMC. The killings happening in the state are of BJP workers, but yeah sure the BJP is equally at fault as the TMC is!

The former NSA ends his article with the most predictable byline ever – “The danger to democracy”! There is a lot of verbose that predicts violent uprisings in the country. Does it behoove the former NSA to go about creating imaginary fears like this? Does it behoove the former NSA of the country to actually the question the electoral democracy? What other form can a democracy take if not the electoral one? It’s ok to be biased towards the political party that has given you exalted positions in the power structure. But is it ok to convert your hatred of a political party to undermining the very process of elections in India? Apparently, it is!

Image Credit: The Hindu