From Desperation to Diversion?
BJP’s Election Tactics Show Disregard for Our Dignity, Intelligence and Agency
Newsreel Asia Insight #219
May 12, 2024
In the ongoing election, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has escalated its use of anti-Muslim rhetoric, allegedly violating the Election Commission of India’s Model Code of Conduct, especially after the initial phase on April 19. This tactic aims to shift voters’ focus from the government’s performance to their religious identities when casting their ballots. Clearly, the BJP recognises that securing a victory is challenging. However, this tactic not only evidently undermines democracy but also reflects these politicians’ profound disregard for our dignity, intelligence and agency.
The BJP’s apparent desperation is leading its candidates to resort to manipulation and misinformation as a last-ditch effort, coinciding with three significant new developments.
Firstly, the opposition INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance) coalition is exhibiting strong confidence in the likely defeat of the BJP. Secondly, there seems to be an emerging rift between the BJP and major businesses like those owned by Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani—businesses previously accused of receiving protection from the BJP-led administration. Thirdly, three prominent media houses—Zee, Aaj Tak, and NDTV—are shifting away from their usual pro-BJP stance.
In the last national election in 2019, the BJP secured 37% of the votes, with 63% of the electorate not supporting the party. The emergence of the INDIA alliance, representing a formidable coalition, poses a significant challenge to the BJP’s chances of securing a third consecutive term. Factors such as anti-incumbency sentiments, intensified by existing economic challenges, allegations of misusing regulatory bodies like the Enforcement Directorate, and the contentious issue of electoral bonds, are likely to sway “floating” or undecided voters away from the party.
While the BJP’s nervousness is understandable, the use of divisive, diversionary tactics to manipulate voters’ decisions is not.
Here’s an analogy to explain what politicians do to us. Imagine a scenario where a company is conducting interviews for a new manager. The panel consists of senior executives who are evaluating three candidates based on their skills, experience and leadership potential. Each candidate has a unique background and set of qualifications that they bring to the table.
During the interview process, one of the candidates, who lacks confidence in his own managerial skills, begins to subtly draw attention to the religious or cultural identities of the other two candidates. He makes comments suggesting that the company needs a manager who “truly understands the traditional values of the company” or hints that having a manager from a certain cultural background could lead to changes that might not align with the company’s longstanding practices.
This candidate’s tactics are aimed at swaying the interview panel's opinions by highlighting divisive factors unrelated to job performance. Instead of focusing on actual managerial capabilities, his remarks steer the discussion towards the personal backgrounds of the candidates, which are irrelevant to their potential effectiveness as managers.
By focusing on the religious or cultural backgrounds of the other candidates, the problematic candidate undermines the inherent worth and professional integrity of both his competitors and the panel members. This tactic implies that the decision should be influenced by personal biases rather than merit, thereby disrespecting the dignified, fair, and unbiased approach that is expected in a professional setting.
The executives on the panel are seasoned professionals capable of making informed decisions based on relevant criteria such as skills, experience, and leadership qualities. By shifting the focus to irrelevant personal attributes, the candidate underestimates the panel’s intelligence and their ability to evaluate candidates based on pertinent, professional factors. This tactic suggests that the panel might be swayed by emotional or prejudicial appeals rather than rational decision-making, which can be seen as an insult to their professional judgement and intellectual capabilities.
Agency in this context refers to the panel’s capacity and authority to make independent decisions based on their professional judgement and the company's needs. By attempting to manipulate the focus of the interview, the candidate infringes upon the panel's agency. He tries to control and redirect the decision-making process, thereby limiting their freedom to choose the best candidate objectively. This not only hampers their ability to act autonomously but also attempts to diminish their role to that of mere respondents to manipulated agendas rather than active, discerning evaluators.
This situation mirrors political diversionary tactics used during elections. As a result, the delivery of essential services by governments remains disconnected from electoral outcomes, and we never receive the quality of governance we deserve.
