Elections Expected in Three States and One Union Territory

Newsreel Asia Insight #322
September 30, 2024

As legislative elections approach in the states of Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand and the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, it’s that time of year when contesting political parties will put their best foot forward in an attempt to co-opt us into their political battles. We may be tempted to think we have stakes in these conflicts, but in reality, our true interests might not be at the core of these struggles.

Understanding the methods and messages that parties and politicians use to communicate with us can make it easier to see through their attempts.

Parties often communicate with us – through media – in a way that transforms everyday news into a high-stakes drama, portraying each issue as a battle between “good” and “evil,” rather than focusing on what matters to us as citizens who need and deserve good governance. This is done to draw us into narratives that create a showdown between the Right and the Left, framing it as our personal battle.

Imagine a local community meeting where the agenda is to discuss road maintenance. Instead of focusing on practical solutions for roads, one group begins to portray a community within the locality as a threat. As a result, the discussion shifts away from road improvement to fears about the “other” community.

This is how some parties transform an election, which should be about making a political choice, into a moral duty to “protect” the nation or the state, deeply engaging us as if we were defending our own homes. They don’t simply position themselves as a governance option; they frame their campaign as a defense of national or local culture and values against perceived threats.

The media often gravitates towards conflict because it captures our attention – humans are wired for stories, and conflict is one of the most compelling elements of storytelling. Of course, news outlets do not exactly do storytelling in the traditional sense, but each news report or analysis they publish contributes to an ongoing narrative that unfolds in the minds of viewers in bits and parts. As this story progresses, we, the audience, become unwittingly involved and obsessed, piecing together the narrative with each new development.

This is why news channels transform political debates into a spectacle, amplifying everything to make it seem more significant and urgent. Such coverage, which is sadly all too common, frames politics as a battle between the Left and the Right—a battle in which we mistakenly believe our own interests are directly involved. As a result, the focus shifts away from critical issues like who should make decisions about roads, schools, hospitals and the economy.

It's not surprising, therefore, that elections often feel more like a political battle being waged in the corridors of power rather than a serious decision about who should govern. After all, some parties campaign on emotional and identity-based issues rather than on their record or their plans for governance – which distracts us from asking hard questions about whether our lives have actually gotten better or worse under a particular government.

As voters and citizens, it’s crucial for us to peel back the layers of the narratives presented to us and ask ourselves some important questions. Are we being drawn into conflicts that aren’t really ours? Is there an attempt to distract us from the real issues? Are we voting based on fear and identity, or are we making decisions based on a clear assessment of which leaders and parties have truly acted in our best interests?

It's not that we shouldn’t care about or believe in an ideology; ideologies are important because they shape the decisions a party makes. However, the government we choose should prioritize good governance, irrespective of the ideological basis of its policies, as long as they adhere to the law and constitutional values. What shouldn’t be acceptable is overlooking misgovernance because of ideological alignment. Our primary interest as citizens lies in effective governance; the fight for ideological alignment should come afterward.