The resounding victory of the UPA forces us to ask one simple question does the so-called anti-incumbency factor have any say at all these days?
The resounding victory of the UPA forces us to ask one simple question does the so-called anti-incumbency factor have any say at all these days?
I'm asking this question because this factor is usually applied as a blanket prescription. Ask somebody what will happen in an election and automatically you hear the reply that the party currently in the opposition will come to power. Why? Simple, says the person to whom this question is addressed. The anti-incumbency factor.
|
|
House rules: The anti-incumbency factor is usually expected by most after elections, but will it work if people are satisfied with the government already in power? file pic |
But, you ask, what if people are satisfied with the government already in power? Will it still work?
Applying this logic, one sees why the anti-incumbency factor is bound to rebound. And the UPA with the victory in this election has shown that, if a government performs, then the anti-incumbency factor will not have any impact.
Sheila Dikshit, who has been the CM of Delhi since 1998, is proof positive that anti-incumbency is not to be blindly applied in all cases. Another example of anti-incumbency failing is in the case of Narendra Modi, who has been the CM of Gujarat since 2001. If anti-incumbency is such a huge factor in elections, then how could such people still be in power for such a long time?
The anti-incumbency factor is also mildly disrespectful of the person who is exercising his franchise. It assumes that he will say 'I will vote for the BJP because the Congress is in power' and this assumption on our part as the media and as analysts means that we are of the opinion that the voter will not ask himself 'Ok, so what did the Congress do for me and for my country? Should I vote for them so that they are retained in power?'
Another problem with anti-incumbency is that it is used to hide mistakes. Ask a PM who is not re-elected why he lost and, instead of admitting that he had not served the people as per their expectations, he will tell you that it was the anti-incumbency factor. So simple to have something to blame all your faults on, right?
Of course, Prakash Karat, who has had a disastrous showing of his party at the elections, would love to blame anti-incumbency for his woes, but we all know that the people voted him out because the Left was seen as standing in the way of progress.
Of course, to an extent, anti-incumbency is bound to exist, but it is only going to be one of the factors that contribute to a party's capability to stay in power. Blaming everything on anti-incumbency is a bit like being a silly astrologer, who blames everything on sade-sati without bothering to study the finer nuances of the horoscope.
