One of the question that I have heard on Twitter and elsewhere is regarding the importance of a stable government. It is quite clear that no political party or formation appears to be strong enough pan-India to expect a clear majority. In fact, in the last 30 years, it was only in 1984 on the back of a Congress sympathy wave that any single party had obtained a clear majority (INC: 404). The only other time somebody got close enough was in 1991 (INC: 244), again due to another sympathy wave.
If a party/pre-poll alliance has 200-240 seats, they might hope to stitch together the support of a few other regional parties to get to the 272 majority mark. Any alliance that appears close enough will try and seek to inch closer - the request would be for a majority mandate in the name of stability. For the other groups that are unlikely to form a government by themselves, the strategy would be to gain as many seats as possible to prevent a stable majority government. In this election, as per most opinion polls and general perception, the BJP-led NDA is in the first category; the INC-led UPA, the rag-tag Third Front and the dark horse, AAP are in the latter group.
For me, and most people I know, the debate was earlier simply between the UPA and the NDA. Now, after the Delhi elections, AAP has emerged as an option in several urban constituencies. There are broadly four types of people:
1. Clearly support UPA: Tough for me to articulate why, so let me share what the CEO of a media company has written on his Twitter bio: "A Congress supporter, primarily because of its right-of-center economic beliefs, its secular credentials, and the stature of its senior most leaders".
2. Clearly support NDA: Fond memories of 1999-2004 NDA rule; Enamoured by Modi and his Gujarat story; Economic right-wing/free market liberal; possibly an Internet Hindu / Right-winger
3. Clearly support AAP: Can't stand the INC or the BJP (the old world politics); want to participate in changing the face of Indian politics; economic right-of-center beliefs; anti-corruption
4. Undecided / Search for Perfection: Best described by this tweet: "i like the idea of kejriwal not the person, the idea of modi not the person. dont like the idea of rahul but like the person. now what to do"
(Note: these categories are not necessarily exhaustive nor are these descriptions universal of all such supporters... please feel free to suggest changes.)
In this post, I am not going to discuss the relative pros and cons of each of these formations. But the key question is this... should we seek to vote in a government that will remain stable for the next five years, or not? Irrespective of which party that is.
As I alluded to in my previous post, and described in greater detail earlier, five years can do a lot of good or damage to a country. Just a few years ago, India was the darling of global investors; all of us were taking 8-9% GDP growth rates as given and there was talk of double digit growth. We are now at half those levels. For a poor country like India, rapid growth is the only way to increase per-capita income levels. The question is simple: at a time when global and Indian investors are shying away from the Indian markets, domestic demand (our greatest strength) has slowed and demographics (our other so-called strength) could become a liability, can the country afford 1-3 years more of uncertainty?
One view, held mostly by Type 3 and 4 above, would say, Yes, it doesn't really matter. In the long run, what are a few years more. We cannot let the corruption-tainted UPA come back to power and surely don't want a divisive Modi-led government. I paraphrase the ending of this 2011 Outlook article: Nevertheless, India can survive poor governance for the next few years but what it cannot survive is [insert your cause/concern]. Even if the promise of high (..) growth is accepted at its face value, it is simply not worth risking the [inexperience / corruption / dictatorship / polarization].
The other view would say that it is already too late. Undoing the poor governance of the previous five years will take a few years of decisive action and it will take more than five years to recover lost ground. These views come from people who should know a thing or two about India's economic situation. The Economic Times wrote a few months ago:
"In India, a potential additional source of uncertainty is the coming general election,'' said (Raghuram) Rajan in his foreword to the latest Financial Stability Report. "A stable new government would be positive for the economy."
The same article goes on to say:
In 2014, the only two alliances that are capable of forming a stable national government, have an agenda for the same (whether you agree with it or not) and also the requisite experience are the UPA and the NDA. I would have given the AAP a slight benefit of the doubt if it had shown any aptitude (or intent) to govern Delhi when given the opportunity. Can we afford another Delhi-like experiment for 49 days or 49 weeks? I think not."The negative outlook indicates that we may lower the rating to 'speculative' grade next year if the government that takes office after the general election does not appear capable of reversing India's low economic growth,'' Standard & Poor's, a rating company, said on November 7, reiterating its negative outlook.