By Abdulhameed A. Ujo–
This write-up is based on two assumptions. The first one is the relevance of history to the study of empirical politics. The second is the importance of the concept of change to political development. The empirical data is drawn, largely, from the 2014 parliamentary election in India. References are, however, made to other countries where and when necessary. The conclusion drawn from the write-up is expected to educate Nigerians on certain universal principles of political behaviours, especially those who promote elongation in office.
No serious political scientist can neglect the importance of history in the study of politics as it provides it with raw materials. Dyke (1967) described politics as “a drama with the world as the theatre”. People, according to him, enter the theatre after the drama has begun. Consequently, their understanding of the drama would depend on reference to the past. The same situation holds true in working politics.
The second assumption, earlier mentioned, is that of change. An ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus asserted that change is the law of nature and the condition of all things. “All things are in the state of flux”. You cannot step twice into the same river. Just as the water in a river is ceaselessly changing, so are all things in a state of flux. Only the universal principle that everything changes remains unaltered in political evolution.
The foregoing assumptions based on history and change is the framework which is used in this write-up to discuss the 2014 Parliamentary Election in India. The history of modern India started with a struggle for political independence spearheaded by nationalists like Mahatma Gandhi, Netaji Subbash Chandra Bose Jawaharlal Nehru and others. These leaders, among others, founded the Congress, later changed to Indian National Congress Party (INC) which dominated electoral politics for a very long time.
After Indian independence in 1947, the Congress became the dominant political party in the country. In the first general election in 1952, the party swept to power with the majority parliamentary seats in the Lok Sabha and as well as in most state legislatures. The Congress was continuously in power every five years until 1977, when it was defeated by the Janata Party. It returned to power in 1980 and ruled until 1989, when it was once again defeated. It formed the government in 1991 at the head of a coalition, as well as in 2004 and 2009, when it led the United Progressive Alliance. During this period it has remained centre-left in its social policies, while steadily shifting from a socialist to a neoliberal economic outlook. It is a center-left party.
The domination of the Indian National Congress (INC) was largely due to its role as a nationalist party which fought for the independence of Indian by non-violence means. The domination continued for a while. With the death of its founding members – Gandhi and Nehru decay set in, especially under the leadership of Indira Gandhi (1966-1977, 1980-1984); Rajiv Gandhi (1984-1989); PV Narasinha Rao (1991-1996); and Maimohan Singh (2004-2014).
Those things responsible for the decline of INC were Botors Scandal, 26 Spectrum Scam, Bribes to members of Parliament and Local Block Allocation Scam.
These scandals resulted into the gradual reduction in the number of seats won in the Lok Sabha as indicated below. Out of a total of 545 seats, the INC won 364, 1951; 371, 1957; 361, 1962; 283, 1967; 352, 1971; 153, 1977; 351, 1980; 415, 1984; 197, 1989; 244, 1991; 140, 1996; 141, 1998; 114, 1999; 415, 2004; 206, 2009 and 44, 2014, the lowest in the electoral history of the party.
With the decline of INC Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a centre-right party based on Hindu nationalism emerged as the dominant party in the Lok Sabha as its leader Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, the home town of Mahatma Gandhi will emerge as the Prime Minister in the 16th Lok Sabha.
The foregoing confirms the assertion that change is inevitable in the historical evolution of electoral politics. This is the verdict of history which cannot change.
It is obvious that change is not only necessary but inevitable in every electoral system. A democratic system of government is designed in such a way that those in government are elected for a period of time to test their capability in implementing public policies. Those who are successful in this function are rewarded with further period through re-election. On the other hand, those who cannot perform are shown the “red card”. Change is the verdict of history which became inevitable at the appropriate time.