In the recently concluded Uttar Pradesh Elections, it was reported that quite a few persons with criminal cases pending against them were elected as MLAs. However I did not find any news report that mentioned how many good men were elected as MLAs.

These are the ways I guess you define a criminal

–         A person having been convicted on Criminal Charges

–         A person with criminal cases pending in a Police Station or Court

–         Sometimes a person is perceived to be a criminal, though no case would have been registered against him/her.

But how do you define nonpareil persons? Or do we presume that anyone who is not a criminal is a peerless person? If that were the case, then 99% of the MLAs in UP Assembly are persons whose credentials are above board as of this moment. So why worry over criminalization of politics? Assuming that the presumption is wrong lets try to get the answer for the question “Why Good Men Shun Politics?”

Before trying to answer that question, let me try to define in simple words what a “Good Man” is. A person should be solemnly dedicatedto the responsibility that he is thrust upon by the electorate. He is expected to take care of the issues faced by the electorate. He is NOT supposed to use the [perceived] power associated with the political position [MLA or MP] to further his own Business Interests. He is NOT supposed to “charge money” for solving issues faced by the electorate. He is NOT supposed to misuse the funds or take a cut [directly or indirectly] from the Government funds, which is allotted to solve the electorate’s issues. He is NOT supposed to misuse the funds or take a cut from the Government funds, which is allotted to build public infrastructure. That’s a simple definition in many words!

When compared to the aspirations of the electorate in Developed Counties, the aspirations of Indian Public are very simple and certainly achievable. The common man certainly does not expect an elected representative to work for 18 hours a day or provide luxuries like AC, Fridge or TV sets out of Government Funds. People certainly do not expect the contesting candidate [politician] to be a Harvard or IIT or IIM educated. Indians’ expectation from the Government w.r.t. infrastructure is to build black-top Roads, providing an efficient Public Transport Network, making available Drinking Water and Sanitation Facilities at a nominal cost. The bottom stratum of the society expects Food Grains at the PDS shops at affordable rates and some kind of employment opportunity to sustain life. The Business Class expects the Government to draft policies that boosts their industry’s growth and sustainability in the long term. And the farmers expect a better price for their produce and also look upon the Government for low cost technologies to improve the farm-yield; and an optimum compensation in case of natural disasters washing out their crops. All sections of the populace look forward to an affordable health care and education system.

Sounds very simple. Is achieving this a Herculean task by a bunch of Good Men? I don’t think so. Well-established Administrative/Executive Machinery headed by erudite and competent IAS Officers is in place. We certainly have a trustable [to a large extent, but for the time taken for resolution] Judicial System. To negate the influences of a few bad elements in both these wings of Democracy we just need to close a few glaring process loopholes. The roles and responsibilities of these two wings are well defined and do not need much tinkering. Media is well established now, though their geographical reach may not be to the desired extent. The other wing of Democracy is the Political setup.

The role of a political setup is to draft policies to meet the aspirations of the citizens and ensure implementation of the [new and old] policies and programs through the Executive setup. The political setup is also expected to draft policies for revenue generation to implement these people oriented policies.

So, what kind of person is required in this political setup? We need people who can understand and logically analyse the issues and aspirations of the people. Simply because a person is well known in a geographical location [and religion or caste] does not mean that the person can logically think and solve issues. Hence I feel the paradox in Indian Democracy starts here. In the Indian political setup, persons who exhibit a charming nature [either visibly or through some clever social actions] aided to a large extent by money and muscle power qualifies him to contest elections. If aspirants for Engineering and Medical streams can have qualifying exams why not politicians too? Such a qualifying exam, I personally feel, will, to a major extent, take care of basic qualities of a politician. The second paradox is - that section of the populace that prospers believes that they prospered because of their own effort and certainly NOT because of politicians. The other section that does not prosper, to the desired extent, believes that they did not prosper because of politicians. I feel Good Men aided with a bit of charisma can, to some extent, deflect this perception.

Answering the basic question - “Why Good Men Shun Politics?” – becomes quite easier now. In India, the over-riding perception of politicians is that all politicians are corrupt, deceitful and unreliable villains – repeatunreliable villains and NOT unreliable heroes! Hence this is one reason why Good Men Shun Politics. Good Men by nature are shy. Hence they feel inferior to enroll in a political party [or start one]. Good Men carry an ego that prevents them to trust one other Good Man and hence does not support/canvass for him if that person contests an election. To put it in a different way, all Good Men within an Organization feel they are Leaders in their own right and hence feel inferior to accept someone else as their leader [Evident very much in the Congress Party]. Good Men feel that they deserve automatic recognition or automatic support from others and hence feel inferior to demand recognition and/or support. Good Men shun not only are shy but also detest violence. In Indian scheme of things, if you study the political setup at Gram Panchayat levels, almost all party workers/ward members will always be wary of a violent physical attack and hence always carry a wooden log or two in their SUV – Good Men just cannot dream this sort of a fearful life. Good Men, because of their individualistic nature, seldom get involved in dispute resolution between two groups – paradoxically at Panchayat levels people try to reach out to the local politician to resolve disputes or get in touch with the Police and negotiate their case. Last but not the least, Good Men are invariably economically poor and also do not chase “power”. These reasons are by no means exhaustive – but are the most significant ones, I feel.

Good Men don’t even vote. Why? Because, they perceive that not one contestant deserves their valuable vote. And even if by fluke some good men attain positions of political power, they at best are good in presenting a Power Point Presentation and nothing more – which he feels he himself can do!

So is there no solution to get Good Men into politics?

Cheers

Ganesh Babu N R