Do political parties need to follow a "Political Ideology"

India will be witnessing one of the most interesting general elections within next few months. Why are they most interesting? Well, for me personally they are interesting because this is the first time I would be voting in general elections. Also for quite some time now I have been following politics in India. I have voted for assembly elections, for the post of mayor and ward elections but this is the first time I would be voting for a candidate aspiring to be a Member of Parliament. In 2009 too I was eligible to vote, but since I had just turned 18, I could not get my voted ID well in time to vote, more because of the slow process followed that time. However that doesn't mean I wasn't following elections back then. I used to read the discussions that used to take place on online forums. At that time I didn't favor any political party as such, neither was I clear as to what political ideologies are. I was legally eligible to vote, but I don't think I was aware enough to choose wisely back then. But this time I have a voter ID card, hence it is my duty to become aware and vote for the best possible option available.

I have talked to a lot of people about the importance of political ideology for a party.

So what exactly is a political ideology? It's more or less similar to theory of a subject. Over the time scholars have come up with their views. I would present my view as in what I think political ideology actually means. Political ideology can be described as set of beliefs that defines optimum mode of social organization. It's not descriptive; rather it's more or less normative. An ideology proposes view of the world as it should be, irrespective of current or past state set ups. An ideology defines how an ideal government functions. It tells how a government should change or function in general. It presents a subjective view, and hence an ideology can never be acceptable by all. It's impossible to form an objective ideology.

Ideologies can be divided into Statism and anarchy, while Statism believes in establishment of laws, anarchism is based on assumptions that actions by people would be driven by ethics.  In anarchy, an individual is not bound by any laws and rules and it is expected that his ethics would lead to goodwill of all, however that doesn't always happen. Ideologies, because they are subjective need constant refinement. These ideologies are then categorized on political spectrum, defined as left, center, or right wing based on their stance on role of government and individual in the society.

Political ideology for a political party is important at three steps:

• Formation of party
• Compilation of election manifesto
• Implementation of policies once the party comes to power

In India, there are a countless number of political parties. Some are formed to raise voice of a group of people while some are formed on foundation of a single issue. The number of parties existing in India is already significantly high, so we can safely assume that most of the issues concerning with the society are already taken up with same party or the other. Hence when a person works for a cause, there are always plenty of options available. However we see that there are new political parties emerging almost every other day. So what's the reason behind it? The person who forms the new party is either aspiring for a total control of power over the political party, or the person follows a completely new ideology that no other party follows until now.

Often people claim that the party they support doesn't belong to the political spectrum. But that's not true because mere formation of the political party is not the end. A party has to put forward its views and policies, in form of manifesto, and that's exactly where the ideology's role comes into picture. As I defined that ideology is a way an individual thinks that government should work, and while drafting manifesto, that's exactly what a political party does. It lays its plans in front of the people. Mow these plans are more or less outcome of the ideology the party follows. And people associate themselves with the party when they find similarity in ideology of the party and their own views.

When the party finally comes into power, it has to implement the policies. The working of the government is outcome of the ideology followed by the people who are responsible for the running of the government. Every person has its views, generally they are similar to the views of other members of the party, and hence these views translate into the policies of the government. It's safe to say that ideology of the party has the biggest impact on running of the government.

Since a party has to deal with all sorts of issue faced by the state, it has to have an ideology. The stance on all the millions of issues can't be defined separately, there has to be a pattern and that's exactly where the importance of ideology is felt. A party without an ideology cannot have a firm stand. It can't organize a debate at each and every point. Also it's easier to arrive at a common consensus when members of the party follow a similar ideology.

Hence over the time, based on the actions of the party, it can be categorized and placed into the political spectrum. Some parties promote their ideology right from the beginning. The trend is more evident in left liberal parties, where they inherit ideology by some scholar. Most of the parties however can be categorized by their actions.

Now the question arises, do we really need to assign a position in political spectrum to the parties concerned? In my opinion, yes, we cannot be sure of the way a political party would function unless we are clear what their position is on political spectrum. We can always tell the position of party on a small number of issues, but on a larger scale it is difficult to predict in absence of knowledge of ideology of the party. However if we are aware about the ideology a party follows, we can often predict the policies which the party would focus on once in power, and the actions wouldn't come as surprises.

Hence I believe it is important to be aware about the different political ideologies and based on that decide which party you should support. Supporting a cause does not help in long run, supporting the ideology is a safer bet.

My Vote : Right or Duty?

As a citizen of India, we all have a right to vote. But rather than a right, I like to see it as our duty. In last few years I have seen a change in the society, Earlier some of my fellow friends considered it cool to claim that they didn't vote. But times have changed, and for betterment, as now the ink mark on the index finger has become synonymous to trends in which youth of Delhi usually gets engulfed. People vote, and then claim that they vote and often talk about it on social media. Long gone is the time when the consensus was that people active on social media only talked and never voted. I remember how earlier it used to be the case. On the day of election, people used to express their disappointment owing to the fact that the educated section of the society seldom votes.

First I would like to attack this very statement. What is meant by educated section of society? Does having a post-graduate degree make your vote more valuable or does it comes with an assumption that an educated person would be able to judge better when it comes to choosing the right candidate. If equality is to be established we would have to realize that each and every person who votes has equal stake in the government. It might be the case that the issue one votes on is dependent on education, class, caste or any other parameter, but that doesn't mean that those parameters are not worthy enough. Every person has his own set of issues on which he would decide the candidate to vote for. Also education does not essentially mean political awareness.

Yes education is important when it comes to development of a personality, it makes one more rational, I agree but that doesn't mean it gives us clarity across all spectrums. A computer engineer is not qualified to prescribe medication for typhoid, a literature student is not qualified to design digital circuits, and a psychology student is not qualified to design bridges. (I used qualified, not capable, because people do venture into different streams out of interest, so one can always be capable enough to carry out whatever task he is assigned.) So I would like to extend it further. Like I said, education does make us more rational, it doesn't really translate into political knowledge, which we have to gain on our own. Yes, education would definitely help us understand the issues in a better way, and look at the claims of political parties with rationality, but we need to understand what exactly should be our criteria for voting. This brings me to the second part of my article.

A question usually arises, who should I vote for? Should I vote for the party or should I vote for the candidate? What should be the parameters on which I should make my decision? What all should I consider before making the final call? The answer is simple, which issues you consider to be important. Then you should consider whether those issues can be taken care of by the candidates you would be voting for or not. I have always been part of discussions where people discuss the issues which are important for them; I'm in fact involved passively most of the times. And to my surprise most of the times people come up with the issues that are beyond the scope of the position for which they have to vote.

Let's look at civic structure of the way government functions in India. I wish we all had taken social studies more seriously when we were in school. It's far too interesting than it seemed back when I was in school. Sigh, back then we looked at it only as a subject we had to study to improve our percentage.
I would be talking about parts of the Indian government which we can elect. Since bureaucracy is not something citizens have direct control on, I would be focusing on the parts which are directly related to elections.

There are elections for MPs, MLAs, local government (Mayor, ward etc.) Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly is basically responsible for formation of laws and policies concerning the nation or respective states. While local government is responsible for development and management of the area.

So what are the qualities we should be looking at while choosing our candidate for various posts? Often all we talk about is electricity, water, roads etc at time of election. The politicians when seeking votes make their claims on similar lines. Often irrespective of the post politicians are contesting on, issues discussed with the voters are same. I would not say that politicians are at fault completely. The mass is not completely are of the responsibilities that they would be assuming once elected, hence they have to advertise in the best possible way. They have two options, either they can educate the voters about what exactly they should expect the elected candidate to do, or they can mould themselves into their expectations. The first option is a herculean task, reason, because if one actually tries it, he would not be able to impress the voters, because he would not be talking about the issues they want to hear and which might eventually result in a sacrifice of a well deserved chance.

From my understanding, I would like to summarize my point of view. MPs and MLAs are essentially responsible to take our views to the parliament and legislative assembly. So while voting for an MP or MLA I would look at the ideology of the political party he is associated with, because even though we have a parliamentary form of government, it more or like functions like a presidential form. The examples are evident; the politicians who go against the party policies are criticized heavily and portrayed as back-stabbers. We have countless examples. We, the citizens, don't have a very positive image of rebels. We often see them as opportunists. What it results in is that politicians often stick to the principles laid down by the party. Call it a bitter truth, but that's how things function. I don't see anything wrong in it. Politicians can always influence the decision making of the party by raising their voices. For citizens it is fair to assume that politician would in most cases follow the party ideology, and in case of any discrepancy, would raise the voice in party meetings and would help shape up party's decision.

Now MPs and MLAs are not responsible for working of street lights in your locality and condition of roads during the rainy season directly. So if you are judging them on the work done keeping in mind infrastructure development of your locality, you are doing it the wrong way. These works come under your city's development authorities, in which MPs and MLAs have no say. If they are trying to manipulate their working using their influence, I would call it a misuse of power, irrespective of what the intention of the politician is. We can always say that if politicians really want the development of the city, they can have their say in Parliament and Assembly. Now it becomes a more difficult task if the party of the politician is not in power. So essentially all we need to judge a politician contesting for a post of MP/MLA is whether he would raise our voice in Parliament or not and what the ideology of the party is.

Coming to the criteria of voting for politicians contesting for local government, the main focus should be on the image of the politician, whether he has a clean image, whether he can promise that bureaucracy functions properly or not, whether he can ensure transparency in the working of development authorities etc.

After the term, the judgment of performance of elected members should be on the same lines. For MPs/MLAs we should look at how many times they raised the voice in Parliament/Assembly. We should look at if any critical issue related to our constituency was raised properly in the parliament or not. If the elected member’s party was in power, whether he was involved in decision making, what kind of laws the ruling party introduced and passed. The ruling of the government as a unit defines the value of your vote. If the member elected is part of the opposition, we should look at how critical he was towards the government and in what manner. While the local development works could be seen as achievement or failure of the local government body representative.

Keeping in mind the general elections our country will soon have, I want to conclude my article requesting you all to vote for formation of government. After all if you look at the larger picture, it's the government we are electing, not only the Member of Parliament. That’s why I believe, we should not get swayed by rhetoric of people and rather support a political ideology. And that’s why it’s our duty to elect a stable government.

Our duty is to become political literate. Being a literate doesn’t mean you are politically literate. How much we want to know depends on the issue we want to get addressed. What we can simply do is raise a question, whenever a politician makes a claim; our duty is ask, “How?” How will the candidate bring about that change, is he really entitled and responsible to do that? Does the position he is contesting for allows him that liberty? And the candidate does not have to answer. If we are politically literate enough, we can see through the lies and tall claims, and save ourselves from the disappointment, that we always brag about later. Our right is to vote, but our duty is to vote sensibly.

Disclaimer: The article is based on my experiences and is not a result of some study. I agree that I have very superficial view of how politics in India works and my article might have numerous errors. So I welcome suggestions from each one of you, please reply in comments section or message/mail me, so that I can include your suggestion in the article. We are part of democracy and we all have our own views and interpretations, so that's mine.

AAPki Delhi?

Few days back, during a discussion I said that in due time people will lose faith in protests. If AAP doesn't deliver people would hesitate before joining any nation-wide protest at least for some time. The way people are reacting to the on-going protest by AAP, it seems that we are moving in that direction only. If these senseless protests don't stop, I doubt just like many other institutions, people would doubt the intentions of activists too.

I remember AAP supporters used to say that they believe in democracy. Whenever I have had "meaningful" discussions with AAP supporters, despite clash of views and ideologies, a decency has been maintained most of the time. Obviously, in a country as big as India, differences in ideologies is bound to be there and that is essence of democracy. But it seems like AAP has completely forgotten the meaning of democracy.

Somnath Bharti says he wants to spit on opposition leaders, while Arvind Kejriwal terms himself as Anarchist. Ashutosh who recently joined AAP and in no time has become one of the most prominent leaders of AAP said on TimesNow, "Kiran Bedi should be taught a lesson." As far as I remember when I was in school, most of us saw Dr. Kalam and Kiran Bedi as our role-models. Obviously not even a fool would doubt that Kiran Bedi has been on of the best and most "honest" IPS officers. Then what is the reason AAP believes that she should be taught lesson? Just because she does not believe in the ideology that AAP propagates? Is it a crime to hold a political opinion different from what AAP wants? If a prominent personality like Kiran Bedi would be taught lesson for holding different political views, what can we, as ordinary citizens of Delhi expect from AAP, rather I should say, as ordinary citizens of India.

The people who claimed AAP would work for safety of women are doubtful. The recent incident surrounding Somnath Bharti is clear example.

The narcotics drug usage is controlled in India by "The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). NDPS is a very stringent act where mere possession of drug in commercial quantity makes a person criminal. Capital punishment is mandatory under the act in case of repeated offense. There is no scope of "Mens Rea" in this. This means while in other laws, punishment is given only when mind is guilty, this act considers an individual criminal even if intention was not wrong.

As the Act is too stringent, following proper procedure by authorities while arrest and investigation is compulsory. It is necessary as such a strong law can easily be misused by police or any other authority or even person. Not following proper procedure results in suspension or termination of the involved policemen.

Some of the important procedural points are:
1. Proper Search warrant
2. No search of premises after sunset unless strong reason is recorded in writing
3. Any search of a person has to be done in front of a magistrate
4. Search party should have a female member (as in this case accused was a female)
5. State Excise/Customs, Central Excise/Customs, Central and State police forces are empowered to do the search.

Strict procedures are there to save any innocent from being trapped under NDPS.

Lets come back to Somnath Bharti case.

In this case, there was no warrant. The time was also after sunset. No officer of magistrate rank was present. If policemen had gone for search without warrant, that could have resulted in their suspension. Policemen were doing everything as per the law. It was the duty of policemen to rescue the Ugandan people from AAP mob. Also, state excise/custom also have similar power of search. If Somnath Bharti was sure of crime, why didn't he take state excise/custom which is under Delhi State Government with him.

Who gave Somnath Bharti and the mob of AAP goons to hold the Ugandan people hostage? Who gave right to the minister to force police do things as per his wish? Is interference of ministers in police action acceptable? If some person of African origin are involved in drug racket, does that mean that every person of that community should be pre-assumed as criminal? Why was Ugandan woman forced urinate in public? Is this acceptable in a civilized society? What would be your reaction if same thing happens to any Indian girl in some other country? The point to be noted is that the women tested negative for drug.

Instead of criticizing the acts of his minister, the CM is supporting him and asking for suspension of the policemen (who had followed the law). The CM is also holding a dharna (read gimmick) against the policemen. If policemen are suspended under pressure from Kejriwal's protest, will police personals in future dare to put law over minister's instructions?

Some of the links for reference:

http://www.cbn.nic.in/html/ndpsact1985.pdf
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Somnath-Bharti-activists-charged-with-rioting-molestation/articleshow/29075836.cms
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/in-aap-minister-s-midnight-raid-woman-made-to-urinate-in-public-472377
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-17/delhi/46300567_1_law-minister-sai-baba-temple-foreigners

To this Somnath Bharti tweeted: "Pl go through Sec. 42, NDPS Act and Sec. 15 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act for search without warrant in prostitution and drug cases."
https://twitter.com/attorneybharti/status/424193983170883584
This is clear case of misguiding the people. The link I have cited above clearly says that the search without warrant is possible only in case of written proof and that too before sunset. But no one will dare to question Somnath Bharti, how can they? He is the mighty law minister of Government of Delhi.

He is the same person who has been indicted by court for tampering with evidence. Yes, he is not being accused by the opposition, he was indicted by "court". And what our CM has to say on this? Mr. Kejriwal says that it was misjudgement of court.

Now what I fail to understand is, that is AAP above everything else. Is AAP above constitution? Is AAP above judiciary? I mean they don't respect Judiciary, they don't respect Constitution? Is this how the future governments are going to function? And to add to all this, Mr. Kejriwal called himself an anarchist and said that he cares least about the Republic Day parade. And he won't be bothered if it's affected by the protest he has organized to satisfy ego of his minister Somnath Bharti, who made women wait outside so that he could use public 

Even if you are AAP supporter, does that mean you should defend every wrong deed of your party? People should realize that such kind of governance is not going to help anyone.