Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
What I am questioning is anyone's ability to have direct contact sith more than a tiny fraction of the voters of Uttar Pradesh. So, then, do people propagate their impressions by word of mouth? Why don't people trust what they hear on the radio or seeon TV or read on the papers? How many people get their political information from the radio, TV, or press? Do people vote as they are told by community leaders? Are there patron/client relations at play, especially in rural areas? How does caste influence things? For instance, there are the following bits in the text you quote:
In UP, Mayawati, as everyone knows and as the successive elections results have proved, has undisputed hold over the Dalit votes.

...

Mayawati is so confident about the loyalty of her 'vote bank' that in public meetings she has accepted that she takes money from Thakur-Brahmin candidates to run her party. In the last elections in UP in 2002, she gave a big chunk of the BSP tickets to Thakurs. But Thakurs who got elected on BSP tickets were uncomfortable with 'Dalit politcs' and they deserted her and her party.

...

For the first time, she has given tickets to 89 Brahmins. This may seem audacious. It is indeed unprecedented in the caste-ridden society where social prejudices and identities are at the very core of political action-reactions.

...

She doesn't care for niceties and sophistication. She is openly contemptuous of middle class sensitivities over issues like corruption.

Patron/client, caste and religious relations seem to play a huge role which repels the western "liberal democracy" sensitivity. Now, I think to some extent there is a mythology of "clean politics" in "liberal democracies" which hides the fact that patronage is alive and kicking in the business world and among the elite and, as long as that is kept hidden from the middle class, the "fair play" mythology can be used to defuse the threat of the middle and low classes organising. Look at the lack of "shock" over Sarkozy's cozy relations with the largest capitalists in France. However, clientelism will be used by the mass media under the control of the elite to discredit candidates from the left.

I hope that makes sense.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 10:40:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the main difference between Western democracy and Indian is panchayat system where people chose few persons to rule small area and who elect next level functionaries. This is how party machines work too. Politicians of course come from different background, family connections and money play role but not always. India witnessed low-cast revolution in 1980-1990's and many new leaders with humble background come to fold. Why? Because they are election genies who can quickly communicate with diversed and divided electorate. People of course make they mind differently, sometimes somewhere goondas (local bandits) try to influence people preferences. In 2000's Election Commission of India has made tremendous work to ensure fair and transparent elections preventing any rigging. So mostly people decide themselves, often voting tactically to dislodge unpopular government.
by FarEasterner on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 10:58:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is the next level uf administration up from the Panchayat?

By the way, I have suggested earlier (without knowing much in detail about either) that Switzerland and India should be studied as models of organisation to suggest ways in which the EU can better organise itself in the future. I would therefore greatly appreciate it if you could write a diary about the sociopolitical organisation of India (as far as it's possible to generalise local organisation across states), and how one gets from the Panchayat to the Federal level

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 11:09:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They have many names you won't find in Wikipedia. By the way I have strong desire to rewrite a lot of Wiki's Indian history articles if I have time. But given my schedule I don't know when.
Generally it's just next groupings - cluster of villages, subdistricts, districts (talukas) and so on.
And of course I forget to say you - how people find information  about political parties and their programs - by word mouth, from political activists (party workers), sympathisers and of course press though biased information anyway sifted through lively discussions. It was always amazing to see how Indians are socially active comparing to Russia where civil society is simply in defunct state. When I was working as a social science researcher I started with gathering information through questionnairs and interaction with people. I met maybe thousands people and found how they feel lonely and eagerly telling about their worries to anybody who would listen to them. Long time nobody wanted to listen. And they resigned to their plight. Here everything is different and I believe Indian experience with democracy is exemplary and given rise of Asian giants in futute would be more attention to what is going on here.
by FarEasterner on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 12:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series