NEW TREND IN POLITICS: EXCUSES FOR DEFEAT EVEN BEFORE IT OCCURS

NEW TREND IN POLITICS: EXCUSES FOR DEFEAT EVEN BEFORE IT OCCURS

2-MAY-ENG 21

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA-------------------------A strange yet intriguing trend is currently unfolding in the country's political landscape: even before the electoral contest has truly begun, certain political parties mentally concede defeat and immediately set about compiling a lengthy list of excuses to explain it. Instead of focusing on policies, development, and issues pertinent to the public, the politics of mutual recrimination now dominates the headlines—a shift that appears to be adversely affecting the very standard of democratic discourse.

The practice of leveling allegations—such as EVM tampering, vote theft, and bias on the part of the Election Commission—even before the election results are declared has now evolved into a virtually standardized strategy. The irony lies in the fact that these very machines and this very system are perceived as entirely transparent and democratic when a victory is secured; yet, the moment the specter of defeat looms larger, questions regarding their integrity begin to surface. It appears as though certain parties are preemptively laying the groundwork for their eventual defeat, thereby seeking to evade accountability later on.

Recently, considerable uproar was witnessed regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process conducted in Bihar and West Bengal, during which serious allegations—such as the wrongful deletion of names from voter lists—were leveled. However, to date, no concrete instance has emerged demonstrating that the name of any genuine voter was erroneously struck off the rolls. This naturally begs the question: is this issue truly grounded in reality, or is it merely a ploy to manipulate the political narrative?

When election results fail to align with expectations, the path of least resistance for certain parties is to cast doubt upon the public's verdict or to claim that the electorate was misled. Yet, it is rarely acknowledged that the party's own policies, strategies, or leadership might bear some responsibility for the erosion of public trust. The fundamental reality on the ground is this: if the public is rejecting you, it is far more imperative to understand the underlying reasons and undertake corrective measures, rather than shifting the entire blame onto external factors.

For political parties, introspection is a difficult—yet indispensable—process, one that demands the courage to acknowledge their own vulnerabilities. Conversely, leveling accusations is easy, as it requires no acceptance of responsibility. This is precisely why, following a defeat, a cycle of baseless allegations and lamentation often ensues—rather than a serious analysis—benefiting neither the party nor democracy itself.

Recently, controversies also arose regarding the deployment of central forces during elections in certain states, where it was alleged that such measures could influence the electoral outcome. However, this raises a pertinent, albeit rhetorical, question: Is it truly wrong to institute robust security arrangements to ensure free and fair elections? Or do certain parties simply fear that, in an environment of strict enforcement, their traditional tactics—such as intimidating or pressuring voters—will cease to be effective?

In the contemporary era, the citizens of this country have become more aware and discerning than ever before. They are acutely aware of which entities are genuinely working to address their issues and which remain mired solely in the politics of accusation. Consequently, the assumption that the public can be misled through a ceaseless barrage of allegations may well prove to be a grave miscalculation.

Ultimately, the greatest challenge confronting political parties is not merely to win elections, but rather to earn and sustain the trust of the people. To achieve this, it is imperative that they engage inclusively with all sections of society, refine their policies and operational methods, and—in the event of a defeat—honestly acknowledge their own shortcomings. For in a democracy, both victory and defeat are transient; it is credibility and trust that constitute the true capital—the enduring asset—that sustains the existence of any political party over the long term.