Who the Indian voters rejected and why
I laugh out loud when I hear talking heads saying India's election outcome was about a rejection of 'dynastic politics'.
Really?
Strange. Dynasty was a problem, but criminality wasn't? Here's a statistic. Research by the Association for Democratic Reforms shows 186 members of the elected lower house of Parliament (34 percent) are facing criminal charges, compared with 158 members in the dissolved legislature.The association, an advocate for clean government, says 21 percent of members of the new 543-member parliament face serious criminal charges. This means every third MP in the 16th Lok Sabha faces criminal charges.
So much for rejections!
Tell you what, citizens may even vote in a rooster if they think the creature's crowing will make their tomorrows better! Meaning, voters are casting their ballots, as I have said umpteen times before, for a better future for themselves! The logical outcome of such a desired betterment is that voters will identify with those they believe can do something for them. Which explains perfectly why caste, religion, and such variables make such an impact on election results in India. Caste for example matters because voters 'identify' better with a candidate from their same caste. Meaning, they believe its 'their' person who can make their futures better, not another from a differing caste. The same applies when religion, ethnicity and other such variables come into play.
Sure, this election has seen a rejection, but not of dynasty, caste, religion, or criminality. This election has seen a rejection of those candidates voters believed can't deliver on their aspirations. That in turn means its also an acceptance of those who are perceived as better among voting choices for fulfillment of harbored aspirations.
When it comes to consumption, a patronized brand automatically means competing brands have been rejected. The consumer forms a consideration set by including all those brands he believes can be a possible solution to his need. The consumer then evaluates brands considered and makes a choice in favor of the one he perceptually believes is the best solution to his need.
Indian voters on their part have exercised their choice based on a belief. They will not wait and see if their choice was the 'right' one. Here's hoping for their sake, it was.
Really?
Strange. Dynasty was a problem, but criminality wasn't? Here's a statistic. Research by the Association for Democratic Reforms shows 186 members of the elected lower house of Parliament (34 percent) are facing criminal charges, compared with 158 members in the dissolved legislature.The association, an advocate for clean government, says 21 percent of members of the new 543-member parliament face serious criminal charges. This means every third MP in the 16th Lok Sabha faces criminal charges.
So much for rejections!
Tell you what, citizens may even vote in a rooster if they think the creature's crowing will make their tomorrows better! Meaning, voters are casting their ballots, as I have said umpteen times before, for a better future for themselves! The logical outcome of such a desired betterment is that voters will identify with those they believe can do something for them. Which explains perfectly why caste, religion, and such variables make such an impact on election results in India. Caste for example matters because voters 'identify' better with a candidate from their same caste. Meaning, they believe its 'their' person who can make their futures better, not another from a differing caste. The same applies when religion, ethnicity and other such variables come into play.
Sure, this election has seen a rejection, but not of dynasty, caste, religion, or criminality. This election has seen a rejection of those candidates voters believed can't deliver on their aspirations. That in turn means its also an acceptance of those who are perceived as better among voting choices for fulfillment of harbored aspirations.
When it comes to consumption, a patronized brand automatically means competing brands have been rejected. The consumer forms a consideration set by including all those brands he believes can be a possible solution to his need. The consumer then evaluates brands considered and makes a choice in favor of the one he perceptually believes is the best solution to his need.
Indian voters on their part have exercised their choice based on a belief. They will not wait and see if their choice was the 'right' one. Here's hoping for their sake, it was.
Comments