The Election Circus

I had previously thought of writing a critique of all candidates’ manifestos except the events of last night don’t deem that effort worthwhile anymore.

Aarushi Aggarwal, Batch of 2018

After last night’s less than impressive and rather disappointing Candidates’ Debate, one thing has become quite clear: Ashoka’s politics looks a lot like Indian politics. Apart from the shoe hurling, all else was accomplished: shouting, screeching, unparliamentary language, crying, storming off and an awkward walk/dance/jumping jacks — I can’t figure which — across the stage. Needless to say, it was no elegant affair; the element of solemnity that marks the event of elections was grossly amiss — and missed — replaced by a mockery of the election system and very obviously of the candidates themselves.

I had previously thought of writing a critique of all candidates’ manifestos except the events of last night don’t deem that effort worthwhile anymore. After the show put on last night, who can say that manifestos, or even these elections are a serious affair. The rationale, or lack thereof, that has gone into the candidates’ campaign has me baffled. While some resort to trolling, the others quite literally started as a joke and imagine that somehow by co-opting a present serving member of the House as their Presidential candidate, they will magically be everyone’s primary choice for the House. Even this Representative, if I may, was less than respectful to the process. In last year’s debates, the candidates were not known to hold their tongue. Apparently the success of the methods last year warranted a greater show this year, much to the chagrin of a lot of audience members. The said representative trolled their own party, claiming that before they were brought in, it lacked organisation and seriousness. Perhaps, a book or two on campaigning strategies will not be placed for the worse in their party meetings.

I will not limit my criticism to the appalling behaviour of the candidates. A greater lack was perhaps that of intellect. The debates were devoid, completely bereft of, any organised thought whatsoever (save a couple of candidates) to the extent that a group of individuals who have organised themselves into a party, with a party list, in an election designed on a party list system, claim that they are merely independent candidates who are giving the electorate the chance to elect six individuals — not a party — by actually voting for their party. Their reason for this odd political setup is based on the false claim that the House votes along party lines. If they had shown up for even one House meeting, they would have seen otherwise.

Prakrit put up one of the more stable presentations last night. Although the speakers are novices themselves, they have the benefit of the aegis of some older members of not just the House, but also the Undergraduate community. Moreover, the two speakers from the party — the only two candidates that I can account for — have actually attended House meetings and therefore understand what it entails. Unlike Prakrit the other new party around the block, in many ways, mirrors the other party that had come up just before the elections last year, which is now defunct and whose members lost interest in being representatives less than half way through their term exemplified by their abysmal attendance records and lack of attention (being lavished on course readings instead) during meetings. While I cannot make predictions for Moksh, I certainly hope that their service in the House will be of a higher quality than their memes.

The independent candidates, on the other hand, completely misunderstood the purpose of elections. I suppose nobody gave them the memorandum of what House of Representative elections, campaigning and speeches are. While only two candidates had clear agendas, everybody’s speeches were mired by inaccuracy and passionate rants with less than credible solutions. Somehow, there is a misplaced view that entry to the House is a means for candidates to push forth their personal agenda, and not what they believe to be the requirement of the undergraduate community. However, elections are not about choosing a person with the best vision or ideals, it is about choosing a person with realistic goals and a work ethic that can achieve them. This is perhaps my greatest worry from yesterday’s debate: apart from the general lack of quality, the very conception of democracy has been muddled with some weird form of humor and aimless political drama.

Following the example of the American elections from 2016, all we have can do is choose from among the lesser of the many evils. Responsibility is on us, as the electorate, to find the 15 candidates who can somehow constitute a House that maintains some semblance of responsibility, seriousness, intellect and hard work.

Aarushi Aggarwal is in her third year in the Undergraduate Program at Ashoka University. She was a part of the 3rd House of Representatives and stood as an independent candidate.