Born in a democratic country and now living another one I have seen and
observed many elections. However, lately I realized that most elections are
contested based on issues which may not have any direct impact on people who
will vote.
I won't go too far back in the history, I will rather take some example
from recent elections held in big democracies in the world such as US, Canada
and India. Of Couse I will have more insight about Indian system as I was born
and raised there, but lately I got a glimpse of Canadian and US political setup
after moving here few years back.
One might think the political campaign will be different between poor
country such as India and rich countries such as US and Canada. Surprisingly
few things were common,
Elections are contested on non-issues:
Non-issue does not mean the issue has no value at all, but rather it does
not directly impact daily livelihood of common country people nor it may affect
in long term. However, these issues
could trigger emotional response in such a way that voter will get blinded by
it and forget everything else. In India touching their religious, waiving off
loans work, and in US/Canada issues are tax, Islamophobia etc
US/Canada: Climate change:
Wait before you come to conclusion, by climate change I meant to address
lobby against oil lobby. Most voters do not understand climate change. They
often link it directly it with oil, not knowing that farming produces even more
greenhouse gas (Methane, produced by cattle and marsh fields, has 20 times more
greenhouse effect than C02). Interlinking directly oil with climate change may
not be 100% correct.
Moreover, Question is not about oil or no-oil, question is people who are
serious about this cause are not even willing to give up the luxury of Car (yes
Car is a luxury that most people across the world, other than US/Canada can’t
afford) and cheap gas heaters. If you really want the change, then first give
it up altogether the industry will force to look for alternative fuel source.
Buy electric car and do not use anything that has oil money.
Weakness of Voter: Most voters do not understand climate change.
They often link it directly it with oil, not knowing that farming produces even
more greenhouse gas (Methane, produced by cattle and marsh fields, has 20 times
more greenhouse effect than C02)
I met many "cool" people in Canada who are anti-oil, who want
Canadian tar-sand oil industry to stop, however, they won’t refuse the social
service money that they can get from Govt, (which has oil money). Not to
mention that, nobody would switch off their heater during winter.
India: Secularism:
Many people would agree that secularism is a non-issue in Indian politics,
however, it could dramatically polarize the vote divide across the demography.
In recent Bihar state assembly poll a futile issue like Cow slaughter has taken
to center stage to polarize the votes. Some might blame BJP for instigating the
subject, however, other parties didn't stop milking the cash to get Muslim
support (who appear to vote in herd rather than Individual).
Weakness of Voter: Believe that protecting their illusionary
believes and religion is more important than having a better life.
Canada: Cannabis
There is a sizable internet user community who have long want to
de-criminalize or legalize the cannabis usage. This is not about whether it
should be legalize in Canada or not, the question is how politicians across the
board were able use it as dead-horse to deviate from the real issues such as
economy, tax and jobs. On one hand Conservatives were able to grab conservative
votes on this issue, Liberals and NDP have tried to milk the issue as such they
could to launch attack on Stephan Harper.
At the end, if a pot lover wants to legalize he/she won’t consider other
options but think only to get rid of Stephan Harper from power, rather than
questioning other policies of Liberal and NDP, likewise if someone wants to
keep the cannabis law intact, they will vote Mr. Harper without questioning
what he did in past 10 years and what he wants to do for next 4 years.
Weakness of Voter: They can’t stop smoking it.
Canada: Hijab
If someone look into statistics, a very few women wear complete face cover
hijab. Now here is the twist, Mr. Harper passed a law which says you can’t
cover your face during citizenship ceremony. Not surprisingly debate took off
on a different level, which Mr. Harper wanted, that government does not anyone
to wear hijab. If someone has stayed enough in Canada they would know that,
most white Canadian (born in Canada) do not know what Hijab is, they consider
even head-scarf as hijab. This limited understanding about Hijab, takes the
discussion to a next level of freedom of rights. So it helps to polarize the vote
up-to some extent. So if Mr. Harper can keep his conservative vote bank intact
and let NDP and Liberals fight off for “open minded” people vote, Mr. Harper
may have a chance in this election despite being in power for almost 10 years.
Weakness of Voter: Most voter do not understand Hijab or Islam at
all.
US/Canada: Tax
Why I am saying Tax is non-issue, because whoever is in government can’t do
much with taxes. They need money to run the government. What all they can do
is, each year promise I will lower the tax and wait it out for next 4 years and
promise it again. I love this infinite cycle. Example: Hilary Clinton is campaigning
for lower tax and levying high tax for 1%. If someone understand even 1% of
political science she does not want top 1% tax, what she wants is vote of those
99% people who envy those 1% people and will always despise them. If she could
infuriate those 99% then she has the presidency in her name.
Canadian style is giving away free money such as Universal child care,
parent support etc. Most promise by NDP to giving away these kind free money.
The fight is still on, who will give more money to people, now who does not
want extra money, votes will vote to the highest payer, notwithstanding other
policies of the party.
Weakness of Voter: Top 1% people are running the government, so
someone employed by them, politicians, can’t make laws to make them poor.
Canada: Job
Job is real issue but this is played as a non-issue, example: I heard one
of the campaign ad by Liberals that they plan to create deficit by investing in
public transport and infrastructure, but they fail to explain how will be
create overall economic ripple effect to create jobs across the board other
than creating some construction jobs.
Weakness of Voter: Socialist style of job creation is not
sustainable, if it were then USSR would not have fallen, nor China would have
turned to capitalism to create job.
