Removing the rose-tinted glasses

I have been struck by the differences in world coverage of the Iranian elections and the Indian elections. Western news outlets seemed, at times, to have reveled in how poorly the Iranian elections have played out.  Indian election coverage abroad is milquetoast in comparison — a misty-eyed celebration of the world’s largest democracy (cue photographs of a poor old woman exiting a polling booth in a remote corner of the country).

Strangely enough, from within, the elections did not look so rosy, especially within Tamil Nadu. Aditya Sinha, the editor-in-chief of the New Indian Express, wrote a great article a few weeks ago calling this round “the most bogus election” of all. But the elections were not quite rigged (at least not in most parts of the state), as Mr. Sinha points out. They were bought. He estimates that Rs. 1,000 crores (more than $200 million) were spent on bribing Tamil voters before the elections. In by-elections that took place in Tirumangalam constituency a few months before these elections, the current Deputy Chief Minister was actually caught on video distributing Rs. 500 notes to voters, but it hardly stopped them from continuing the practice through this round. I heard rumors from friends that, in addition to just handing out cash, booze, and biriyani dinners, the government actually deposited thousands of rupees in the bank accounts of Self-Help Groups (women’s microfinance savings groups that have been widely promoted in Tamil Nadu). Even Jayalalitha, the leader of the opposition and a woman not known for her scruples, seemed to have been blindsided by the sheer scale of the money spent by the winning party on these elections.

Is it surprising then that Tamil Nadu had the highest voter turnout in its history?

But I have to agree with Mr. Sinha: if the voters don’t see anything wrong with it, then I suppose there isn’t anything particularly wrong with buying votes. You could even argue that it is a good resource transfer from the state to the citizen, perhaps even a good way of getting thousands of rupees of black money lost from the population in bribes back to its rightful owners.

However, none of this changes the fact that Western news outlets did very little to probe the image of India’s elections as innocent celebrations of the country’s democratic spirit.

  1. vali said:

    Are you really surprised by this? My guess is that almost everybody in the west was happy that the Congress party prevailed over the BJP in the most recent election. Those on the left were happy that the more nationalistic and intolerant views of the BJP were slapped down and those on the right were happy that the Hindu focused (non-christian) BJP suffered a defeat.

    The situation in Iran, however, contains factors that angers everyone. Liberals and neo-conservatives can feel pure disgust because democracy might have been subverted (in India even if the election was bought, it was bought at the individual level, which reflects the will of the people in a weird sort of way.) Christian Conservatives can feel disgust because…err… it looks like Iran is remaining culturally conservative (or it looks like Iran will continue to be an openly Islamic state.) And secular Israel supporters can feel disgust because an election may have been stolen by a man who openly talks about the destruction of Israel.

    My point is: a lot of vocal groups’ interests are negatively affected by the situation in Iran. And nobody in the West is hurt by the result of the election in India.

  2. Arvind said:

    Iran has oil. India doesn’t. Is that a factor?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: