The writer is a journalist in Delhi whose work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor and The New York Times. He tweets @DilliDurAst
Indians love elections more than cricket. Unlike the cricket on television, elections are a spectator sport that we are participants in. They come with the other elements of spectator sport as well: adventure, endurance, spectacle, surprise. Travelling through a place undergoing elections is fascinating. Every five years, when the rulers go into the remotest of hamlets with folded hands, the conversations bring out who we are.
When the candidate begging for votes goes away, the conversation returns to the 'hawa'. Which way is the wind blowing? Different people give different answers. In a multiparty democracy, there are many candidates in any contest. Voters don't want to waste their vote on inconsequential candidates. They want to know who the real contenders are, the candidates who will get the top two or three largest number of votes. The popular understanding of the 'hawa' can change a voter's mind.
Sure, there are voting blocs. A Dalit in Uttar Pradesh will vote for Mayawati's party, even if the candidate is an upper caste thug unlikely to win. But if all voters had fixed caste and religion-based affiliations, why would the election result differ every time? The key to winning an election lies not in your vote bloc — that's the foundation that makes you a serious contender —but the floating, undecided, fence-sitting vote.
This unaffiliated voter is heavily influenced by the 'hawa'. Often, the 'hawa' becomes important for vote blocs, too. So, the Muslim voter wants to know who is likely to get the second largest number of votes, so that Muslims could en masse vote for that candidate and make him win over the BJP candidate.
Many of my friends think I overestimate the 'hawa' business, because a large variety of factors define how Indians vote. But if the 'hawa' is not a key factor, why is it the main question at every chai shop in an area under election? Why do politicians pay local papers to publish news articles suggesting that they are the ones winning?
The 'hawa' is nothing but the Habermasian 'public sphere'. Naturally, riding the 'hawa' means using unethical means, too, such as disinformation campaigns. The Election Commission has been concerned about 'paid news'. And now, the Election Commission has suggested that the media's ‘pre-poll surveys’, which predict which party will get how many seats, should not be allowed in the media once the election is announced. I would say, they should not be allowed at all.
These surveys are an unfair influence on the 'hawa' because they have a truth claim. They aren't the expectation or prediction of one journalist or organisation. The claim is instead of a scientific and objective way that can foresee the result. Banning election forecasting would be a 'reasonable restriction' to the right to freedom of speech and expression as it interferes with the democratic process of the two-way communication between voters and the candidates.
Which would be fine if they were accurate, as in the US with its two-party system, but in India they get it wrong all the time. The media house that gets the result least wrong declares victory. Part of the problem is that in a democracy where a candidate can win by one vote, there is no scientific way of converting the vote percentage that a survey comes up with into seats. It's all guesswork. Hypothetically, it is possible to get more votes across a state but get less seats than its competitor.
I have seen first-hand in Rajasthan how college students hired to conduct election surveys fill-up the forms themselves. The surveys also tend to have an urban bias — who will trudge through the villages?
Surveys make for good TRPs, because they pander to our base instinct of knowing the future. They keep us hooked in anticipation, like the film [Peepli] Live, where the question 'Will Natha commit suicide or not?' keeps news TV busy.
But is it really the job of the media to tell us who will win? Are journalists astrologers? Shouldn't they instead spend their energies on the real election, go on the ground, get the voter's voice? How long will we have to suffer the pseudoscience of TV studio psephology?
Published in The Express Tribune, August 2nd, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (8)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Hatred for Modi is now houding everything where he thrives most. Future articles may be on negative aspects of Social Media,Urban Voters, Middle Class,Ladies, Business Class,youth,backwards,uppercastes every thing where Modi is being liked.
Rather than banning pre-poll surveys, effort must be made to refine them: make them scientific, and remove urban bias.But surveys communicate a lot to people too.
Author wants a permanent ban on poll surveys. It is like asking for a ban on astrologers, palmists, exorcists, quacks & sundry miracle-men. In a society that loves superstition a hired hack doubling up as a psephologist is just another medicine-man dispensing not only his purchasable wisdom but more importantly, entertainment. He keeps the election fever on & that is easy too considering the election season never gets over: parliament then assembly then municipality then 300,000 village councils & then it is time for By-elections & mid-term & so on & some 3 million electable jobs! And poster makers & crowd hires & music makers & mischief makers and then viewers are glued to TV & that brings in Ad-revenue for the biggest Industry of the Largest Democracy.. And how can it all be without a fortune-telling Gypsy or an Octopus? It is a huge carnival & only a spoilsport will demand a ban on the election-addicts' most natural question: Who will Win? Only the hookkah-smoking hirsute Elders of the Caste Panchayat of UP-Bihar, hidden behind the fungus know better. They negotiate with the likes of a balding fat money-bag of the religio-political Right, from a State in western India. They smile a knowing smile into their moustaches: the deal is struck & the womenfolk & the lads jolly well vote where they are told to vote & may the psephologist fly a kite whichever way he finds "hawa"!..
Shivram Vij is another Javed Naqwi, selective in quoting facts, twisting these to suit his limited definition of warped secularism. Which incidently provides a long rope to minorities - especially Muslims, but runs down the majority - Hindu aspirations.
One did not see Mr. Vij complaining about the 'hawa' when it was blowing in the direction he liked. Like a typical leftist, he looks down on the unwashed masses and does not feel they are capable of separating wheat from chaff, so wise people like himself need to intervene and stop the flow of 'bad' information. SOrry those days of DD and AIr being the only sources of government approved news are long gone. Now it is the days of citizen journalism.
@Apostate
'Leftists like Shivam Vij are equally uncomfortable with it (freedom of speech) as his Islamist friends.'
It will be more correct to say that Shivam Vij and his ilk are Leftist, Islamist, Secular, Liberal, Democratic all rolled into one; if it were possible to have one. Besides he reserves the right to define what 'reasonable restriction' of freedom of speech and expression is.
On reading this I got the impression that you were being condescending towards the common mans ability to judge what is good for him and what is not.
There is something called freedom of speech. Leftists like Shivam Vij are equally uncomfortable with it as his Islamist friends.