Democracy As A Term And A Concept Politics Essay

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015

Democracy as a term and a concept has long been an object of debate in society, not least amongst philosophers, researchers and public debaters. The term originates in the Greek word 'demokratia' that simply translates into rule by the people, but to define what that really stands for is more complicated. Hence, there is not only one understanding of the word or one understanding of who will be included in the term 'the people' or what 'the rule' comprises (Held 1987). By and large democracy is a form of government in which people are governed by their own elected representatives. It is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. In this system of government, it is the people who are supreme and sovereign. They control the government. They are free to elect a government of their own choice. Freedom of choice is the core of democracy.

Democracy therefore, in Schumpeter's view, is simply a way for the people to elect or reject the rulers, not a system where people in general have an influence on the decisions made. Democracy in this sense becomes an institutionalized power competition between elites (Grugel 2002). India is a federal state with parliamentary system of democracy. General election in India was held for first time in 1952, from the time being India had a stable political scenario with 1975 to 1977 as exception when national emergency being declared as rise of other parties other than congress was seen.

Indian state is the largest democracy in the world. The Constitution of Indian was enforced on 26 January, 1950. It ushered in the age of democracy. India became a democratic republic infused with the spirit of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. The Preamble, the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Rights reflect the Indian ideology as well as the caste, creed, religion, property, or sexes have the right to cast their vote. Parliamentary democracy in India is much hailed. India is said to be the biggest democracy in the world. Democracy is a form of government in which people are governed by their own elected representatives. It is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. In this system of government, it is the people who are supreme and sovereign. They control the government. They are free to elect a government of their own choice. Freedom of choice is the core of democracy. Political parties are the vehicles of ideas. Parties act as the bridge between social thought and political decision in democracy. The past more than half a century proved this democracy to be sham. The Indian politics system is a multiparty system. However, gradually politics has become a game of opportunism and corruption. Most political parties are only interested in coming to power. Every party adopts different caste politics. Some try to influence the people through caste politics. Some try to raise the religious sentiments of the people. The Indian ideology today is replaced by caste and religion. We enjoy every right in theory, but not in practice. Real democracy will come into being only when the masses are awakened and take part in the economic and political life of the country. For a democracy to be fully successful, the electorate should be literate about the politically conscious. They should be fully aware of their rights and privileges.

Analyzing the idea of democracy of Ambedkar in details, it can be found out that Ambedkar had unshakeable faith in democracy. In his conception of exploitation less society, democracy has an extra-ordinary role which he defined as 'one person, one vote'; and 'one vote, one value'. Democracy means empowerment of any person for participating in the process of decision-making relating to her/him, democracy means liberty, equality and fraternity - Ambedkar's definition of democracy had such a tone. Because he presided over making of the Constitution and is being projected as its chief architect, there is a misunderstanding that parliamentary democracy is what he wanted. But nothing could be farther from the truth than this. He himself spoke against parliamentary democracy. He defined parliamentary democracy as "voting by the people in favour of their owners and handing over the rights of ruling over themselves" (Ray and Ray 2011). This provides a glance of the span of his ideal, which certainly was much beyond the Indian Constitution or any common place understanding about him. His conception of democracy appears to be purely people oriented. He showed that the bookish concepts of equality are detrimental to the disabled sections of society in the prevailing social setting and proposed a fundamental change in the concept of equality. It envisaged complete abolition of inequality. His principle of positive discrimination is based on this very concept of equality. But the operational aspects of this concept involved the need for some kind of autonomous institution, which was met by 'State' and 'religion'. Dr. Ambedkar firmly believed that political democracy cannot thrive without social and economic democracy. In his concept of democracy, he opined that political democracy is not an end in itself, but the most powerful means to achieve the social and economic ideals in society. State socialism within the framework of parliamentary democracy can conquer dictatorship. Fundamental rights without economic security are of no use to the have-nots. He was against coercive centralized institutional authority that Hobbesian Philosophy maintains. Related life is consensual expression of shared experience, aspirations and values. If a small section of the society is allowed to maneuver the cultured symbols of the society that process becomes undemocratic and destructive. It is necessary to stress that his greatness lies in the radicalism of his conceptions, his vision of a human society sans any kind of exploitation; not in the remedies or apparatus he proposed in the circumstances prevailing in his time. Thus, Ambedkarism is of great relevance to Indian society even today in obtaining social justice, elimination of untouchability, in establishing equality and freedom and true democracy. Democratic socialism is the key note of his political thought and constitutionalism is the only way to achieve it.(Ray and Ray 2011)

A broader, but still minimalistic view of democracy is Robert Dahl's concept of polyarchy. Meaning that democracy is a utopian idea we can never reach, he defines the current democratic states as polyarchies. (Dahl 1971) Dahl sets up eight criteria that constitute a democracy/polyarchy:

'(1) Freedom to form and join organisations; (2) Freedom of expression; (3) Right to vote; (4) Eligibility for public office; (5) Right of political leaders to compete for support [...] [and]votes; (6) alternative sources of information; (7) Free and fair elections; (8) Institutions for making government policies depend on votes and other expressions of preference'. (Dahl 1971)

The important role of civil society within a democratic state is described by Hadenius and Uggla. They argue that civil society has two main functions in democratic states: to develop pluralism in society and educate the people in the ways of democracy. Pluralism in society, were people are engaged together, create and endorse power bases, as people working together have a better opportunity to influence. This can affect the political discourse in the country. A pluralistic civil society will also prevent undemocratic behavior like oppression and discrimination through its nature of communication between different social groups (Hadenius and Uggla 1995). In the real sense of democracy each vote is an absolute power given to voters and he/she can exercise it to be benefitted by sending the right people to the parliament who in turn will make several people friendly legislations to help voters to lead better life and better opportunities. The real power of vote in an ideal democracy will be seen only when people voted for the right person or party depending upon their choices only and should only be based upon the belief that whomsoever he/she s voting will benefit them in long term. However with increasing cases of high profile corruption and misuse of powers in the Indian federal states by its lawmakers, there seem to be the rise of obvious question that if people are voting right people to power then why these cases are emerging? Or the people not voting for the right person? Or there is a lack of talent pool in the system which is not allowing people to vote for the right candidate?

The poor numerically dominate the electorate in many low-income democracies, yet have been largely unable to translate their political weight into effective service delivery and other economic gains (Mauro 1995; Hall and Jones 1999; United Nations Development Programme 2002). What constrains the electoral accountability of politicians in these settings? Explanations abound. Ethnicity-based clientelism may cause poor voters to value the politicians' group identity (Horowitz 1985; Chandra 2004) and consequently have only a weak preference for electing honest politicians (Banerjee and Pande 2009). Alternatively, weak electoral institutions {ballot stuffng, vote buying, voter intimidation {may make it possible for the dominant elites to subvert democracy (Acemoglu et al. 2001; Simpser, 2008). Another possibility is that voters are unable to identify politicians who would serve them well, either because they lack the information or because they are unable to interpret the available information. This study highlights the fundamental difficulties in the electoral system where the profile of the candidate becomes secondary as compared to other factors as seen in India today. At the time of independence majority of Indian people were illiterate and the concept of democracy was evolving and experimental in nature. The concept of that "democracy flourished mainly in the countries where the people were more educated and the industrial revolution has caused a more or less rise in income" is not true in context of India. In the context of India its augmented that majority of the people are illiterate and due to this they don't vote according to candidate profile or as per se for good candidates. But in current scenario in politics sees that more than 75% people are literate, still the number of corrupt politicians increases day by day form past where we don't have high literacy rate in India. Thereby, the democracy didn't do much good in India. This study hence is a step to focus on the importance of candidate profile for determining the voting pattern of the voters. This study will help in generating questions such as whether voters know their candidates or not? Whether there is any relation between good candidate profile and votes? Whether today the common man or the voter is exercising its right to vote in the manner intended in real democracy i.e. by understanding the candidate and his/her promises and casting vote without any prejudice and biasness? Whether we need an alternative political system or not?

This study will be hence focusing on voters itself. We see in the parliamentary democracy system that there are election at many levels from union level i.e. Member of Parliament to village level i.e. gram Panchayat level. The level of effect of candidate profile in this level also varies significantly and higher the level of the election the more the gap between the candidate and voters can be seen. The candidate at village level is more accessible to the voters and he/she is known by majority of the voters personally also but as the level grows higher the candidate seems to get distant from voters and only a few knows their candidate personally and also their objectives. In such scenario the voters are bound to get influenced by cast, creed, money power, party etc. Although with all its merits the democracy fails if the unit member of democracy i.e. the citizen fails to utilize its vote to proper effect. This can be seen in many ways such as not voting at all or voting for the wrong candidate. One of the main concerns raised by the public on wrong candidate selection is that they don't get the right candidate to vote for. This study will also highlights whether we need alternate political form of practice and rights as right to recall. This paper will hence also seek out if right candidate is given to the public whether they will vote for them or not. Harda has been chosen for the same purpose as this town of Madhya Pradesh has an independent candidate who is associated with social activist and is fighting for elections from past many years but couldn't succeed. The people of constituency are happy with the work she is doing but are unwilling to give their support as votes.

In recent past India experienced the "Anna andolan" and people concern over corrupt politics. People talked about the alternative for current political system, and formed an "Aam Adami party" as "good Party", but chances are very grim for candidates of this party to win because there are different unfolded factors which determine the voting behavior of people. The idea behind the research originated from this question itself. If the people have a sense that political class is corrupt and their representatives are not doing their real duty then what is the reason they are selecting those same individual when they have the opportunity to vote those corrupt people out of power. The topic was also chosen mainly because in India although many election studies have been done by various academicians not many have attempted to know the motivation factor behind the voting for a particular candidate by the voters. All the studies from the Indian perspective either are concerned with statistics or focuses on one section of the society such as dalits or Muslims. The research on voting behavior is quite common in western literature but not in India.

This study therefore focuses to find out the reasons for voting behavior by the voters. The research is an exploratory research. Exploratory research is a form of research conducted for a problem that has not been clearly defined. Exploratory research helps determine the best research design, data collection method and selection of subjects. The idea behind the topic is to have a new insight in the problem of understanding the various factors affecting the voting behavior. This research will also explain the various factors involved in deciding voting for a particular candidate and relevance of candidate profile in voting behavior. Mix methodology is used so that it can bring out enrich data and further it leads to in depth understanding on topic. Research tools which are used are focused group discussion, key informant interview and questionnaire to get respondents give their feedback effectively.

Contextualizing the study

Political situation is grim and people are coming up with alternative of good people in politics. But would be very good candidate profile bring success in election? Or are there compelling reasons to analyze the complex interplay of socio, political and cultural factors that can throw light on the issue of electoral success.

Various researches undertaken by the psephologists have exposed a vacuum, pointing towards the need to probe deeper into the process by which the electoral decisions are influenced. Psephologists have been more concerned with the pre poll summary and exit poll; with their chief interest in 'what" than "how" of the electoral results. In the current political scenario there is the vast vacuum created by the hopelessness of the established political parties and this vacuum offers scope for alternative political option. However despite the desperation the new political alternative offered by new comers the result shows otherwise. There is total disappointment as far as success to the candidate with attractive profile. Though it is not new that voting behavior involves inter plays a numbers of extraneous factors. However probe into the link between candidate profile and decision making on voting behavior promises an exposer into the less studied area of work in electoral studies. It is most common excuse with voters that they are hopeless and under-motivated to participate in the process of election because they do not have any promising candidate.

This study was prompted by the fact that the Harda constituency had a candidate who have been fighting peoples battles for last many years, though not belonging to established political party having unlimited recourses, but to a newly established political option created.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

During the time of independence India took on democracy as chosen form of government. The idea of democracy was still at young stage in west and Indian leaders preferred to this without thinking much for it. The Indian masses were illiterate and poor who didn't understood the meaning of democracy and neither the institutions associated with it. Neither had he understood the rights given nor the responsibilities. The masses however were more concerned with their two square meal rather than understanding the importance of good representatives in the democratic system. This was not the question with the west where the democracy only originated after the states have become industrialised therefore giving its people sufficient resources to think of other things rather than two square meal. As Ashutosh varshney suggest that in the West, tensions in democracy have remained moderate for at least three reasons: universal suffrage came to most Western democracies only after the Industrial Revolution, which meant that the poor got the right to vote only after those societies had become relatively rich; a welfare state has attended to the needs of low-income segments of the population; and the educated and the wealthy have tended to vote more than the poor. The Indian experience is different on all three counts. India adopted universal suffrage at the time of independence, long before the transition to a modern industrialized economy began. The country does not have an extensive welfare system, although it has made a greater effort to create one of late (Varshney 2007).

As far as democracy in India is concerned what was a developing idea in 1947 has now become a failed idea; its failure now being directly felt by citizen's in the last two decades. Now, the failure here doesn't refers to failure of whole democracy itself but the basic nature of the democracy which was ought to be a governance model "by the people, for the people and of the people". The distance between the candidate and the voters in the past few years have been on increase and the idea is ably put by Yogendra yadav in his article alternative politics that the agenda of political reform in India has to be different from the challenge in the advanced industrial democracies, for our problem is not demobilisation and slowing down of democracy (contra Unger's diagnosis of western democracies).

At the same time, unlike other new democracies of the Third World, India does not face the challenge of democratic transition or consolidation. The problems in Indian democracy are not the result of a failure of the modern idea of democracy to take roots in an alien setting. Rather we are faced with problems arising out of an apparent success of the democratic experiment. The people accepted the democratic invitation and over the years popular political participation has only gone up. The last decade has seen something of a democratic upsurge. Popular participation is not devoid of a sense of legitimacy and efficacy of the democratic system. The elections are free and fair in the minimal sense that the rulers are not assured of a return to power; they are at least more free and fair than in most Third World democracies. Yet the existence of this democracy does not deliver what democracies are supposed to: peoples' control over how collective decisions affecting their lives are arrived at. The real failure of the current phase of Indian democracy is not the failure to hold free and fair elections, nor the inability of the people to affect change in governments through the exercise of their free vote, but the growing distortion in the mechanism of political representation, the growing distance between the electors and the elected, the inability of the mechanism of competitive politics to serve as a means of exercising effective policy options. Clearly, the institutional frame of democracy has failed to translate popular participation and enthusiasm into a set of desirable consequences.

Voting Behavior

Vote is the power given under democracy in the hands of common person and is a wheel of change if used properly. Voting is the main form of political participation in liberal democratic nations and the study of voting behaviour is a highly specialized sub-field within political science. According to J.C. Plano and Riggs, "Voting Behaviour is a field of study concerned with the ways in which people tend to vote in public election and the reasons why they vote as they do."

Voting behaviour hence is a field of study which mainly focuses on finding the reasons and rationale behind the choices made by the voter. The analysis of voting patterns focuses on the determinants of why people vote as they do and how they arrive at the decisions they make. Sociologists tend to look to the socio-economic determinants of support for political parties, observing the correlations between class, occupation, ethnicity, sex, age and vote; political scientists have concentrated on the influence of political factors such as issues, political programmes, electoral campaigns, and the popularity of party leaders on voting behaviour.

According to J.C. Plano and Riggs, "Voting Behaviour is a field of study concerned with the ways in which people tend to vote in public election and the reasons why they vote as they do."

The study of voting behaviour is a common practice in western academia, the decision making process is sometimes compared to that of buying decision. The study of voting behaviour in India was not directed towards the voters itself but was more or less confined to finding out the failure and success of the democratic institutions. As D L Sheth; 1970 suggests that in India theoretical and empirical studies of India's party and political system have being receiving increasing attention. By and large, however, these studies are confined to a characterisation of, or controversy about, the structure of the system; they deal much less with the elements that support such a structure, may change it, or indeed undermine it. One of the most obvious of these elements is the changing pattern of behaviour, opinions and attitudes of voters, not simply as a functional attribute of the prevailing structure, but as an independent variable that has a causal significance for the structure itself. Although so obvious an item of investigation, voter behaviour and Voter development have by and large been ignored in political analysis.

He also points out that indeed, studies of voting behaviour carried out so far have underplayed the voter himself as an independent determinant, and have instead viewed voters' behaviour as some sort of conditioned response to existing structures and the environmental forces operating at the level of his immediate locality. This is evident from the image of the Indian voter projected by political and anthropological studies and endorsed by political activists. Despite a steady increase in voter turnout and despite frequent shifts in electoral support for the parties, especially at the constituency level, the notion of herd behaviour of the Indian electorate still persists. It is an image of a voter for whom voting is a ritual or at best an act of fulfilling extra-political obligations. While voting, he is not only unaware of the political implications of his act but is supposed to be unconcerned and innocent of the fact that he is involved in an act of choice. Political reality is something quite external to his universe of perceptions and evaluations. If he changes his party support from one election to another, he is not guided by any political or civic considerations, but is only responding to a change in factional arrangement within political parties at the local level or to the exhortations of 'middle men' who are in command of 'vote banks'.

Operating on such an image of a voter, political parties and activists put a premium on the mechanics of electioneering rather than on critical issues, policy choices and problems of governmental performance. They would rather depend on local 'bosses' and 'miracle men' of the polls than be concerned about patient cultivation of support, based on a record of work. Relying on 'vote banks' and 'bargainers' who are supposed to control these 'vote banks', they tend to extend the system of patronage and spoils. The voters, in turn, come to interpret elections as providing an opportunity occurring at regular intervals to extract individual and group benefits. The maxim that "in democracy the people get the system they deserve" thus also becomes applicable in reverse. This sets the vicious circle going, in which the relationship between a representative and a citizen becomes one of that between an 'advancer" and a 'blackmailer'. The rules of the game are assiduously observed, but the game played no longer remains one in which they ostensibly believe they are in. The Indian scholar Johri observes a vote is the right to express one's choice or opinion, especially by officially marking a paper or by raising one's hand. Voting behaviour is a set of attitudes and beliefs towards election at the national as well as at the local level. The voting behaviour of India is influenced by its local culture.

In Voting Behaviour in rural and urban areas of Punjab; Journal of Political Studies Dr. Mughees Ahmed points out that Biradari seems to be stronger than political fidelity as far as motivations for voting behaviour are concerned. Two elements are required for the victory of a candidate; one is the ticket of a major political party and the other is the favour of a major Biradari. Individualism in voting behaviour does not exist in the voting system in the politics of rural areas comparatively more than in the urban areas. The tendency of voter is limited to major political parties or to major biradaries. Political scientists believe that political parties and pressure groups are necessary for democracy. Generally in Pakistan and especially in Punjab biradaries are playing the role of pressure groups and providing a contesting atmosphere which is necessary for democracy. The better level of education and political awareness will reduce the power of discouraging elements of biradarism. Biradarism as a racial or group prejudice should be discouraged. Political parties assure an individual citizen that his general interests will be safeguarded with minimum of personal involvement and if the need arises, the citizens would participate actively. However in Punjab the same is ensured by groups and biradaries. Speaking in a South Asian context, no doubt, societies are multi-lingual and multi-cultural and pluralism has been a hallmark of India throughout the ages. However, pluralism must be neutral in essence: it should not be allowed to work as leverage for resource allocation. Biradarism is more acute in rural and less in urban areas. It has worked as a source of alignment and realignment in the electoral process and resource allocation on such considerations. Smith; 1997 suggest that the voter goes through decision making process similar to those of buyer or consumer in his choice of candidate or political party. In voting behaviour, choice is often influenced by familiarity with the candidate, or sometimes the level of trust in the candidate and/or his political party. There are however, many conscious and unconscious reasons underlying why people vote the way they do. Some of these reasons are rational while others are emotional. The split between the two is called the "emotional/rational dichotomy".

The idea of alignment of the voter to ethnic group is also a factor which exists in India as suggested by the success of ethnic parties in recent times. Limited information about politician quality provides a rationale for this; Ethnic networks provide informal insurance and enable information flows (Habyarimana et al. 2007; Miguel and Gugerty 2005). Furthermore, a politician's ethnic identity is often a good predictor of redistributive preferences (Pande 2004; Besley et al. 2007). All else being equal, both reasons will cause voters to favor politicians belonging to their own ethnicity and this will provide the party that represents the majority ethnic group with an electoral advantage. This may, in turn, reduce elections to a mere 'counting of heads' and lessen the role of elections as a source of accountability (Horowitz 1985). Consistent with this hypothesis (Norris and Mattes 2003; Posner et al. 2010) report a significant electoral advantage for the party representing the ethnic majority in Sub Saharan Africa

Theories On Voting Behavior

Voting behaviour study in India has not been done with the voters in mind but several other factors as the institutions involved in the process, ethnicity etc. therefore it becomes imperative to look towards models developed in western worlds. Voting is the simplest form of political participation and therefore the most common way for citizens to take part in the political process in democracies.

Voting is a phenomena that most citizens can relate to and therefore opinions about voting and motives for voting, including motives for choice of party/candidate, are as various as the population investigated. Also, in democratic countries elections are held regularly and there is a cumulative set of data available to study tendencies in voting behaviour. This has made research on voting behaviour immense (H Catt, 1996). The easy management of large sets of data through computer programmes has facilitated statistical research on voting behaviour. Within the European context, a strong correlation between ethnicity and election outcomes was observed during the first part of the 20th century (P Norris & R Mattes,2003). The research at the time showed that fluctuating party loyalties was not widespread. The common view amongst researchers on voting behaviour was that voters who changed loyalty in between elections where uninformed and uninterested in politics. In the late 1960's new research showed that class alone could not explain voting behaviour, considering the increasingly common phenomena of people both voting outside their social standing and changing their party identification between elections. In order to explain this behaviour, research on the subject started to change and the scope broadened.

Theoretical Approaches To Voting Behaviour

One basic thought within the research on voting behaviour, historically as well as today, is that voter's loyalty to a large extent follows group identity patterns. Many different factors can function as a base for group identities. Ethnicity, language, religion and social standing are all determinants for what group identity individuals will have. It is important to note that group identity is not primarily determined by actual characteristics but by the view of society as divided into different entities. This includes the specific group's internal view of themselves as a separate entity, as well as society's external view of the group as a separate entity.

Ethnic vote is a concept within the theoretical views on voting behaviour where group identity and ethnicity are looked upon as basic motives for choice of party/candidate. Another approach is loyalty vote. When a voter identifies with a specific political party and votes for that party as a sign of support for the party, rather than a will to affect the orientation of the present politics, this is referred to as loyalty voting in the theoretical literature. In this concept lies that the voter repeatedly votes for the same party, no matter if the party performs well or if the politics of the party affects personal circumstances. Voting out of loyalty for the party, no matter what, and voting for a party because the voter identifies with that party ideologically is different types of motivation. Another factor that is commonly used to explain voting behaviour is pocket-book voting. This is assumed to be based on a rational consideration, were the voter chooses the party/candidate he/she finds will give the most economic profit and personal advantages. Within this concept it is also assumed that you vote against candidates and parties that will work against these profits and advantages. It is difficult to determine motivation behind pocket-book voting because voting for one's self-economic interest depends on where you believe your interests lies.

The sociotropic vote is not a theory explaining differences in motivation compared to pocket-book voters - the motivation for a sociotropic vote can also be that a prosperous nation in the end will benefit the individual. The differences lie in the information. The pocket-book voter looks upon their own economic situation, whereas the sociotropic voter looks upon information about the economics of the country. The sociotropic vote is a theory based on the idea of voting as an expression of altruism rather than pure self interest. In the book Voting Behaviour: A Radical Critique Catt refers to the fact that not all voting is based on support for the candidate one votes for. She claims that most research on voting behaviour has been based on voting as a positive act and ignored the possibility of voting as an act against something else. For example a vote can be an expression of discontent. In this case the vote can be considered a protest vote - a vote for one party in order to protest against another. The reason can be that the dissatisfaction on a specific issue with the party normally preferred is greater than the real consent with the party voted for instead. This type of voting goes against the idea of voting as a rational behaviour in two ways. Firstly, a single vote will not send a clear message to the party the voter wants to punish. Secondly, it is not rational to vote against the preferred party based on dissatisfaction on one single issue.

Catt also refers to tactical voting as a sign of non supportive voting. This is similar to vote in protest, but is more applicable in systems with more than two parties/candidates. A tactical vote is when a voter votes for another candidate/party than the one the voter prefers.

Other important factors

The factors above all derive from theoretical literature on voting behaviour. As previously mentioned, these ideas are mostly drawn from European and North American experiences. However, there can be other factors added to those mentioned above that can influence the voting behaviour in a developing country like India. Below, two factors have been selected as an example of this: patron-client relations and politics of intimidation.

Patron-client relations are built on personal contacts used in an informal way in order to achieve benefits you otherwise would not have had. Every patron-client relation is unique, but the type of relation referred to has some shared characteristic. Eisenstaedt and Roninger claims that a patron-client relation is always unequal were the patron has more power than the clients. Within a patron-client relation, assets are being traded that could not have been traded without the relation. Relations of this kind normally have a feature of loyalty and reciprocity. Politics of intimidation can be seen as the use of muscle power or to use undue social pressure to garner votes.

Spatial and Rational Models of Vote Choice

Although the socio psychological approach is prominent in voting studies, a second important approach to the study of vote choice is rooted in work that considers spatial competition (Hotelling 1929). The work of Downs (1957) and Black (1958) brought the idea of spatial competition into the political realm by arguing that it is possible to understand voter behaviour on the basis of preferences and spatial distances from political alternatives (candidates or parties). This strand of literature, also known as proximity voting, assumes that all actors (voters and parties/candidates) are motivated by their own self-interests to develop preferences for their political options. Specifically, the spatial model of voting assumes that a voter's policy preferences can be understood in a dimensional space - each dimension representing a different policy issue.

The directional theory of voting incorporates ideas from theories of symbolic politics to elaborate on the basic spatial model. Rabinowitz and Macdonald (1989) point out that people react to issues in terms of both the direction of the stance taken and the intensity of the stance. Thus, a candidate who takes a more extreme stance in a voter's preferred direction may be preferred over a candidate with a moderate stance. Macdonald, Listhaug, and Rabinowitz (1991) found that this model was more appropriate than the simple proximity model for evaluating voter behaviour in multiparty systems. Another strand of rational voting theory also originates in expectations expressed in Downs (1957). Downs recognizes that all party options are not equally likely - even though a party may be very close to one's ideal policy points, it might have no chance of winning either a seat or the election as a whole. In such a scenario, a voter may realize that casting a sincere ballot for his or her most preferred party is unlikely to affect the outcome of the election. A voter is left with two options: cast a strategic vote or abstain from voting altogether. Strategic voting can be defined as voting for a candidate other than one's first preference, when the chances of one's first preference winning in the election are slight, to prevent another candidate from winning.

MODELS OF VOTING BEHAVIOUR

We should for the sake of this research take in consideration models which are proposed for analysing voting behaviour. The models mainly focus on elections in western democracy and thereby have very less resemblance with the Indian scenario. We however should study these models so as to relate it with the Indian scenario wherever necessary. Models are, in general, sets of principles that describe fundamental entities as well as the functional relationships between them (Chandler 1988:26-27). Such models may provide frameworks (Chandler 1988:27) that can also be used for analysis. There are various models of voting behaviour that were designed for the purposes of illustrating or representing different kinds of voting behaviour, and even though they will be discussed in separate sections, it is important to note that they are not isolated from one another, and in many cases interrelated, linked or overlapped. To illustrate the possible links between the different models of voting behaviour, one can refer to a diagram called the Funnel of Causality used by Wolf (2010) that came from The American Voter (Campbell et al 1960).

C:\Documents and Settings\user\Desktop\Voting22.jpgFig. 1 The Funnel of Causality

This diagram illustrated the voting process as starting from party identification (which stems from early socialisation and parental upbringing), progressing to certain stances on issues and portrayed images of candidates. Voters are socialised and learn certain things from their parents, however, when studying the surveys, students were asked to indicate with whom they discuss politics and elections, and thus other (later) socialising agents include friends, other family members, and fellow-students. This is where models such as the Sociological Model and Michigan Model fit in. Thereafter, party identification forms (linking up with the Party Identification Model). From there, according to the diagram used by Wolf (2010), certain stances on issues are taken and images of candidates are formed in the minds of voters. These images can also come from the media as well as from further socialisation. The Media/Dominant Ideology Model fits here where images are portrayed and formed in the minds of voters. Then further stances on issues are formulated. Thus, throughout their lives there are various long-term and short-term influences on political behaviour. When it comes to the act of voting, these long-term as well as short-term factors contribute towards the voting decision. Furthermore, to a certain extent, rational decision-making also plays a part, which is where the Rational Choice Model fits in. These different models of voting behaviour will be discussed in the following subsections. Their main characteristics or arguments will be presented, criticised and, where possible, compared to other models of voting behaviour.

SOCIOLOGICAL MODEL

The Sociological Model is based on social determinants rather than attitudes as the main influence on voting (Catt 1996:8). Accordingly, the type of education, housing, transport and healthcare a person consumes will affect their views on the role of the government (Catt 1996:8). Furthermore, this approach also stresses the group membership of the voter and gives prominence to a voter's social characteristics which include social class, religion, size of community, regional or ethnic loyalties and the age, language and gender of the voter (Ball & Peters 2005:175; Goldberg 1966:922; Brooks et al 2006:89); Erdmann 2007:19). According to Brooks et al (2006:89) once established, these social "cleavages" provide the basis for "political conflict expressed through the ballot box". In other words, this model holds that one's social position and circumstances will ultimately determine one's voting behaviour.

Heywood (2002:243) agrees with the authors above by adding that the Sociological Model links voting behaviour to group membership, and suggesting that voters tend to assume a voting pattern that reflects the social and economic position or circumstances of the group to which they belong. This model, thus, emphasises the group membership of a voter and views social characteristics such as those mentioned earlier as determining voter behaviour (Schoeman & Puttergill 2007:155). In other words, one's priorities will depend on one's social circumstances or group membership, and hence one's vote will be in favour of the party focusing on the same priorities. As for religion as an indicator, these cleavages have been regarded as providing a very important "social-structural source of voter alignments" (Brooks et al 2006:92). However, even though viewed as a significant indicator, a decline in its impact has been noted (Ball & Peters 2005:178; Brooks et al 2006:92). This reduction on the impact of religious identity on voting behaviour is brought on by general secularization linked with economic growth as well as increasing social differentiation in societies (Brooks et al 2006:92). The Indian scenario is full of instances where people have opted for a particular candidate or party which in turn is said to be representing the particular religion of the voter's in question. The alignment of Muslims with congress during early stage of advent of BJP and Janta party is a fact to support this theory.

As for language, Ball and Peters (2005:179) also stated that in some cases majority parties are distinguished along ethnic and linguistic lines. In this case voters are more inclined to vote for those political parties who share ethnic and linguistic characteristics, most possibly because they will be able to understand each other's cultures and needs better. With reference to age, Ball and Peters (2005:178) state it as too complex a variable in explaining voting behaviour. They illustrate this by stating that older people have a tendency to vote for conservative parties, but one has to take care that this tendency is not partly a result of predominance of women, among older voters as a consequence of demographic trends (Ball & Peters 2005:179). Thus, it might not be true that older people vote more conservatively but rather that older women do, etc. As for gender, there are some gaps between the political party support of male and female voters. For example, a growing gender gap has been observed where female voters in the United States and the Scandinavian social democratic welfare states, tend to be more supportive of Left parties than their male counterparts (Brooks et al 2006:93). These changing political alignments may come from employment, and Brooks et al (2006:93) attempted to explain this with two broad interpretations namely that: Firstly, women are more likely to be employed within the public sector and thus also more supportive of political parties that favour government employment or growth; and Secondly, employed women are possibly more dependent on welfare state programmes that support work and childcare.

As researchers increasingly after the 1960s began looking to more proximate cognitive, economic and cultural, ideological or partisanship factors in developing models of political behaviour, the sociological model began to wane (Brooks et al 2006:89), and received heavy criticism and dismissal. Furthermore, according to Brooks et al (2006:90) voters increasingly make their political choices independently from social group identities or memberships. According to Brooks et al (2006:89; 90; 113) no evidence was found for a universal decline in the relevance of the Sociological Model. When compared to other models of voting behaviour, some analysts used social groups and sociological characteristics as indicators and variables in their studies (Goldberg 1966:916; Abramowitz & Saunders 2006:182). In examining voting behaviour and determining early socialisation (linked with the Michigan Model discussed later), Goldberg (1966:915; 916) used sociological characteristics in his study on voting behaviour, and furthermore he states that adult sociological characteristics also play a role in Party Identification . Linking further with the Party Identification Model, Miller (1991:560) used social groups such as gender, region and race in order to determine levels of party identification. Abramowitz and Saunders (2006:182) did the same by stating that party identification is largely based on membership in social groups, and by also dividing these groups according to race, gender, religion etc. Thus, the Sociological Model is not only still relevant as a model of voting behaviour, but it can also be linked with other models of voting behaviour, as will also be seen in the following sub-sections.

MICHIGAN MODEL

The Michigan Model was developed at the University of Michigan and focuses on long-term patterns of partisanship (Catt 1996:5). According to this model, social location is regarded as the determining factor of who voters interact with and which political party they will support (Catt 1996:5). This model is based on findings that suggested a lack of election-specific influences, and instead an attachment to parties wherein voters tended to vote as they always had and as their families also had (Catt 1996:5). Elcock (1976:220) explains this attachment to political parties as being caused by the inheritance of a partisan self-image. Consequently citizens develop stable participation and partisan orientations that provide them with standing decisions both for turnout and for choice (Darmofal & Nardulli 2010:260). Early socialisation happens as children first match with their family and thereafter with the population at large, including teachers and role models (Bisin & Verdier 2000:10), and even though parents are mostly altruistic they still perceive the welfare of their children through their own "filters", and thus parents transmit their own preferences (Bisin & Verdier 2000:6). Long-term patterns of partisanship are subsequently developed. According to Wolak (2009:573) partisanship is a very powerful influence on individuals' perceptions of politics and one's identification with a political party then strongly informs choices during campaigns. Furthermore, when citizens' levels of information are low, they use their partisanship as a "decision heuristic" to "fill in the blanks" (Wolak 2009:573). When, however, new information is received, partisanship causes a bias in the interpretation thereof (Wolak 2009:573).

According to Chandler (1988:28-29) the Michigan Model is based on five general principles namely: (1) The fundamental entities are political attitudes, individual psychological states, beliefs, expectations and values which determine individual vote choice; (2) Political attitudes can be distinguished from other causes of an individual's vote choice which are outside of the model; (3) Information regarding political attitudes are mostly obtained by survey research and public opinion polls; (4) Statistical techniques allow researchers to determine causal relationship holding between variables; (5) the Michigan Model is fully universal, i.e. when exogenous variables are excluded, the model reveals the patterns in the attitudes of electorates which determine the results of competitive elections at all times and in all societies. The Michigan Model also places an emphasis on habituation to both participation and vote choice (Darmofal & Nardulli 2010:260). Within the Michigan Model, similar to partisanship, non-participation is also viewed as carrying a habitual component, because a citizen may "incorporate either voting or nonvoting as part of his normal behaviour" (Darmofal & Nardulli 2010:260). Just as the habitual preference for a particular political party may, during periods of political or economic crisis, be rejected, so may the previous habit of non-participation. Thus, past non-participation does not prevent citizens from recognising consequences of national crises and becoming active voters in response (Darmofal & Nardulli 2010:260).

Furthermore, some adolescents are more inclined to challenging their parents and would also challenge their political views and party identification - these individuals are more likely to change their partisan preferences during a campaign (Wolak2009:576). As children age, they increasingly encounter political messages from other sources (such as political campaigns, peers and the news media), and as they navigate this new information environment, the potential for partisan change emerges (Wolak 2009:581). This model can in many ways be linked to the Sociological Model in that socialization plays a significant role in the formation of long-term patterns of partisanship. However, whereas the Sociological Model focuses on social determinants instead of attitudes, the Michigan Model goes further in regarding social location and partisanship as determining factors of which voters interact with and how they will eventually vote - i.e. the nature of their developed long-term partisanship. Furthermore, the Michigan Model can also be linked to the Party Identification Model as well as the Rational Choice Model. In fact, Chandler (1988:30; 32) included both the Party Identification Model (which he calls the Partisan Model) as well as the Rational Choice Model (which Chandler calls the Retrospective Voting Model) as sub-models of the Michigan Model. But, despite these difficulties, Chandler (1988:34) still considers the Michigan Model to be able to encompass both the Party Identification Model as well as the Rational Choice Model, which is yet another example of how the various models of voting behaviour can overlap. Voters are able to make judgments in the face of these crises and subsequently adjust their partisan affiliations and voting behaviour accordingly, and these evaluative capacities of voters are thus not hindered by deeply rooted partisan affiliations (Darmofal & Nardulli 2010:260). Through this, electoral accountability is enhanced (Darmofal & Nardulli 2010:260). Linking the Michigan Model with the Party Identification Model, individual evaluations and aggregate partisanship may shift for a variety of reasons, including new issues (such as economic and political crises) and old issues that may cause new divisions and preferences (Franklin & Jackson 1983:968). Partisanship is much broader than party identification (Miller 1991:557; 559). Partisanship is acquired through the process of early socialisation while party identification is based on preferences of one political party over others - with the focus on party identification.

PARTY IDENTIFICATION MODEL

This model is the most relevant to the Indian context as people are less educated and are poor in economic terms therefore alignment on the party line becomes more or less a compulsion. This can be seen by the fact that people voted congress party as their party because their forefathers fought for independence with that party. Similarly the case of communist party India (Marxist) rule in west Bengal can also be explained on this model. According to the Party Identification Model, voters vote primarily out of long-term loyalty to a particular political party (Ball & Peters 2005:172). Heywood (2002:242) further adds that, according to the Party Identification Model, voters are regarded as people who identify with political parties and are long-term supporters who consider a party to be "their party" and thus voting becomes, as stated by Catt (1996:5), a manifestation of partisanship. Political parties are thus the focus and voters are distinguished by the party with which they identify, if any, and the intensity of their attachment or "loyalty" to that party (Kovenock & Robertson 2008:277). Party Identification is also one of the most enduring concepts used by electoral analysts (Sanders 2003:260) and a significant body of research using other models of voting behaviour incorporates party identification.

According to Franklin and Jackson (1983:957) party identification allows individuals to "know" more about persons and policies associated with political parties and the stability of party identification suggests that the sense of party identification is not easily modified. However, once they are provided with new information, voters will re evaluate their party preferences (Franklin & Jackson 1983:958). But in the case of stronger identification, the individual is more likely to assume positions on matters that are in line with those of the party and to see the party as promoting policies that he or she favors; this in turn will result in a very "consistent-appearing voter" (Franklin & Jackson 1983:969). Political parties also seek to find ways to strengthen loyalties and party identification (Wolf 2010:93). Four claims are made about the Party Identification Model (see Green et al 2002 as cited in Abramowitz & Saunders 2006:175) namely: (1) Party Identification is more stable at both aggregate and individual level than suggested by recent scholarship; (2) Voters' party loyalties are largely insulated from the effects of current issues such as the state of the economy and performance of the president; (3) Party loyalties exercise a powerful influence on citizens' issue positions, evaluations of political leaders, and voting decisions; (4) Party Identification is based mainly on identification with social groups rather than evaluation of the parties' ideological orientations or policies. These claims are in conflict with the Rational Choice Model as the Rational Choice Model claims that individual voters evaluate the performance of political parties and base their decisions on rational consideration.

While considering the Party Identification Model, another question presents itself, namely where core political values fit in. In other words, whether or not this model allows for the influences of core political values, or if core political values are largely influenced by party identification. This question becomes relevant when one further asks the question as to why someone identifies with a certain political party. Certainly there must be an extent to which the political party also appeals to the voter's current political values. Goren (2005:881) explored the relationship between party identification and core political values, where, according to him, party identification represents some kind of loyalty to a certain political party, while core political values represent "abstract, prescriptive beliefs" regarding society. According to Goren (2005:217) citizens rely on both partisanship and core principles to inform their votes and to guide their evaluations of public officials in order to construct policy preferences. Core principles include equal opportunities, traditional family values and limited government, which, according to Goren (2005:217), have a relationship with party identification. Furthermore, since core political principles are mostly developed during the initial stages of the adult life cycle, and again strengthened by the wider political culture, they should prevail over time and not be easily influenced by short-term political forces (Goren 2005:882). Party identification and political values can thus be considered as central and semi-permanent predispositions in the whole political belief systems of voters, though it is not clear as to how these two constructs are related (Goren 2005:883). Lister (2007:24) further adds that norms can influence individual behaviour, particularly when they are affiliated with the collective or "joint sphere", and that norms are partly created and sustained by institutions. Lister further states that social norms suggest what is considered to be appropriate action or behaviour, and in so doing, they lead individuals to behave in certain ways (Lister 2007:25). This is where voting behaviour fits in: Individuals will identify with and prefer political parties who appeal to their political values, and thus their voting behaviour will be accordingly. However, party identification appears to not determine value positions, but it does seem to mould them (Goren 2005:894). Thus, the parties with which citizens identify can subtly alter citizen's core political values, even though identification with parties does not appear to determine value positions. Votes based on loyalty are not necessarily cast rationally and this can be regarded as a weakness of this model which is always a strong case in India where in a party symbol generally regarded as a tool to win election and several people with criminal background people are contesting and winning election. A possible reason for this may be that the Party Identification Model is an older model of which the relevance may decline due to the mass amount of information that have become increasingly accessible to voters over the years. Voters can thus 'widen' their political and general knowledge and this can have a further influence on their voting behaviour.

However, party identification is still a very prominent determinant of votes in some cases. Party identification is also important as it is well-established and has substantial correlation with voting behaviour (Goldberg 1966:915). However, considering that party identification is well-established does not mean that it is fixed. According to Franklin and Jackson (1983) party identification is subject to change, as individual preference change, assuming fixed party positions, or as a consequence of shifts in the party positions, if individual preferences are stable, or both. Party Identification is more than the result of early socialisation, as it also encompasses a person's accumulated evaluations from previous elections, and depends on the events and actions of political leaders during these elections and during subsequent terms in office (Franklin & Jackson 1983:968). Each campaign leaves an "imprint" on the individual identification and the drive for change comes from shifts in people's perceived party proximities relative to their own preferences (Franklin & Jackson 1983:968). As can also be seen above, one can notice a link between this model and the Sociological Model and Michigan Model in that early socialisation and partisanship play a significant role in voting behaviour. Compared to the Michigan Model, political partisanship is the accumulation of one's experiences with and evaluations of politics and party identification can be considered a cause and consequence of such political evaluations (Weinshenk 2010). Moreover, linked with the Sociological Model, Abramowitz and Saunders (2006:182) claims that party identification can be based on membership of social groups where citizens choose a party identification based on their perception of the fit between their own social characteristics and the social characteristics of supporters. The four claims mentioned earlier, that were cited in Abramowitz and Saunders (2006:175), challenge rational choice in that it is not a deliberate choice based on a preference for one set of policy positions over another. Whereas the Rational Choice Model considers voters as rational beings who base their voting decisions on rational considerations, the Party Identification Model claims that voting decisions are based on party loyalties and the influence of identification.

MEDIA/DOMINANT IDEOLOGY MODEL

Media forms the perception of masses and in India with large coverage of media and mushroomed news channels this models becomes very important. Another determining factor of voting behaviour is the media and the role it plays in informing citizens and forming opinions. Ball & Peters (2005:180) rightly states that the role of the mass media, particularly that of television, is a factor of increasing importance in the determination of election results. Citizens rely on the media for information about politicians and their conduct (Ladd 2010). Furthermore, news media play a central role in democratic governance by, amongst others, shaping political opinions and electoral preferences (Ladd 2010).

Images and texts in the mass media are often used to form the public's views on political leaders, parties etc. (Grabe 2009). By exposing their audiences to certain texts conveying messages about political leaders, government performances political conduct etc., and doing this on a regular basis, certain images are mentally constructed in the minds of the recipients, which can lead to political opinions being formed and political support decided and expressed accordingly. Although sometimes this can backfire as people may feel the message to be superficial. We should consider the backfiring of the strategy of BJP in 2004 general election where the "India Rising" media campaign was played but didn't led into BJP returning to power. When it comes to voting and elections, the media provide most of the information used by the electorate (Stromberg 2004:265). Furthermore, media messages affect voting preferences through providing political information and direct persuasion, although creative research designs or unusual historical circumstances are necessary to attain that evidence (Ladd 2010). When greater attention is given to politics in the mass media, particularly the print media, political knowledge increases (Jankowski and Strate 1995:91). It is also important to note that there is a difference between "newspaper competition" and "political competition" in that newspapers target certain groups while in a political competition there is "no bias towards large groups" (Stromberg 2004:271). Newspapers want to "attract the largest group". Furthermore, the media may have a significant effect on policy without changing either public opinion or voting behaviour. The reason for this is that politicians respond at the same time and in a similar way to changes in media coverage, keeping voting contentions constant (Stromberg 2004:271).

Some authors, however, state that the popularity of the press has increasingly decreased (Ladd 2010), and there is little agreement on how important the effects of the mass media really are in individual electoral behaviour (Ball & Pet