Elections Are A Major Institutional Pillar Politics Essay

23 Mar 2015

Disclaimer:
This essay has been written and submitted by students and is not an example of our work. Please click this link to view samples of our professional work witten by our professional essay writers. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of EssayCompany.

Elections are a major institutional pillar of liberal democracy. They are the 'dominant element' of political process as they provide the platform for exercising the basic rights of the people associated with democracy - freedom of speech, association, choice and movement and the like. They also form the individual's rights of participation in the political process. For the masses they are the opportunity to make the political leaders accountable for their stewardship during the time they were in power, as well as subject to their power as the final sovereign of the country. An election is a competition for office based on a formal expression of preferences by a designated body of people at the ballot box. [1] As Yogesh Atal had observed, "elections computes public opinion." [2] Therefore, elections signify the power of the people and provide legitimacy to the authority of the government. On the importance of elections, Norman D. Palmer, has observed:

Elections are particularly conspicuous and revealing aspect of most contemporary political systems. They highlight and dramatize a Political System, bringing its nature into sharp relief, and providing insights into other aspects of the system as a whole… [3] 

Popular elections are at the heart of representative democracy. And, that holding periodic election is the hallmark of representative democracy based on the active interest of the people. The functioning of democracy demands "maximum involvement and participation of the masses in democratic process of the country." [4] These are "the central democratic procedure for selecting and controlling leaders." [5] Elections are episodes of political action during which the preferences of citizens and the conduct of politicians, based on their past agency record and their prospective promises, intersects and interact. [6] In the opinion of Robert A. Dhal, "the election is the central technique for ensuring that government leaders will be relatively responsible to non-leaders." [7] The political class sees elections as an opportunity for renewing their mandate to exercise legitimate power. In this sense, elections constitute a vital bridge linking the masses to the political class. [8] In addition, growing commitment to democratic elections is also an affirmation of a growing popular commitment to the rule of law. [9] Democracy, particularly, its liberal version, may be defined as "a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realms of citizens, acting indirectly through competition and cooperation of their elected representatives." [10] 

In fact, elections in a democratic system of governance provide the voter with a meaningful choice of candidates, and are distinguished by several characteristics, including 'a universal franchise, a secret ballot, the involvement of political parties, contests in every, or almost every, constituency and campaigns regulated by strict and fair rules.' [11] This implies extensive competition for power; highly inclusive citizenship and extensive civil and political liberties. Also, in-between elections, citizens must be able to influence public policy through various non-electoral means like interest - group associations and social movements, which invariably involve cooperation and competition among citizens. [12] 

The use of elections in the modern era dates to the emergence of representative government in Europe and North America since the 17th century. [13] Modern democracies are typically based on representative models in which citizens elect their representatives to govern and frame policies on their behalf. Full democracies are those systems in which there are universal suffrage, regular elections, an independent judiciary, relatively equal access to power for all groups, and extensive civil liberties that are combined with protection for minorities and disadvantaged groups. [14] 

The developments and want for electoral democracy across societies are quite fascinating. Indeed, some twenty-five years ago there were only about thirty-five democracies across the world, most of them being wealthy and industrialized nations, particularly in the West. Today, the number has grown to about 120. Huntington (1999) argues that at least thirty countries turned democracies between 1974 and 1990; [15] while Diamond (1997) takes Freedom House data to show that that the number of democracies increased from 39 in 1974 to 118 in 1996. [16] Consequently, and more precisely, democratic government out-numbered all other governments. Jaggers and Gurr (1995) claim that the proportions of the democracies rose from 27 percent in 1975 to 50 percent in 1994. [17] 

It is assumed by critics that many of the new democracies are being "hollowed out." [18] The effect is the spread of electoral democracy where political parties battle for control of government through comparatively free and fair election; [19] but not liberal democracy with an effective rule of law behind individual and minority freedoms and protections. [20] A claim to liberal democracy may serve to legitimize state authority nearly everywhere, but the reality falls far short of the global triumph of liberal democratic government. The remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy served as the premise of Fukuyama's thesis on "the end of history." [21] Doubts about the quality of new democracies imply that the new democracies may enshrine democratic principles that fail to operate in practice, and that the populations do not therefore enjoy liberal democratic freedoms.

Defining "electoral politics''

Though psephologist and scholars often make use of the term 'electoral politics,' the phrase is, very rarely defined accurately. Still, as term in common political discourse goes, this is, in particular, not vague or elastic. The definition that follows is partly descriptive; that is to say, it is designed to reflect what most people seem to mean when they use the term and to suggest what the term ought to.

The word 'election' is of Latin origin and is derived from the root 'eligere.' 'Election' literary connotes, 'the public choice of person for office.' It may be regarded as "a form of procedure recognized by the rules of an organization, whereby all or some of the members of the organization choose a smaller number of persons or one person to hold office of authority in the organization." [22] According to Webster's dictionary, election means "the act or process of choosing a person for an office, position or membership by voting."

An election, as William B. Munro (1926) writes long ago, "consists of a regular series of events." [23] These events differ from political system to another as provided by the respective legal provisions of that particular system, but always include voter registration, nominations of candidates, seeking access to the electorate, voter's preferences and the like. It is a formal act of collective decision that occurs in a stream of connected antecedent and subsequent behaviour. [24] Elections are the principal mechanism by which the citizens hold government accountable, both retrospectively for their policies and more generally for the manner in which they govern. [25] Hence, it can be said that electoral politics is the study of the political process, involved in the electoral process, ranging from the nomination of candidates to the final outcome of an election and can be conceptualized as a set of activities, in strategic cooperation between numerous participants in the electoral process. This naturally involves the study of campaign strategies (the electoral behaviour), and the mobilisation of resources by political parties and the candidates; the role of youth power, organised groups and influentials.

In simple terms, 'electoral politics' is s "an index of popular consciousness, articulation and participation of the electorate in the decision" [26] of the society. Electoral politics seeks to analyze the major features in the conduct of elections, democratic or otherwise, and the process involved therein to ascertain electorate opinion of a given geographical area. It is through election that political preferences of the electors are expressed and ordered. The process of electoral politics presents the electors with a decision task that requires a particular choice between the contending candidates. Thus it may be said that electoral politics, "is a means of translating the popular will into an elected assembly." [27] But at the same time it must be conceded that elections are "clumsy instruments of choice." [28] In such circumstances, the study of election and electoral system has been "a continuing source of interdisciplinary conflict, largely between political scientists and sociologists." [29] 

The Review of Literature:

There is considerable body of theoretical and empirical literature on elections and its allied discipline, in both the developed and developing democracies, that identifies several functions performed by elections in liberal democracies. A brief history of the literature available so far is examined in the pages that follow:

Scholarly studies of electoral politics have a long and vibrant history. Most works on electoral politics primarily focus on voting behavior. The 1940s saw the birth of scientific use of survey research to examine academic voting research in the study of electoral politics. Under the direction of Paul Lazarsfeld, the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University interviewed a probability sample of Erie County, Ohio, during the Roosevelt-Wilkie presidential race. [30] The findings of the study were published in the book titled "The People Choice." [31] The authors determine why people vote as they do focusing mainly on social groupings, religion, and residence. They argue that people tend to vote with their groups, and to that extent people take longer time to arrive at voting choice. Later, a second panel study conducted by the Columbian School in 1948 provided a more influential book, "Voting." [32] It examines the factors that make people vote the way they do based on the famous Elmira Study, carried out by a team of skilled social scientists during the 1948 presidential campaign. It shows how voting is affected by social class, religious background, family loyalties, local pressure groups, mass communication media, and other factors.

The work of Lazarsfeld and his Columbia colleagues demonstrated the rich potential of election surveys as data for understanding campaigns and elections. The next, and even more important, advance in election studies emerged in the following decade at the University of Michigan. [33] It created the most significant milestone in the whole tenet of electoral research, "The American Voter." [34] It explored the so-called "psychological model," in its study explaining people's political choices; and found out how people voted were mainly their party identification. The work established a baseline for most of the scholarly debate that has followed in the decades since. [35] However, political scientist like V.O. Key [36] attacked this work, in which he famously asserted, "voters are not fools." Key argues against the implications of Campbell et al.'s book, and Converse's later addition, [37] about the ignorance and unreliability of American voters. He analyzed public opinion data and electoral returns to show what he believed to be the rationality of voters' choices as political decisions rather than responses to psychological stimuli. [38] 

In the years that followed, Nie, Verba, & Petrocik [39] presents one of the best treatments on the subject in the form of "The Changing American Voter." It analyzes and evaluates the changes which have taken place since the publication of "The American Voter." The resultant is that electorate has both responded and contributed to the major political shifts of the 60s and 70s; it depicts how and why by citing substantial statistics and figures. However, this argument finds many critics. Among them, Smith [40] posits a more bleak political landscape in which the typical voter knows little about politics is not interested in the political arena and consequently does not participate in it. To support this view, Smith demonstrates how the indices used by Nie, Verba, and Petrocik during the 1960s were methodologically flawed and how a closer examination of supposed changes reveals only superficial and unimportant shifts in the ways voters have approached the ballot box since the 1950s.

Miller and Shanks [41] in their study, presents a comprehensive analysis of American voting patterns from 1952 through the early 1990s, with special emphasis on the 1992 election, based on data collected by the National Election Studies. It also presents a unique social and economic picture of partisanship and participation in the American electoral process. Michael S. Lewis-Beck [42] re-creates the outstanding 1960 classic, The American Voter, by following the same format, theory, and mode of analysis as the original in the form of "The American Voter Revisited." It discovers that voting behaviour has been remarkably consistent over the last half century and quite surprisingly, the contemporary American voter is found to behave politically much like voters of the 1950s.

Across the Atlantic, the study of electoral behaviour was no less momentous. A number of scholars and researcher, alike took up the topic in academic research till date. Butler and Stokes [43] offer an explaination of British voting behaviour since 1945 with greater emphasis on sociological and historical factors and on changes at the macro and elite level. Harrison [44] provide a detailed explanation of how the British political system came to acquire the form it has today by analysing topics such as civil liberties, pressure groups, parliament, elections and the parties, central and local government, cabinet, and monarchy. Birch [45] provides a comprehensive account of British political institutions, of the way in which they operate, and of the society in which they developed. Pugh [46] present an insightful survey of changes in British politics since the election of 1945 and examines Labour Party's evolution into a national rather than sectional party. David Powell [47] examine British politics on the eve of war, the author assesses the impact of war on the parties and the political system and the process of realignment that followed in the interwar period. Hough and Jeffery [48] present a comparative perspective on the new dynamics of electoral competition following devolution to Scotland and Wales. It brings together leading experts on elections, political parties and regional politics from Britain, Europe and North America to explore the dynamics and interactions of national and regional arenas of electoral competition. Johnston and Pattie [49] analyses the dynamics of electoral behaviour into its geographical context. They show how voters and parties are affected by, and in turn influence, both national and local forces.

Kavanagh [50] analyse the methods of political choice and decision-making in electoral democratic institutions. The focus throughout is on key topics of voting behavior, election rules, the media, election pacts, and the consequences of elections. Wolfinger and Rosenstone [51] present an assessment of the sociological, motivational, and political factors that account for variation in electoral participation. Lupia and. Harrop and Miller [52] examine competitive electoral systems as well as non-competitive ones. McCubbins [53] present an impressive treatment of one of the most important issues in democratic theory: the individual's inability to make fully informed decisions. It redefines the research agenda in democratic theory and information and also intends to lay foundations of a new theoretical approach to institutional design

Bendor, Diermeier, Siegel and Ting [54] provides a behavioral theory of elections based on the notion that all actors, that is, both politicians as well as voters are only bounded rationally. The theory constructs formal models of party competition, turnout, and voters' choices of candidates and the like. These models predict substantial turnout levels, voters sorting into parties, and winning parties adopting centrist platforms. Bogdanor & Butler [55] analyses the main electoral systems of modern democracies, and places them in their institutional and historical context.

Diamond and Plattner [56] addresses electoral systems and democracy comparing the experiences of diverse countries, from Latin America to southern Africa, from Uruguay, Japan, and Taiwan to Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq. As the number of democracies has increased around the world, a heated debate has emerged among experts about which system best promotes the consolidation of democracy. Diamond [57] sets forth a distinctive theoretical perspective on democratic evolution and consolidation in the late twentieth century. These include strong political institutions, appropriate institutional designs, decentralization of power, a vibrant civil society, and improved economic and political performance.

Courtney [58] argues that elections are governed by accepted rules and procedures of the political system and it is important for citizens to understand their own electoral system. Sawer [59] presents an edited volume on Australian electoral history providing a broad commentary on continuing democratic challenges. Roberts [60] provides explanations and analysis of the German federal electoral system; discusses the role of electoral politics in relation to political parties and to the public.

Lindberg [61] studies elections as a core institution of liberal democracy in the context of newly democratizing countries. He gathers data from every nationally contested election in Africa from 1989 to 2003, covering 232 elections in 44 countries, argues that democratizing nations learn to become democratic through repeated democratic behavior, even if their elections are often flawed. Cowen & Laakso [62] presents electoral studies of multi-party politics in 14 African countries during the 1990s. Hesseling [63] offers theoretical and historical assessments of election observation and evaluates policies and their implementation in specific case studies. Diamond and Plattner [64] examines the state of progress of democracy in Africa at the end of the 1990s. The past decade's "third wave" of democratization, the contributors argue, has been characterized by retreats as well as advances. Piombo and Nijzik [65] in their edited work give an account of democratic elections in South Africa since April 1994 after her liberation.

Norris [66] analyses whether there are legitimate grounds for concern about public support for democracy world-wide; or are there political, economic, and cultural factors driving the dynamics of support for democratic government. It shows how citizens in contemporary democracies relate to their governments. Later on, Norris [67] focuses on "democratic deficits," reflecting how far the perceived democratic performance of any state diverges from public expectations

Popkin [68] concludes that voters make informed logical choices by analyzing three primary campaigns - Carter in 1976; Bush and Reagan in 1980; and Hart, Mondale, and Jackson in 1984 - to arrive at a new model of the way voters sort through commercials and sound bites to choose a candidate. Powell [69] argues that elections are instrumental in linking the preferences of citizens to the behaviour of policymakers His empirical findings prove that if this is taken as the main function of democratic elections 'the proportional vision and its designs enjoyed a clear advantage over their majoritarian counterparts in using elections as instruments of democracy.' [70] Brennan and Lomasky [71] offer a compelling challenge to the central premises of the prevailing theories of voting behavior. Niemi and Weiberg [72] present collection of essays that explore some of the controversies in the study and understanding of voting behavior. Caplan [73] takes a persistent look at how people who vote under the influence of false beliefs ultimately end up with government that delivers miserable results. LeDuc, Niemi and Norris [74] in their edited volume provide a broad theoretical and comparative understanding of all the key topics associated with the elections including electoral and party systems, voter choice and turnout, campaign communications, and the new politics of direct democracy. Zuckerman [75] in his edited volume uses classic theories to explain individuals' political decisions by a range of political scientists; advances theory and method in the study of political behavior and returns the social logic of politics to the heart of political science.

Cox [76] employs a unified game-theoretic model to study strategic coordination worldwide that relies primarily on constituency-level rather than national aggregate data in testing theoretical propositions about the effects of electoral laws. Norris [77] gives a masterpiece of synthesis, original theorizing, and empirical analysis of an impressively large number and variety of cases. This book looks at public opinion data linking attitudes, party choices, and electoral systems in ways that the game theory literature usually fails to come to grips with. Norris combines institutional and survey data from 32 widely different countries to assess the possibilities and limitations of implanting democracy through institutional engineering. Franklin [78] demonstrate how voter turnout can serve as an indicator of the health of a democracy, and concludes that declining turnout does not necessarily reflect reductions in civic virtue or increases in alienation.

Dalton [79] introduces the reader to the knowledge we have of comparative political behavior, and the implications of these findings. The analyses focus on the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and France in a broad cross-national context. Dalton offers the theory that the "quality" of citizen politics is alive and well whereas the institutions of democracy are in disarray. Further, Dalton [80] documents the erosion of political support in virtually all advanced industrial democracies. It traces the current challenges to democracy owing to changing citizen values and rising expectations. The author finds that these expectations are making governing more difficult, but also fueling demands for political reform.

Prysby and Books [81] examines how and why individual political behavior can be influenced by various contextual characteristics of the locality in which the individual resides, and proposes a conceptual framework to guide future research. Clarke, Sanders, Stewart and Whiteley [82] tests different explanations of why do people vote as they do and why do people vote at all by using current data. The result is essential reading for anyone interested, not just in UK politics, but in how people make choices about politics, voting, and democracy.

Dalton and Wattenberg [83] provides the most comprehensive cross-national study of parties in advanced industrial democracies in all of their forms - in electoral politics, as organizations, and in government. Jarvis [84] examines the language of partisanship and sees how it has affected more than fifty years of American public life, from 1948 to 2004. Jarvis argues that political labels are important because of their symbolic imagery and their ability to encapsulate key themes in public life.

Taylor [85] present eleven separate studies by leading authorities, examines the countries that have conducted multi-party elections since the 1940s and 1950s - Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Singapore. It identifies the common and distinguishing features of electoral politics in the region. Wilson [86] argues that the process of electing governments and replacing them in a peaceful and constitutional manner has characterized Ceylonese politics since 1947. Birnir [87] shows how diversity helps stabilize democracies early on. In the long term, diversity is only destabilizing if ethnic groups are excluded from access to policy rewards. Beng Huat Chua [88] depicts elections as rational affairs in which informed voters select candidates for office according to how their coherently presented aims, ideologies and policies appeal to the self-interest of the electorate and portrays electoral behaviour as a meaningful cultural practice.

The Study of Indian Elections: An Overview

The study of elections in the world's largest democracy is bound to be a challenge in view of the size of the country and its population. As such, Indian national elections have been the largest electoral exercise in the world ever since the first national elections in 1952. The study of electoral politics in India involved not only 'national' level politics but also 'State politics' as it provides an unavoidable attachment to 'all-India' politics. Here, the researcher examines some of the studies as far as the study of electoral politics in India goes.

Studies based on statistical analysis of electoral data, especially those of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, published by the Election Commission of India, began to emerge after mid-1960. Evidently, several election studies were conducted from the first to third general elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies elections. [89] Nevertheless, these studies were either short analyses or reports of the overall political process. In the 1967 general elections, there were a number of studies of such kind. [90] From the 1967 general elections, the quantity of studies began to rise, and the quality of analyses got enhanced. Accordingly, more sophisticated studies emerged that were based on survey data using statistical methods.

Dastur [91] present a collection of papers sponsored by the Research Programes Committee of the Planning Commission with coverage over major parts of the country in respect of elections in India. Sirsikar [92] studied the Poona Lok Sabha constituency in the 1967 election using a questionnaire survey of 913 people based on the study of the 1962 Lok Sabha election. The study is a full-length behavioural enquiry into the electoral process in India, with new orientations. It is an enquiry into political behaviour of candidates, campaign workers, urban and rural voters and the elite voters-all the elements which constitute the electoral process. Kini [93] studied the election in Nagpur during the 4th General Elections in 1967 using data collected from interviews of 281 people. He found various important psychological processes through analysis of the detailed questionnaire. Eldersveld and Ahmed [94] present an empirical analysis of Indian mass political behaviour based on the first ever national sample survey of the Indian electorate, conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi in collaboration with the universities of Michigan and California. In a landmark volume published in 1995 by Butler, Lahiri and Roy [95] the authors had made a strong statement in favour of psephology, even while acknowledging its limits: 'This book … offers the 'What?' of the electoral record; it does not deal with the 'Why?'' [96] 

Singh and Saxena [97] take a close look at the Lok Sabha Elections of 1996, 1998 and 1999 and showed why election had become so frequent since 1989. Roy and Wallace [98] analyses the 1998 General Election in India, and provides comparative data on previous elections; explores changes in the party system; emphasizes the importance of regionalism; and considers the role of social factors such as caste, ethnicity and religion as influences in voting behaviour. Shastri, Suri and Yadav [99] brings to light - three general and 19 state-specific essays using the data generated by the National Election Study (NES) 2004 to arrive at what the editors call "an evidence-based understanding of the Indian voter." Many of the State-specific essays have been written, in the light of the post-2004 changes and trends of the electoral process. The verdict signifies a radical shift in the social basis of political power. [100] Roy and Wallace [101] provide an excellent analysis of elections in India, highlighting the emerging trends in Indian politics by synthesizing the intricate conceptual details with analytical sophistication and empirical finding focusing on the elections of 2004. Aggarwal and Chowdhry [102] discusses the 1996 General Elections, the biggest ever witnessed by any country, to elect the 11th Lok Sabha and also provide encyclopedic information on all the eleven Lok Sabha elections held so far with main focuses on the 1996 polls. Chhibber [103] explains why religious and caste-based political parties come to dominate the electoral landscape in 1990s. Dikshit [104] work on the Punjab Legislative Assembly elections for the period before 1980 provided an interesting analysis of turnout and votes for Congress in relation to the variables of social development, reservation, and linguistic and religious factors. Punia [105] presents a study of emerging trends and changing patterns of electoral politics in Punjab from 1967 to 2007 by providing an analysis of party manifestos, electoral issues, party performance and changes in support base of major political parties in the state.

Almost all the studies of politics in India after Independence seem to touch upon the elections. Of course, all studies cannot be reviewed. However, in this section, some characteristic studies that analyse Indian politics on the basis of electoral data will be examined. Kothari [106] present a comprehensive treatment of the Indian political system examined from different vantage points and drawing together the contribution of various disciplines into a common framework. Brass [107] provides a brief but complete systematic study of the major political, cultural, and economic changes and crises in India focussing on the consequences of the centralizing drives and tendencies of the national leadership of the country to create a strong state, a unified nation, and a dynamic economy, all of which have been placed in serious doubt in recent years. Hardgrave and Kochanek [108] discuss India's political and economic development, its experiences with democracy, its foreign policy, and its institutional structure. Weiner, Varshney and Almond [109] address important themes in Indian politics dealing with political parties and democratic politics; ethnic politics; and political economy. Deb [110] attempts to understand the development of democratic polity in India covering a wide range of issues theoretical concepts, political institutions, federalism, electoral process, individual and group rights, and mass media.

Atul Kohli [111] brings together some of the world's leading scholars of Indian politics to consider how has democracy taken root in India in the face of a low-income economy, widespread poverty, illiteracy, and immense ethnic diversity. They do so by focusing, not so much on socio-economic factors, but rather on the ways in which power is distributed in India. Ganguly, Diamond, and Plattner [112] examines the state of India's economy, society, and politics, providing illuminating insights into the past accomplishments and continuing challenges of Indian democracy. Brass [113] presents a classic study both of the politics of language and religion in India and of ethnic and nationalist movements in general. Roy [114] makes a genuine attempt for an in-depth study of all aspects of the elections - electoral behaviour, caste politics, regional influences, defections, etc. which usually are the very basis of the battle of ballot. Wilkinson [115] demonstrates why some state governments in India prevent Hindu-Muslim riots while others do not or even help to incite violence. Wilkinson asserts that riots are manipulated to help win elections, and that state governments decide whether to stop them--depending on electoral calculations concerning the loss or gain of votes. He tests this claim using a dataset on riots and their causes as well as case studies of several Indian states. Sission and Roy [116] discuss the growing evidence of low or declining public confidence in parties, and shows that political parties are now only one of many vehicles for the representation of interests, but they remain essential for recruiting leaders, structuring electoral choice, and organizing government.

Alam [117] explores the working of democracy in India beneath the play of caste and communal politics, and the threats of institutional collapse, sees democracy acquiring a firm basis within Indian society. He shows what the voting patterns tell us about the links between regional voices and national unity, between the politics of community and the idea of citizenship, between the commitments of the poor and the apathy of the rich. Chander [118] presents an in-depth study of coalition government experiments in India, with particular reference to the coalition politics at the Centre as well as in the states of Kerala and West Bengal. Thakurta and Raghuraman [119] convincingly dismiss the view that India's polity is essentially bipolar, led by either of the two largest parties - the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress Party - and that other political parties have no option but to choose which of these two they will align themselves with. The authors take the view that coalition governments are in fact better equipped to deal with the tensions of a divided society while single-party governments tend to both centralise and homogenise. Mehra, Khanna and Kueck [120] provide an incisive and comprehensive analysis of the far-reaching changes in both party systems and electoral behaviour that have occurred since the end of the twentieth century.

Vora and Palshikar [121] brings together a contemporary understanding of Indian politics by scholars of diverse intellectual pursuits covering a large range of issues such as secularism, caste, Hindutva, party electoral stability and social movements and it also bends empirical studies on Indian politics with theorization of critical issues in contemporary political processes. Kohli [122] analyzes political change in India from the late 1960s to the late 1980s. Based on research conducted at the local, state and national level, the author analyzes the changing patterns of authority in and between the center and periphery. He combines rich empirical investigation, extensive interviews and theoretical perspectives in developing a detailed explanation of the growing crisis of governance his research reveals.

Kothari [123] makes a powerful critique of prevailing democratic theory and practice in a changing global as well as Indian context and concludes that democracy has failed to achieve its objective of human emancipation and survives merely as a dream. Field, Frankel, Katzenstein, and Weiner [124] present how national electoral trends intersect with regional variations, and the way in which specific categories of local constituencies are influenced by the state in which they are located. Chandra [125] makes an important contribution to our understanding of ethnicity in politics by highlighting the interaction of group size and internal party rules. Chhibber and Noorudin [126] found that increasing competitive in the 1990's was a result of the emergence of two-party competition.

The Election Studies: The Manipur Experience

The study of elections in Manipur as an academic discourse is of recent origin. There is hardly any authoritative text on the topic. However, of late, there has been an increase interest among scholars and researchers alike in its study.

A. Prafullokumar Singh [127] 

R.P. Singh [128] analyses the political behaviour in Manipur, and with an equally fascinating politics, in the light of its ecological setting in the fifth general elections held in 1972. It also surveys previous elections and also briefly touches up to three post 1972 elections in order to give a broad based picture of the political situation in the state.

John Parratt [129] gives an account of cultural renaissance and political awakening and the challenges of the colonial rule in Manipur. He argues that British rule was mainly responsible for the growth of democratic institution and created an atmosphere among the people to rise against feudalism. He, also points out that the circumstances in which Manipur was annexed into the Indian Union was mainly responsible for the growth of insurgencies, subsequently resulting in the militarization of the state.

Abu Nasar Saied Ahmed, Kh. Elizabeth Devi, Maqbul Ali & Ratna Bhuyan, Omeo Kumar Das [130] gives an account of the history of election politics, narrates as well as analyze the profiles of all the elections ever held in Manipur with a special emphasis on 2007 state assembly election which delivered a decisive mandate for change; change for development and stability, which had been unclear for 40 years. It presents an eloquent assessment of the political economy of the state which has bearing on the political process of the state. It outlines the important issues which needed adequate attention of the contestant and parties, highlights the alliances that some of the political parties forged, focus on the nature of election campaign, magnitude of pre and post election poll violence; and analyze the poll result as well. The conclusion puts forward a philosophical interpretation of electoral politics in Manipur which could be relevant to any insurgency affected state in the Indian Union.

Oinam Shyam Singh [131] explores political attitude and political behaviour in Bishnupur district of Manipur emphasizing on the socio-economic and political life of the people in the district. Salam Sanatomba Singh [132] gives an account of how voters cast their vote by analyzing the various ways by which voters reach their voting decision, its timing, and factors determining their vote choice. Md. Abdul Salam [133] discusses political participation of the Muslim voters in Manipur arguing whether they participate in the electoral process as "good actors or not; whether communalism does exist or not." It deals with wide ranges of issues faced by muslims in Manipur. Maibam Suresh Singh [134] makes a modest attempt to analyse assembly elections in Manipur in the light of socio-political aspect prevailing in the state. Reemila Devi Shagolshem [135] gives a systematic account of the nature of political participation prevailing in Nambol assembly constituency of Manipur with emphasis on voting turnout taken as major indicator. It also analyses the electoral behaviour of the constituency.

Khangjrakpam Gourachandra Singh [136] studies political development in Manipur through elections, voting behaviour and formation of government both under British colonial rule and after independence. Laishram Banita Devi [137] gives an account of the important aspects of election study and electoral performances of major political parties, their campaigns and mobilization and their result. Laishram Nandini Devi [138] attempts to analyse the evolution of electoral politics in Manipur, significance of the election manifesto, interpretation of the election result while focusing on the Eleventh General Elections to Lok Sabha of Inner Manipur Parliamentary Constituency.

Ng. Ngalengnam [139] 

The various study made so far, make an attempt towards analyzing the state of electoral politics but a detailed examination of the topic in Manipur that primarily focuses on particular constituency remains still unexplored till date.

Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to explore the nature of electoral politics and to examine certain unanswered questions so far. The questions which this research intends to answer are the following:

What electoral politics is prevailed in the Constituency?

What specific role do electorates play during the election?

What are the factors which influences the voters during elections?

Do elected candidates fulfill the wishes of the people?

Does the process of electoral politics reflect the liberal principles of democracy?

This research makes a modest attempt to examine the above questions and other related questions which may arise during the course of analysis or are present yet gone unnoticed. The examination of these questions makes the research relevant as it shall makes us better understanding of the nature of electoral politics in the constituency under study, in particular and of the state of Manipur, in general.

Methodology of the Study

This research, therefore, shall analyse the nature of electoral politics in the constituency. For the purpose, it takes into consideration specific research methods and sources of materials. The methodology adopted for the study is historical-cum-analytical.

The various sources of materials to be used for the study can be presented in the following ways: the primary sources of the study include - Manipur Gazette Extra Ordinary, 1972-2007; Records of the Chief Election Office, Imphal, etc. Among the secondary sources, relevant books on the topic including journals, periodicals, etc., are used.

In addition, a questionnaire

I will here use Yadav's definition of this particular method:

… a technique of data gathering in which a sample of respondents is asked questions about their political preferences and beliefs to draw conclusions about political opinions, attitudes and behavior of a wider population of citizens [140] 

Hypothesis

Introduction to the field site

Significance of the study:

Elections in democratic societies are generally viewed as the primary tool to solicit and evaluate citizen preferences over policy matters and to hold representatives accountable. By indirectly and directly engaging citizens in the policy-making process, elections can engender feelings of efficacy and encourage other forms of political participation. [141] The importance of the study of elections as a means to understand the political processes is well recognised all over the world. As Norman Palmer [142] (1975) pointed out, the study of elections provides an opportunity to study the political system in action. They played a central role in mobilizing people into the political process, crystallising public opinion on a host of issues, institutional functioning and styles of leadership, and in the emergence and recruitment of a new political elite.

So far, India has seen 13 Parliamentary elections and an almost equal number of Legislative Assembly elections in each State. It is indeed a great experiment in consolidating and operating democracy in a large and ancient country like India, trying to stand on its own feet after nearly two centuries of colonial rule. For a country with relatively little experience of struggle for parliamentary democracy and franchise, afflicted by congenital defects and constrained by social problems, it was no mean achievement of its people, as they still attempt to resolve their problems in a democratic and peaceful way, that elections could take place at regular intervals, parties in government could be changed without violence, power could be transferred peacefully to new sets of leaders, political parties could transform themselves from the era of mass politics of the freedom struggle to competitive politics, and a government based on law with an assurance of basic freedoms to the people was made possible.



Request Removal

If you are the real writer of this essay and no longer want to have the essay published on the our website then please click on the link below to send us request removal:

Request the removal of this essay
Get in Touch With us

Get in touch with our dedicated team to discuss about your requirements in detail. We are here to help you our best in any way. If you are unsure about what you exactly need, please complete the short enquiry form below and we will get back to you with quote as soon as possible.