Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Tuesday 15 November 2022
Friday 23 September 2022
Friday 26 August 2022
Sunday 22 May 2022
Monday 4 April 2022
Monday 17 January 2022
Boris Johnson is Britain's most honest politician
Bagehot in The Economist
Boris Johnson lies often and easily. It is the hallmark of his career. He was fired from his first job, at the Times, for fabricating a quote. As a condition of becoming editor of the Spectator he promised not to stand as an mp, and then promptly did just that. As a shadow minister, he was fired by Michael Howard for lying about an affair. (He later divorced after a few more.) While mayor of London, he said numerous times that he would not stand in the 2015 election, only to turn up as a candidate in Uxbridge.
Lying about attending a garden party at Downing Street in May 2020, at the height of lockdown, is just the latest in a very long list. When public anger grew, mps protested with all the sincerity of Captain Renault entering a gambling den in Casablanca. Douglas Ross, a Scottish mp who voted for the prime minister in the Conservative leadership election, labelled the prime minister’s position “untenable” and demanded he quit. Why did such defenders of truth once back a man they knew to be an enthusiastic liar? Because Mr Johnson is, in his own way, a man of his word.
When he was drumming up support for his bid for party leader, his pitch was simple: back me, keep your seat, defeat Jeremy Corbyn and do Brexit. And it all came true. Mr Corbyn was crushed and the biggest Conservative majority in three decades followed. In that election Mr Johnson promised two big things and did both. The nhs would be showered with cash, which it has been. And he would do a deal with the eu, which he did.
It was not a good deal, but it was quick and it was clear. Coming after a negotiation with the eu that lacked both speed and simplicity, it is little surprise that voters jumped at it. Mr Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, had obfuscated, attempting legalistic contortions to avoid Brexit’s brutal simplicities. Labour’s Brexit position was, in the words of one shadow cabinet minister, “bollocks”. Mr Johnson’s deal hobbles British business for little or no gain, beyond a point of principle. But it is, no more and no less, what he said he would do.
Political lying was not invented by Mr Johnson in the Brexit campaign, comforting though that idea might be. Indeed, the misleading claims of the Leave campaign sometimes revealed awkward truths. When it pointed out that Turkey was in the long process of joining the eu, for example, Remainers cried foul because other countries were likely to block its accession. Yet David Cameron could have promised to veto Turkish membership of the eu, and did not. Turkey joining the club was a long-standing British policy.
In politics, integrity is almost inevitably followed by hypocrisy. Politicians with firm moral centres can crack. Gordon Brown was feted as a son of the manse while hurling handsets at people’s heads. Tony Blair runs an institute dedicated to openness while accepting money from despots. Sir Keir Starmer stood for Labour leader by pitching himself as Mr Corbyn in a suit, and then ditched the leftiest proposals once he had won. Mr Johnson, by contrast, does not even pretend to be a family man, despite having a few of them. He has not pretended to be anything but a power-hungry cynic either. A lack of integrity becomes a form of integrity.
A competent administrator never lurked beneath that mop of thinning hair. Occasionally, a journalist has claimed otherwise in a breathless profile; Mr Johnson has not. Those who work closely with him cannot say they were fooled into thinking he was a loyal boss. His time as prime minister has been marked by the defenestration of aides. When trouble strikes Mr Johnson, deputy heads roll. Being a civil servant rather than a political appointee offers no protection. Those who help him out, for example by chipping in for new curtains in Number 10 to keep his new wife happy, end up enmeshed in scandal.
No one can claim they were not warned about Mr Johnson. He is in no sense a mystery. He is the subject of several biographies and for the past three decades has shared his views about the world in newspaper columns and articles. If he is ever silenced by ministerial responsibility, a high-profile relative can fill the gap with more Johnson trivia. Throughout his career he has left a trail of giggling journalistic colleagues with a cherished Boris story to be whipped out on special occasions, no matter how long ago or dull. The content of his character was known and yet people still saw fit to put him in power.
If voters are souring on Mr Johnson, they only have themselves to blame. The prime minister is not a monarch. In 2019 he won 43.6% of the vote, the biggest share since Margaret Thatcher. Mr Johnson is in Downing Street because just under half the country ticked a box next to a Conservative’s name. Voters are adults. They knew what they were voting for, and they voted for what they got.
It is common to blame the rise of Mr Johnson on “Have I Got News For You”, a bbc1 news quiz on which he was a frequent guest. Ian Hislop, one of the team captains, has a tart reply: “If we ask someone on and people like them, that is up to people.” Mr Johnson is not a boil that can be lanced, at which point Britain’s body politic will recover. British politics, its systems and culture, deteriorated to the point where an honest liar proved attractive. Mr Johnson benefited from chaos created by others.
Boris Johnson lies often and easily. It is the hallmark of his career. He was fired from his first job, at the Times, for fabricating a quote. As a condition of becoming editor of the Spectator he promised not to stand as an mp, and then promptly did just that. As a shadow minister, he was fired by Michael Howard for lying about an affair. (He later divorced after a few more.) While mayor of London, he said numerous times that he would not stand in the 2015 election, only to turn up as a candidate in Uxbridge.
Lying about attending a garden party at Downing Street in May 2020, at the height of lockdown, is just the latest in a very long list. When public anger grew, mps protested with all the sincerity of Captain Renault entering a gambling den in Casablanca. Douglas Ross, a Scottish mp who voted for the prime minister in the Conservative leadership election, labelled the prime minister’s position “untenable” and demanded he quit. Why did such defenders of truth once back a man they knew to be an enthusiastic liar? Because Mr Johnson is, in his own way, a man of his word.
When he was drumming up support for his bid for party leader, his pitch was simple: back me, keep your seat, defeat Jeremy Corbyn and do Brexit. And it all came true. Mr Corbyn was crushed and the biggest Conservative majority in three decades followed. In that election Mr Johnson promised two big things and did both. The nhs would be showered with cash, which it has been. And he would do a deal with the eu, which he did.
It was not a good deal, but it was quick and it was clear. Coming after a negotiation with the eu that lacked both speed and simplicity, it is little surprise that voters jumped at it. Mr Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, had obfuscated, attempting legalistic contortions to avoid Brexit’s brutal simplicities. Labour’s Brexit position was, in the words of one shadow cabinet minister, “bollocks”. Mr Johnson’s deal hobbles British business for little or no gain, beyond a point of principle. But it is, no more and no less, what he said he would do.
Political lying was not invented by Mr Johnson in the Brexit campaign, comforting though that idea might be. Indeed, the misleading claims of the Leave campaign sometimes revealed awkward truths. When it pointed out that Turkey was in the long process of joining the eu, for example, Remainers cried foul because other countries were likely to block its accession. Yet David Cameron could have promised to veto Turkish membership of the eu, and did not. Turkey joining the club was a long-standing British policy.
In politics, integrity is almost inevitably followed by hypocrisy. Politicians with firm moral centres can crack. Gordon Brown was feted as a son of the manse while hurling handsets at people’s heads. Tony Blair runs an institute dedicated to openness while accepting money from despots. Sir Keir Starmer stood for Labour leader by pitching himself as Mr Corbyn in a suit, and then ditched the leftiest proposals once he had won. Mr Johnson, by contrast, does not even pretend to be a family man, despite having a few of them. He has not pretended to be anything but a power-hungry cynic either. A lack of integrity becomes a form of integrity.
A competent administrator never lurked beneath that mop of thinning hair. Occasionally, a journalist has claimed otherwise in a breathless profile; Mr Johnson has not. Those who work closely with him cannot say they were fooled into thinking he was a loyal boss. His time as prime minister has been marked by the defenestration of aides. When trouble strikes Mr Johnson, deputy heads roll. Being a civil servant rather than a political appointee offers no protection. Those who help him out, for example by chipping in for new curtains in Number 10 to keep his new wife happy, end up enmeshed in scandal.
No one can claim they were not warned about Mr Johnson. He is in no sense a mystery. He is the subject of several biographies and for the past three decades has shared his views about the world in newspaper columns and articles. If he is ever silenced by ministerial responsibility, a high-profile relative can fill the gap with more Johnson trivia. Throughout his career he has left a trail of giggling journalistic colleagues with a cherished Boris story to be whipped out on special occasions, no matter how long ago or dull. The content of his character was known and yet people still saw fit to put him in power.
If voters are souring on Mr Johnson, they only have themselves to blame. The prime minister is not a monarch. In 2019 he won 43.6% of the vote, the biggest share since Margaret Thatcher. Mr Johnson is in Downing Street because just under half the country ticked a box next to a Conservative’s name. Voters are adults. They knew what they were voting for, and they voted for what they got.
It is common to blame the rise of Mr Johnson on “Have I Got News For You”, a bbc1 news quiz on which he was a frequent guest. Ian Hislop, one of the team captains, has a tart reply: “If we ask someone on and people like them, that is up to people.” Mr Johnson is not a boil that can be lanced, at which point Britain’s body politic will recover. British politics, its systems and culture, deteriorated to the point where an honest liar proved attractive. Mr Johnson benefited from chaos created by others.
Small lies, big truths
Those mps who helped put Mr Johnson in power must now decide whether to sack him for sins he has never hidden. Their choice will be made by calculating whether their voters still want him. Popularity was all that he promised, and he delivered it—until now. If his rise is depressing, his potential fall offers a glimmer of hope. British voters have, at last, begun to grow tired of Mr Johnson’s record of honest lies. A less cynical politics may prosper and populism become unpopular. But optimism should be tempered. mps would not hesitate to keep Mr Johnson if he, in turn, helped them keep their seats. If those who put the prime minister in power bring him down, they do so to absolve themselves.
Those mps who helped put Mr Johnson in power must now decide whether to sack him for sins he has never hidden. Their choice will be made by calculating whether their voters still want him. Popularity was all that he promised, and he delivered it—until now. If his rise is depressing, his potential fall offers a glimmer of hope. British voters have, at last, begun to grow tired of Mr Johnson’s record of honest lies. A less cynical politics may prosper and populism become unpopular. But optimism should be tempered. mps would not hesitate to keep Mr Johnson if he, in turn, helped them keep their seats. If those who put the prime minister in power bring him down, they do so to absolve themselves.
Tuesday 4 January 2022
Tuesday 27 July 2021
Saturday 1 May 2021
Saturday 10 October 2020
Monday 1 June 2020
Donald Trump and the spectre of a race-based US election
Edward Luce in The Financial Times
The novelist William Faulkner said: “The past is not dead. It is not even past.” The past 72 hours of burning US cities triggered parallels with 1968 — a year of urban white flight that ended with the election of Richard Nixon. He won on a law-and-order platform that appealed implicitly to white anxiety. Donald Trump does not deal in implicit language. In response to protests in Minneapolis after the police suffocation last week of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, Mr Trump tweeted: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”. The line was used by George Wallace, the segregationist third-party candidate in 1968. Republicans launched the “southern strategy” to win over resentful white Democrats after the civil rights revolution. Mr Trump’s 2016 campaign was the apotheosis of that approach.
But history offers little clue as to whether a sitting president can profit from the same manipulation. The stark brutality of Floyd’s killing — and the fact that his eight-minute suffocation was captured on video — has curbed Mr Trump’s ability to portray the police as victims. He has veered between threats of deploying the military to quell the protests and appeals for calm. Mr Trump’s record suggests he will not be able to resist the temptation to incite. It worked for him once. America’s Black Lives Matter movement took off in Barack Obama’s second term just as Mr Trump was weighing up his presidential bid. “White lives matter” and “Blue lives matter” banners festooned his rallies.
But can he pull off the same feat from the White House? That will depend on how America defines the protests. Wildly different narratives can be built from the harrowing range of video clips over the past few days. Some show white police officers brutally attacking peaceful black and white marchers. Others show cops marching in solidarity with them. Then there are the scenes of looting and burning. Mr Trump claims that most of the Minneapolis protesters are far-left radicals. Anti-Semitic memes claiming that financier George Soros is funding an army of Antifa (anti-fascist) militants have spread. Russian bots have helped disseminate the conspiracy theory. The Trump administration has picked up that thread. In a televised statement Bill Barr, the US attorney-general, said the protests were “planned, organised and driven by anarchic and far-left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics”. Without evidence, Mr Trump said 80 per cent of the Minneapolis protesters were from out of state. On Sunday, he tweeted that he would designate Antifa as a “terrorist organisation”.
America now faces the spectre of a long summer of unrest, with a president stoking the polarisation. It comes amid a pandemic that has disproportionately claimed minority lives in the most densely populated areas of urban America. Floyd’s dying words — “I can’t breathe” — serve as a metaphor for a society choking on its increasingly toxic politics. The alternative narrative advanced by Joe Biden, Mr Trump’s opponent, is that America is crying out to be healed. Mr Biden promises to “restore America’s soul”. If recent polls are any guide, Mr Biden’s message is hitting home. A Washington Post/ABC poll gave him a 53 per cent to 43 per cent lead over Mr Trump.
But that snapshot was taken mostly before the protests had spread to other cities. Harking back to America’s better angels, as invoked by Abraham Lincoln, Mr Biden’s message has historic appeal. But nations do not possess souls. They have competing ideas of themselves. Mr Biden wants to restore the US to where it was before Mr Trump was elected — a multicultural society with its first non-white president. Mr Trump makes little disguise of conjuring a pre-civil rights America where white males held uncontested sway. He will blame Mr Obama, China, radical leftists and “thugs” for America’s unhappy condition — anybody, in other words, but himself. It is hard to imagine a more dystopian backdrop for the world’s most powerful democracy to settle on its future.
The novelist William Faulkner said: “The past is not dead. It is not even past.” The past 72 hours of burning US cities triggered parallels with 1968 — a year of urban white flight that ended with the election of Richard Nixon. He won on a law-and-order platform that appealed implicitly to white anxiety. Donald Trump does not deal in implicit language. In response to protests in Minneapolis after the police suffocation last week of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, Mr Trump tweeted: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”. The line was used by George Wallace, the segregationist third-party candidate in 1968. Republicans launched the “southern strategy” to win over resentful white Democrats after the civil rights revolution. Mr Trump’s 2016 campaign was the apotheosis of that approach.
But history offers little clue as to whether a sitting president can profit from the same manipulation. The stark brutality of Floyd’s killing — and the fact that his eight-minute suffocation was captured on video — has curbed Mr Trump’s ability to portray the police as victims. He has veered between threats of deploying the military to quell the protests and appeals for calm. Mr Trump’s record suggests he will not be able to resist the temptation to incite. It worked for him once. America’s Black Lives Matter movement took off in Barack Obama’s second term just as Mr Trump was weighing up his presidential bid. “White lives matter” and “Blue lives matter” banners festooned his rallies.
But can he pull off the same feat from the White House? That will depend on how America defines the protests. Wildly different narratives can be built from the harrowing range of video clips over the past few days. Some show white police officers brutally attacking peaceful black and white marchers. Others show cops marching in solidarity with them. Then there are the scenes of looting and burning. Mr Trump claims that most of the Minneapolis protesters are far-left radicals. Anti-Semitic memes claiming that financier George Soros is funding an army of Antifa (anti-fascist) militants have spread. Russian bots have helped disseminate the conspiracy theory. The Trump administration has picked up that thread. In a televised statement Bill Barr, the US attorney-general, said the protests were “planned, organised and driven by anarchic and far-left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics”. Without evidence, Mr Trump said 80 per cent of the Minneapolis protesters were from out of state. On Sunday, he tweeted that he would designate Antifa as a “terrorist organisation”.
America now faces the spectre of a long summer of unrest, with a president stoking the polarisation. It comes amid a pandemic that has disproportionately claimed minority lives in the most densely populated areas of urban America. Floyd’s dying words — “I can’t breathe” — serve as a metaphor for a society choking on its increasingly toxic politics. The alternative narrative advanced by Joe Biden, Mr Trump’s opponent, is that America is crying out to be healed. Mr Biden promises to “restore America’s soul”. If recent polls are any guide, Mr Biden’s message is hitting home. A Washington Post/ABC poll gave him a 53 per cent to 43 per cent lead over Mr Trump.
But that snapshot was taken mostly before the protests had spread to other cities. Harking back to America’s better angels, as invoked by Abraham Lincoln, Mr Biden’s message has historic appeal. But nations do not possess souls. They have competing ideas of themselves. Mr Biden wants to restore the US to where it was before Mr Trump was elected — a multicultural society with its first non-white president. Mr Trump makes little disguise of conjuring a pre-civil rights America where white males held uncontested sway. He will blame Mr Obama, China, radical leftists and “thugs” for America’s unhappy condition — anybody, in other words, but himself. It is hard to imagine a more dystopian backdrop for the world’s most powerful democracy to settle on its future.
Sunday 24 May 2020
Thursday 13 February 2020
Why ‘winners’ pick Prashant Kishor
If Arvind Kejriwal was going to sweep the election anyway, why did he need Prashant Kishor asks Shivam Vij in The Print?
Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and political strategist Prashant Kishor at the AAP office in New Delhi
Political strategist Prashant Kishor picks winners, his critics say. He appoints himself as consultant to a party, most likely to win an imminent election, and then takes credit for a victory he had nothing to do with, according to his critics.
But it gets curious if you flip the question. Why do winners need Prashant Kishor?
When Kishor starts working on an election, the critics say ‘What can he do?’ When the election is won, they say ‘What did he do?’
Why PK?
If Arvind Kejriwal was going to win Delhi 2020 anyway, why did he bring on Prashant Kishor? Why did he tweet announcing he was welcoming on board the Kishor-mentored Indian Political Action Committee?
Thanks to the anti-incumbency against Chandrababu Naidu, Jagan Mohan Reddy was going to become the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh in 2019 anyway, we are told. If it was so certain, why did Reddy go and get Prashant Kishor to design his entire campaign for a full two years?
Captain Amarinder Singh is a well-respected politician in Punjab. The Aam Aadmi Party did not have a face in the Punjab 2017 elections. It was Captain’s time. He won the election on his image. Which begs the question: why did Captain need Kishor?
For the 2015 Bihar assembly election, Nitish Kumar tied up with his bête noire Lalu Prasad Yadav. The caste combination was such that the coalition would have won anyway, some say. They had the Congress with them too. Sounds easy. But then why did Nitish Kumar need Prashant Kishor? And why did Nitish Kumar value Prashant Kishor so much that he later made him vice-president of his party?
Narendra Modi is the champion king of Indian politics. Prashant Kishor’s critics say he did not make much of a difference in Modi’s 282 seats in 2014. If this was the case, why was Modi wooing Kishor back in 2017?
Kishor’s critics admit that he has a tough battle ahead in West Bengal, where the BJP is putting everything at stake. But if Mamata Banerjee wins the Bengal election early next year, the same critics will say: Didi is a popular leader, the BJP had no face, she was going to win anyway. What did Kishor do?
The political commentators in Delhi feel the DMK is going to win the 2021 Tamil Nadu assembly election. It’s the DMK’s turn, and now that the father is no more, Stalin will be the CM. Fair enough. Why then has the DMK signed up Prashant Kishor? Are the foolish to give him attention and credit?
But over the next few months, we’ll be told by these very political commentators that Tamil Nadu is uncertain because of the Rajinikanth factor. If Stalin still wins, the same critics will say Rajnikanth was never a factor, and Kishor just landed up to take credit for Stalin’s pre-destined victory.
----Also watch
----
After the fact
An election victory often looks like a foregone conclusion only after the fact. Just go back and check your own tweets and WhatsApp messages over the last two weeks. Many of you were wondering if the BJP’s Hindutva push can defeat the AAP.
The fact is, the AAP was down and out after three terrible election defeats: Punjab and MCD in 2017, and the Lok Sabha in 2019. They needed Kishor because they were, in fact, not certain of winning the 2020 Delhi election.
In Punjab, the Aam Aadmi Party was at one point in time said to be winning 100 of 117 seats. Captain Amarinder Singh desperately wanted Kishor because it was his last chance to be chief minister and he didn’t want to lose it. Many senior pundits and analysts felt that the AAP was winning Punjab, right till the results came out. Once the results were out, they said Captain had to win anyway.
Captain had lost two consecutive elections — one as an incumbent and the one as a challenger. This performance saw him booted out as Punjab Congress chief. The main problem with the Punjab Congress was factionalism. Kishor did many things in terms of strategy, branding and communication, but the most important was that he went around managing each faction to make sure they let Amarinder win this time. By contrast, we have just seen how the Congress couldn’t decide between Ashok Tanwar and Bhupinder Singh Hooda Tull the very end in Haryana, and thus lost a winnable election.
Jagan Mohan Reddy was so down and out in Andhra in 2014 that he seemed to be over. The Telugu Desam Party poached a third of his party’s MPs and MLAs. Reddy’s image was of a corrupt, feudal, arrogant dynast. His victory was far from certain.
In Bihar, Nitish Kumar’s stock in 2015 was quite low. He has had a crushing defeat in the Lok Sabha at the hands of the BJP, and Amit Shah was expanding the party into new territories like a conqueror. Yes, Nitish Kumar did tie-up with Lalu Yadav, but the critics said the alliance won’t last. The BJP was banking on their fighting over seat-sharing and other matters, and the alliance would break up even before the election. Kishor made sure that doesn’t happen. He made himself the common channel of communication between the two leaders to ensure there is no disharmony. (Fun fact: Kishor was against the Nitish-Lalu alliance. He insisted he could make Nitish win on his own but Nitish didn’t have the risk appetite for that.)
When the patient doesn’t take the medicine
While the critics say the political consultant chosen by winners gets no credit for the victories, the consultant gets all the blame for the losses. Hence, they say that Kishor could not make the Congress party improve its prospects in Uttar Pradesh in 2017.
In UP in 2016, Kishor achieved the Herculean task of making Rahul Gandhi travel the state for a consistent campaign on farmers’ issues without a single day’s holiday. But that was step one — or just the first “module” as these consultant types say. There were many other things lined-up non-stop to build momentum. The key was to declare Priyanka Gandhi as the chief ministerial candidate. The Congress party has agreed to all these proposals, and, as only the Congress can do, went back on them. All the plans were laid to waste.
It was a case of the patient not taking the medicine for the full course and then blaming the doctor.
Kishor’s mistake was that he didn’t part ways with the Congress there and then. The critics do have a point about what came thereafter: he became overconfident he could make an SP-Congress alliance win the state.
Malice and misunderstanding
Some of the dismissal of Kishor comes from malice: the durbaris around top politicians don’t want to lose their jobs to an American-style consultant. This was certainly the case with Congress.
Kishor is India’s first western-style political consultant. And the first man through the door often gets shot. There are others, but the political system doesn’t want them to be in the limelight, taking credit. The system wants to treat consultants as “vendors”. That is bound to change, sooner or later.
Some of the criticism of Kishor comes from a lack of understanding of this beast called modern political campaigning. What exactly is it that Prashant Kishor does? We’ll have to ask Mamata Banerjee, Jagan Mohan Reddy, Nitish Kumar, Captain Amarinder Singh, MK Stalin or Narendra Modi.
Political strategist Prashant Kishor picks winners, his critics say. He appoints himself as consultant to a party, most likely to win an imminent election, and then takes credit for a victory he had nothing to do with, according to his critics.
But it gets curious if you flip the question. Why do winners need Prashant Kishor?
When Kishor starts working on an election, the critics say ‘What can he do?’ When the election is won, they say ‘What did he do?’
Why PK?
If Arvind Kejriwal was going to win Delhi 2020 anyway, why did he bring on Prashant Kishor? Why did he tweet announcing he was welcoming on board the Kishor-mentored Indian Political Action Committee?
Thanks to the anti-incumbency against Chandrababu Naidu, Jagan Mohan Reddy was going to become the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh in 2019 anyway, we are told. If it was so certain, why did Reddy go and get Prashant Kishor to design his entire campaign for a full two years?
Captain Amarinder Singh is a well-respected politician in Punjab. The Aam Aadmi Party did not have a face in the Punjab 2017 elections. It was Captain’s time. He won the election on his image. Which begs the question: why did Captain need Kishor?
For the 2015 Bihar assembly election, Nitish Kumar tied up with his bête noire Lalu Prasad Yadav. The caste combination was such that the coalition would have won anyway, some say. They had the Congress with them too. Sounds easy. But then why did Nitish Kumar need Prashant Kishor? And why did Nitish Kumar value Prashant Kishor so much that he later made him vice-president of his party?
Narendra Modi is the champion king of Indian politics. Prashant Kishor’s critics say he did not make much of a difference in Modi’s 282 seats in 2014. If this was the case, why was Modi wooing Kishor back in 2017?
Kishor’s critics admit that he has a tough battle ahead in West Bengal, where the BJP is putting everything at stake. But if Mamata Banerjee wins the Bengal election early next year, the same critics will say: Didi is a popular leader, the BJP had no face, she was going to win anyway. What did Kishor do?
The political commentators in Delhi feel the DMK is going to win the 2021 Tamil Nadu assembly election. It’s the DMK’s turn, and now that the father is no more, Stalin will be the CM. Fair enough. Why then has the DMK signed up Prashant Kishor? Are the foolish to give him attention and credit?
But over the next few months, we’ll be told by these very political commentators that Tamil Nadu is uncertain because of the Rajinikanth factor. If Stalin still wins, the same critics will say Rajnikanth was never a factor, and Kishor just landed up to take credit for Stalin’s pre-destined victory.
----Also watch
----
After the fact
An election victory often looks like a foregone conclusion only after the fact. Just go back and check your own tweets and WhatsApp messages over the last two weeks. Many of you were wondering if the BJP’s Hindutva push can defeat the AAP.
The fact is, the AAP was down and out after three terrible election defeats: Punjab and MCD in 2017, and the Lok Sabha in 2019. They needed Kishor because they were, in fact, not certain of winning the 2020 Delhi election.
In Punjab, the Aam Aadmi Party was at one point in time said to be winning 100 of 117 seats. Captain Amarinder Singh desperately wanted Kishor because it was his last chance to be chief minister and he didn’t want to lose it. Many senior pundits and analysts felt that the AAP was winning Punjab, right till the results came out. Once the results were out, they said Captain had to win anyway.
Captain had lost two consecutive elections — one as an incumbent and the one as a challenger. This performance saw him booted out as Punjab Congress chief. The main problem with the Punjab Congress was factionalism. Kishor did many things in terms of strategy, branding and communication, but the most important was that he went around managing each faction to make sure they let Amarinder win this time. By contrast, we have just seen how the Congress couldn’t decide between Ashok Tanwar and Bhupinder Singh Hooda Tull the very end in Haryana, and thus lost a winnable election.
Jagan Mohan Reddy was so down and out in Andhra in 2014 that he seemed to be over. The Telugu Desam Party poached a third of his party’s MPs and MLAs. Reddy’s image was of a corrupt, feudal, arrogant dynast. His victory was far from certain.
In Bihar, Nitish Kumar’s stock in 2015 was quite low. He has had a crushing defeat in the Lok Sabha at the hands of the BJP, and Amit Shah was expanding the party into new territories like a conqueror. Yes, Nitish Kumar did tie-up with Lalu Yadav, but the critics said the alliance won’t last. The BJP was banking on their fighting over seat-sharing and other matters, and the alliance would break up even before the election. Kishor made sure that doesn’t happen. He made himself the common channel of communication between the two leaders to ensure there is no disharmony. (Fun fact: Kishor was against the Nitish-Lalu alliance. He insisted he could make Nitish win on his own but Nitish didn’t have the risk appetite for that.)
When the patient doesn’t take the medicine
While the critics say the political consultant chosen by winners gets no credit for the victories, the consultant gets all the blame for the losses. Hence, they say that Kishor could not make the Congress party improve its prospects in Uttar Pradesh in 2017.
In UP in 2016, Kishor achieved the Herculean task of making Rahul Gandhi travel the state for a consistent campaign on farmers’ issues without a single day’s holiday. But that was step one — or just the first “module” as these consultant types say. There were many other things lined-up non-stop to build momentum. The key was to declare Priyanka Gandhi as the chief ministerial candidate. The Congress party has agreed to all these proposals, and, as only the Congress can do, went back on them. All the plans were laid to waste.
It was a case of the patient not taking the medicine for the full course and then blaming the doctor.
Kishor’s mistake was that he didn’t part ways with the Congress there and then. The critics do have a point about what came thereafter: he became overconfident he could make an SP-Congress alliance win the state.
Malice and misunderstanding
Some of the dismissal of Kishor comes from malice: the durbaris around top politicians don’t want to lose their jobs to an American-style consultant. This was certainly the case with Congress.
Kishor is India’s first western-style political consultant. And the first man through the door often gets shot. There are others, but the political system doesn’t want them to be in the limelight, taking credit. The system wants to treat consultants as “vendors”. That is bound to change, sooner or later.
Some of the criticism of Kishor comes from a lack of understanding of this beast called modern political campaigning. What exactly is it that Prashant Kishor does? We’ll have to ask Mamata Banerjee, Jagan Mohan Reddy, Nitish Kumar, Captain Amarinder Singh, MK Stalin or Narendra Modi.
Friday 31 May 2019
Compromise dies in the age of outrage
Hardening political positions are the sclerosis that may lead to a heart attack for democracies writes Tim Harford in THE FT
I don’t often find myself agreeing with Esther McVey, but I wondered this week whether the candidate for leader of the UK Conservative party might accidentally have spoken the truth: “People saying we need a Brexit policy to bring people together are misreading the situation. That is clearly not possible.”
The British do indeed seem in no mood to compromise. The results of elections to the European Parliament produced a thunderous endorsement of parties that proudly reject an attempt to find common ground on Brexit. The Conservatives and Labour, each caught in an awkward straddle, were slaughtered. Labour offered the slogan “let’s bring our country together”. Ha! Voters preferred the Liberal Democrats (“Bollocks to Brexit”) and the Brexit party (“they’re absolutely terrified of us”).
Sometimes an extreme position is the correct one. When King Solomon proposed cutting the baby in half, it wasn’t because he was looking for the middle ground. Yet a capacity to find compromises is a good thing to have. Positions may differ, but whether we live in the same home or on the opposite side of the planet, we benefit when we can find a way to get along.
If this new distaste for compromise is a problem, it is not the UK’s alone. Positions seem to be hardening everywhere, the sclerotic arteries that may lead to a heart attack for western democracies. Perhaps this is driven by personalities. For a man whose name adorns a book titled The Art of The Deal, Donald Trump is curiously uninterested in negotiating lasting agreements with anyone. Or maybe it is a function of an information ecosystem in which outrage sells.
Perhaps the problems themselves are more intractable. Some issues do not lend themselves to compromise. Brexit is one. Splitting the difference between Remainers and hard Brexiters is less like cutting a cake and more like splattering its ingredients everywhere. Egg on my face, flour on yours, and nobody even partially satisfied.
Abortion is another. There is a principled case to be made for a woman’s absolute right to control her body. There is also a principled case to be made for the absolute right to life of a foetus. But like the unstoppable cannonball and the immovable post, both rights cannot be absolute simultaneously.
In contrast, other complex and emotive problems may still allow for compromise. On climate change, we can shrug and do nothing, or we can turn our economic system upside down, but there is plenty of middle ground between those options. In a trade negotiation, a mutually advantageous outcome is almost always there to be discovered.
Roger Fisher and William Ury’s classic negotiation handbook Getting to Yes advises: focus on the problem rather than the personalities; explore underlying interests rather than explicit positions; and consider options that may open up scope for mutual benefit.
We may find a much better way to split the cake if we discover that you scrape the icing into the bin, while I would happily eat it with a spoon. It is sometimes astonishing how far a principled negotiation can go towards giving both sides what they want.
It is clear that we British have failed to follow this advice. Our debate is driven by a bitter focus on personalities, from Theresa May to Nigel Farage to Jeremy Corbyn to the generic “Remoaner elite”. Each side knows what the other wants but has shown very little interest in why they want it. Without sincerely exploring the underlying aims and values of warring tribes there is no chance of finding an outcome everyone can accept.
The US debate also seems the antithesis of Fisher and Ury’s advice. Too many politically active people seek the humiliation of the other tribe. Dismissing compromise as craven appeasement seems to be a winning tactic, particularly in the primary elections that set the tone of US politics.
Compromise, however, is often possible even in unpromising situations. On abortion, for example, it emerges with a focus not on absolute rights but on practicalities. Many people can get behind policies to minimise unwanted pregnancies, and to make abortions safe and regulated rather than dangerous and illicit. It is a middle ground that many countries manage to find.
One can see politics as a competitive sport or a search for solutions. There’s truth in both views. However, a democratic election is far closer to a competition than to a principled negotiation. Do we not wish to see the opposite team soundly thrashed? Do we not boo their villainous antics and laugh at their mishaps? Who wants to play out a nil-nil draw?
I would not want to venerate compromise as the supreme good in politics. Sometimes it really is true that you and I, dear reader, are absolutely right and they are absolutely wrong. (It may even be true that we are absolutely wrong and they are absolutely right.) Either way, the merits of the case must be weighed against the merits of trying to respect everyone. It feels good to win, but this isn’t a fairytale: the losers won’t stamp their feet and vanish through the floor. They — or we — aren’t going anywhere.
I don’t often find myself agreeing with Esther McVey, but I wondered this week whether the candidate for leader of the UK Conservative party might accidentally have spoken the truth: “People saying we need a Brexit policy to bring people together are misreading the situation. That is clearly not possible.”
The British do indeed seem in no mood to compromise. The results of elections to the European Parliament produced a thunderous endorsement of parties that proudly reject an attempt to find common ground on Brexit. The Conservatives and Labour, each caught in an awkward straddle, were slaughtered. Labour offered the slogan “let’s bring our country together”. Ha! Voters preferred the Liberal Democrats (“Bollocks to Brexit”) and the Brexit party (“they’re absolutely terrified of us”).
Sometimes an extreme position is the correct one. When King Solomon proposed cutting the baby in half, it wasn’t because he was looking for the middle ground. Yet a capacity to find compromises is a good thing to have. Positions may differ, but whether we live in the same home or on the opposite side of the planet, we benefit when we can find a way to get along.
If this new distaste for compromise is a problem, it is not the UK’s alone. Positions seem to be hardening everywhere, the sclerotic arteries that may lead to a heart attack for western democracies. Perhaps this is driven by personalities. For a man whose name adorns a book titled The Art of The Deal, Donald Trump is curiously uninterested in negotiating lasting agreements with anyone. Or maybe it is a function of an information ecosystem in which outrage sells.
Perhaps the problems themselves are more intractable. Some issues do not lend themselves to compromise. Brexit is one. Splitting the difference between Remainers and hard Brexiters is less like cutting a cake and more like splattering its ingredients everywhere. Egg on my face, flour on yours, and nobody even partially satisfied.
Abortion is another. There is a principled case to be made for a woman’s absolute right to control her body. There is also a principled case to be made for the absolute right to life of a foetus. But like the unstoppable cannonball and the immovable post, both rights cannot be absolute simultaneously.
In contrast, other complex and emotive problems may still allow for compromise. On climate change, we can shrug and do nothing, or we can turn our economic system upside down, but there is plenty of middle ground between those options. In a trade negotiation, a mutually advantageous outcome is almost always there to be discovered.
Roger Fisher and William Ury’s classic negotiation handbook Getting to Yes advises: focus on the problem rather than the personalities; explore underlying interests rather than explicit positions; and consider options that may open up scope for mutual benefit.
We may find a much better way to split the cake if we discover that you scrape the icing into the bin, while I would happily eat it with a spoon. It is sometimes astonishing how far a principled negotiation can go towards giving both sides what they want.
It is clear that we British have failed to follow this advice. Our debate is driven by a bitter focus on personalities, from Theresa May to Nigel Farage to Jeremy Corbyn to the generic “Remoaner elite”. Each side knows what the other wants but has shown very little interest in why they want it. Without sincerely exploring the underlying aims and values of warring tribes there is no chance of finding an outcome everyone can accept.
The US debate also seems the antithesis of Fisher and Ury’s advice. Too many politically active people seek the humiliation of the other tribe. Dismissing compromise as craven appeasement seems to be a winning tactic, particularly in the primary elections that set the tone of US politics.
Compromise, however, is often possible even in unpromising situations. On abortion, for example, it emerges with a focus not on absolute rights but on practicalities. Many people can get behind policies to minimise unwanted pregnancies, and to make abortions safe and regulated rather than dangerous and illicit. It is a middle ground that many countries manage to find.
One can see politics as a competitive sport or a search for solutions. There’s truth in both views. However, a democratic election is far closer to a competition than to a principled negotiation. Do we not wish to see the opposite team soundly thrashed? Do we not boo their villainous antics and laugh at their mishaps? Who wants to play out a nil-nil draw?
I would not want to venerate compromise as the supreme good in politics. Sometimes it really is true that you and I, dear reader, are absolutely right and they are absolutely wrong. (It may even be true that we are absolutely wrong and they are absolutely right.) Either way, the merits of the case must be weighed against the merits of trying to respect everyone. It feels good to win, but this isn’t a fairytale: the losers won’t stamp their feet and vanish through the floor. They — or we — aren’t going anywhere.
Wednesday 12 September 2018
Friday 3 August 2018
Good Luck Imran!
Najam Sethi in The Friday Times
The Miltablishment, Judiciary, ECP and Media – “pillars of the state” – are entitled to pat one another on the back for successfully putting Imran Khan in office. Their task became doubly difficult after Nawaz Sharif defied expectations to return to the country and court arrest, triggering sympathy votes in Punjab that threatened to derail their carefully laid plans.
The opposition parties are rightly crying foul. They have demanded the resignation of the CEC and his associates for facilitating the theft of the general elections. The ECP’s explanation about the mysterious breakdown of the RTS system – denied by NADRA which put the system in place and monitored it — and the extraordinary delays in announcing the results hasn’t washed. Nor is it easy to stomach the fact that in many constituencies the lead of the winner is less than the number of rejected votes. The sharp rebuke from the ECP confirms a decidedly partisan sentiment in its ranks.
Clearly, those who thought that unprecedented pre-poll rigging would suffice to get “suitable results” were wrong. A last-minute intervention was necessitated in the dead of night on Election Day when the numbers seemed to be going awry. But that’s not the end of the story.
The “Independents” are now being corralled and branded. Small fry like the GDA, PMLQ, MQM, BAP, TLYRA, etc are being offered “sweetners” while the PPP is being whipped into submission. Asif Zardari, Feryal Talpur,Owais Tappi, Yousaf Raza Gillani, and a clutch of other Zardari cronies and PPP leaders have been read out the Riot Act by NAB and FIA: Cooperate or Else.
Still, it’s going to be a long haul for Imran Khan and Associates. The bare victories in Islamabad and Lahore will be buffeted every day for the next five years. Indeed, the project of putting Imran Khan in office will have to be updated by a project to keep him in office. Amidst this, the core objective of “Tabdeeli” will be very difficult to achieve.
For starters, Imran Khan will need help in assembling his teams in KPK, Punjab and Islamabad so that the core objective is kept firmly in mind. The refusal to appoint Pervez Khattak as CM of KPK suggests that the Miltablishment will retain veto power over critical appointments. The buzzwords in these quarters are “Neat, Clean and Obedient”. But a contradiction between means and ends is already palpable. The PTI has been stuffed with dirty “lotas” and traditional, status quo “electables” to bring Imran into office and keep him there by a carrot-and-stick policy. But “Tabdeeli” requires motivated ideologues to sacrifice self-interest and support hard decisions. The current intraparty spat over the CMships of KPK and Balochistan, or the resistance faced by Not-so-Neat-And-Clean Aleem Khan, or the visible power struggle between Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Jehangir Tareen for the coveted CMship of Punjab, is just the tip of the iceberg. The notion of public service or duty – central to the requirement of “Tabdeeli” — is alien to these folks.
The celebratory fireworks on the day Imran Khan is sworn in as Prime Minister will be followed by a different display of fire power. The Miltablishment, which has been tarred in the public imagination by its blunt political intrusions of late, may withdraw behind the curtain and let the “elected” government take responsibility for its actions. That would give the media and judiciary scope to redress their failing credibility by taking the government to task. Indeed, neither pillar of the state can afford to be pro-government for its own sake – the media for its commercial interests and the judiciary for its independence from the executive. This is bound to put several spanners in the works.
As if this isn’t enough, the job of putting the economy on track will provoke howls of protest from the very classes that have voted for Imran Khan. Currency depreciation will fuel inflation. Reduction in budgetary deficits will curtail public expenditures, consumer demand and employment. Plugging the balance of payments gap by curtailing imports and capital transfers will restrict commercial activity (SBP has already banned imports on open account save for essential raw materials). Increasing tax rates will be unpopular. Provincial bureaucracies and politicians will fight tooth and nail over any attempt to reverse the last NFC Award that flushed them with money, no less than any attempt to devolve power and funds to local governments, which are the preferred nurseries of the Miltablishment for nurturing “neat and clean and obedient” politicians.
The Miltablishment will also expect Imran Khan to exploit his “star” status to manage foreign policy productively. But it would be naïve to expect the two key players that impinge on us, India and the US, to overnight repose trust in him so long as he remains a proxy. The problem is that if Khan tries to cut loose from his key benefactor in pursuit of his own vision, he will feel the heat just like Nawaz Sharif did.
Good luck to Imran Khan!
The Miltablishment, Judiciary, ECP and Media – “pillars of the state” – are entitled to pat one another on the back for successfully putting Imran Khan in office. Their task became doubly difficult after Nawaz Sharif defied expectations to return to the country and court arrest, triggering sympathy votes in Punjab that threatened to derail their carefully laid plans.
The opposition parties are rightly crying foul. They have demanded the resignation of the CEC and his associates for facilitating the theft of the general elections. The ECP’s explanation about the mysterious breakdown of the RTS system – denied by NADRA which put the system in place and monitored it — and the extraordinary delays in announcing the results hasn’t washed. Nor is it easy to stomach the fact that in many constituencies the lead of the winner is less than the number of rejected votes. The sharp rebuke from the ECP confirms a decidedly partisan sentiment in its ranks.
Clearly, those who thought that unprecedented pre-poll rigging would suffice to get “suitable results” were wrong. A last-minute intervention was necessitated in the dead of night on Election Day when the numbers seemed to be going awry. But that’s not the end of the story.
The “Independents” are now being corralled and branded. Small fry like the GDA, PMLQ, MQM, BAP, TLYRA, etc are being offered “sweetners” while the PPP is being whipped into submission. Asif Zardari, Feryal Talpur,Owais Tappi, Yousaf Raza Gillani, and a clutch of other Zardari cronies and PPP leaders have been read out the Riot Act by NAB and FIA: Cooperate or Else.
Still, it’s going to be a long haul for Imran Khan and Associates. The bare victories in Islamabad and Lahore will be buffeted every day for the next five years. Indeed, the project of putting Imran Khan in office will have to be updated by a project to keep him in office. Amidst this, the core objective of “Tabdeeli” will be very difficult to achieve.
For starters, Imran Khan will need help in assembling his teams in KPK, Punjab and Islamabad so that the core objective is kept firmly in mind. The refusal to appoint Pervez Khattak as CM of KPK suggests that the Miltablishment will retain veto power over critical appointments. The buzzwords in these quarters are “Neat, Clean and Obedient”. But a contradiction between means and ends is already palpable. The PTI has been stuffed with dirty “lotas” and traditional, status quo “electables” to bring Imran into office and keep him there by a carrot-and-stick policy. But “Tabdeeli” requires motivated ideologues to sacrifice self-interest and support hard decisions. The current intraparty spat over the CMships of KPK and Balochistan, or the resistance faced by Not-so-Neat-And-Clean Aleem Khan, or the visible power struggle between Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Jehangir Tareen for the coveted CMship of Punjab, is just the tip of the iceberg. The notion of public service or duty – central to the requirement of “Tabdeeli” — is alien to these folks.
The celebratory fireworks on the day Imran Khan is sworn in as Prime Minister will be followed by a different display of fire power. The Miltablishment, which has been tarred in the public imagination by its blunt political intrusions of late, may withdraw behind the curtain and let the “elected” government take responsibility for its actions. That would give the media and judiciary scope to redress their failing credibility by taking the government to task. Indeed, neither pillar of the state can afford to be pro-government for its own sake – the media for its commercial interests and the judiciary for its independence from the executive. This is bound to put several spanners in the works.
As if this isn’t enough, the job of putting the economy on track will provoke howls of protest from the very classes that have voted for Imran Khan. Currency depreciation will fuel inflation. Reduction in budgetary deficits will curtail public expenditures, consumer demand and employment. Plugging the balance of payments gap by curtailing imports and capital transfers will restrict commercial activity (SBP has already banned imports on open account save for essential raw materials). Increasing tax rates will be unpopular. Provincial bureaucracies and politicians will fight tooth and nail over any attempt to reverse the last NFC Award that flushed them with money, no less than any attempt to devolve power and funds to local governments, which are the preferred nurseries of the Miltablishment for nurturing “neat and clean and obedient” politicians.
The Miltablishment will also expect Imran Khan to exploit his “star” status to manage foreign policy productively. But it would be naïve to expect the two key players that impinge on us, India and the US, to overnight repose trust in him so long as he remains a proxy. The problem is that if Khan tries to cut loose from his key benefactor in pursuit of his own vision, he will feel the heat just like Nawaz Sharif did.
Good luck to Imran Khan!
The Pakistan election was fair
S Y Quraishi in The Indian Express
The general election in Pakistan is being described as a milestone in the democratic history of the country. This is only the second transition from one full-term civilian government to another, and the first under the new Election Law, 2018. I got a great opportunity to observe the event from a ringside seat as a member of the Commonwealth Election Observers Group. The 15-member group headed by Abdulsalami Abubakar, former head of state of Nigeria, spent 12 days to observe events leading up to the election, the polling and counting day and the declaration of the results over three days.
The group met delegations from the leading political parties, civil society and the media to understand the pre-electoral environment, which was reported to point to a not-too-fair election. We were told of massive pre-poll “rigging”. Mainly, three things were cited: Forcing of certain party leaders to return their tickets, muzzling of the media, and misuse of the army and judiciary in favour of a particular party. It is difficult to understand how the changing loyalties of political leaders can be described as rigging — such political engineering is common in the Subcontinent where turncoats and horse trading are household terms. Some media representatives said that after a lot of subtle and overt intimidation, many have decided on self censorship as a wiser option. The hold of the army on institutions like the judiciary, the National Accountability Bureau, the media, etc was a common refrain. We were told naming the army was taboo, full of risks. Therefore, alternative expressions or euphemisms had been evolved, like “establishment”, “powers that be”, “khalai makhlooq” (people from outer space), “angels” and even “agriculture department”.
People who questioned the impartiality of the military and judiciary cited the timing of court cases against certain political leaders and candidates. Media were allegedly prevented from fully covering certain issues like the rights of the minorities and the role of state institutions. For the poll-day arrangements, questions were focused on the large-scale deployment of the army. Concerns were raised about the order to deploy soldiers inside the polling stations. We, therefore, decided to focus special attention on these concerns.
We observed that candidates from across parties and independents were able to campaign freely and peacefully. Maybe we arrived too late, by which time the games were already played. The overall security situation was tense, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) and Balochistan, where terrorist attacks in the preceding weeks claimed more than 170 lives, including of three candidates. However, the parties were able to organise their rallies freely as per Election Rules 2017. A lot of negative and abusive campaigning was initially reported but after the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) stern action under the model code, most people fell in line.
We found the electoral system quite robust, with a substantially reformed legal framework consisting of the Constitution of Pakistan, the Elections Act, 2017 and Election Rules, 2017, which has led to a greater autonomy of the ECP, including financial autonomy, power to make rules and punish for contempt, and to deregister or delist an existing political party. Officials deputed for election duties have now been brought under the ECP’s disciplinary control.
Some legal reforms for enhancing women voters’ participation are noteworthy. The ECP can declare an election null and void if less than 10 per cent women have voted in a constituency. This had a salutary effect in those frontier regions where women were traditionally not allowed to vote. Each party has to nominate a minimum of 5 per cent women candidates for the general seats in the National Assembly. This is in addition to 70 seats in the National Assembly (272 members) which are filled by nomination by the political parties according to the number of seats won. (Incidentally, 10 seats are reserved for minorities). Special campaigns by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), political parties and civil society helped increase their enrolment as voters. Separate polling stations for women, run entirely by women, also encouraged turnout.
Polling day passed off peacefully much to everyone’s relief. There was a 53 per cent turnout, significantly higher than the 48 per cent in 2013.
Unlike India, the counting in Pakistan is done at the polling station itself immediately after polling closes. There were several questions raised about the counting. Some parties alleged that the polling agents were not allowed to observe the counting from close up. Some complained that their agents were thrown out of the stations. There were allegations that Form 45 (result sheet) was neither given to polling agents nor pasted on the wall of the PS. The ECP denied the first allegation clarifying that only those agents who were in excess of one per party were asked to leave. It, however, admitted to several instances of the second allegation and promised to take action. The ECP also admitted the failure of the Result Transmission System because it had not been pilot tested adequately. The foreign minister, whom we met, attributed this, in a lighter vein, to the failure of the British technology on which the app was based.
The conduct of the proscribed militant-dominated religious organisations was watched with interest, a phenomenon of special concern to India. We noted that the ECP, in accordance with the law, did not allow the registration of such entities and individuals to contest elections. However, its mechanism for filtering candidates linked to such organisations was weak which led to three candidates managing to slip through scrutiny. They were, however, delisted on the eve of the election after a hue and cry of the media and civil society. It is remarkable that religious parties with extremist connections were totally routed both in national and provincial assemblies. Tehreek-e-Labbaik managed to get only two seats in Karachi whereas the Allah-o-Akbar party drew a blank.
The elections were closely observed by a huge force of volunteers of civil society led by the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) and Trust for Democracy Education and Accountability, besides international observers from the EU, Commonwealth and several diplomats. FAFEN deployed 19,683 citizen observers (including 5,846 women) at more than 65,000 polling stations (almost 80 per cent of the total). Most observers were satisfied with arrangements and conduct of elections. The Commonwealth group commended the ECP for a laudable job in the short time it had to implement its mandate for holding transparent elections on schedule. It regarded the General Election 2018 as an important milestone in strengthening democracy in Pakistan.
Quraishi is former chief election commissioner of India
The general election in Pakistan is being described as a milestone in the democratic history of the country. This is only the second transition from one full-term civilian government to another, and the first under the new Election Law, 2018. I got a great opportunity to observe the event from a ringside seat as a member of the Commonwealth Election Observers Group. The 15-member group headed by Abdulsalami Abubakar, former head of state of Nigeria, spent 12 days to observe events leading up to the election, the polling and counting day and the declaration of the results over three days.
The group met delegations from the leading political parties, civil society and the media to understand the pre-electoral environment, which was reported to point to a not-too-fair election. We were told of massive pre-poll “rigging”. Mainly, three things were cited: Forcing of certain party leaders to return their tickets, muzzling of the media, and misuse of the army and judiciary in favour of a particular party. It is difficult to understand how the changing loyalties of political leaders can be described as rigging — such political engineering is common in the Subcontinent where turncoats and horse trading are household terms. Some media representatives said that after a lot of subtle and overt intimidation, many have decided on self censorship as a wiser option. The hold of the army on institutions like the judiciary, the National Accountability Bureau, the media, etc was a common refrain. We were told naming the army was taboo, full of risks. Therefore, alternative expressions or euphemisms had been evolved, like “establishment”, “powers that be”, “khalai makhlooq” (people from outer space), “angels” and even “agriculture department”.
People who questioned the impartiality of the military and judiciary cited the timing of court cases against certain political leaders and candidates. Media were allegedly prevented from fully covering certain issues like the rights of the minorities and the role of state institutions. For the poll-day arrangements, questions were focused on the large-scale deployment of the army. Concerns were raised about the order to deploy soldiers inside the polling stations. We, therefore, decided to focus special attention on these concerns.
We observed that candidates from across parties and independents were able to campaign freely and peacefully. Maybe we arrived too late, by which time the games were already played. The overall security situation was tense, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) and Balochistan, where terrorist attacks in the preceding weeks claimed more than 170 lives, including of three candidates. However, the parties were able to organise their rallies freely as per Election Rules 2017. A lot of negative and abusive campaigning was initially reported but after the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) stern action under the model code, most people fell in line.
We found the electoral system quite robust, with a substantially reformed legal framework consisting of the Constitution of Pakistan, the Elections Act, 2017 and Election Rules, 2017, which has led to a greater autonomy of the ECP, including financial autonomy, power to make rules and punish for contempt, and to deregister or delist an existing political party. Officials deputed for election duties have now been brought under the ECP’s disciplinary control.
Some legal reforms for enhancing women voters’ participation are noteworthy. The ECP can declare an election null and void if less than 10 per cent women have voted in a constituency. This had a salutary effect in those frontier regions where women were traditionally not allowed to vote. Each party has to nominate a minimum of 5 per cent women candidates for the general seats in the National Assembly. This is in addition to 70 seats in the National Assembly (272 members) which are filled by nomination by the political parties according to the number of seats won. (Incidentally, 10 seats are reserved for minorities). Special campaigns by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), political parties and civil society helped increase their enrolment as voters. Separate polling stations for women, run entirely by women, also encouraged turnout.
Polling day passed off peacefully much to everyone’s relief. There was a 53 per cent turnout, significantly higher than the 48 per cent in 2013.
Unlike India, the counting in Pakistan is done at the polling station itself immediately after polling closes. There were several questions raised about the counting. Some parties alleged that the polling agents were not allowed to observe the counting from close up. Some complained that their agents were thrown out of the stations. There were allegations that Form 45 (result sheet) was neither given to polling agents nor pasted on the wall of the PS. The ECP denied the first allegation clarifying that only those agents who were in excess of one per party were asked to leave. It, however, admitted to several instances of the second allegation and promised to take action. The ECP also admitted the failure of the Result Transmission System because it had not been pilot tested adequately. The foreign minister, whom we met, attributed this, in a lighter vein, to the failure of the British technology on which the app was based.
The conduct of the proscribed militant-dominated religious organisations was watched with interest, a phenomenon of special concern to India. We noted that the ECP, in accordance with the law, did not allow the registration of such entities and individuals to contest elections. However, its mechanism for filtering candidates linked to such organisations was weak which led to three candidates managing to slip through scrutiny. They were, however, delisted on the eve of the election after a hue and cry of the media and civil society. It is remarkable that religious parties with extremist connections were totally routed both in national and provincial assemblies. Tehreek-e-Labbaik managed to get only two seats in Karachi whereas the Allah-o-Akbar party drew a blank.
The elections were closely observed by a huge force of volunteers of civil society led by the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) and Trust for Democracy Education and Accountability, besides international observers from the EU, Commonwealth and several diplomats. FAFEN deployed 19,683 citizen observers (including 5,846 women) at more than 65,000 polling stations (almost 80 per cent of the total). Most observers were satisfied with arrangements and conduct of elections. The Commonwealth group commended the ECP for a laudable job in the short time it had to implement its mandate for holding transparent elections on schedule. It regarded the General Election 2018 as an important milestone in strengthening democracy in Pakistan.
Quraishi is former chief election commissioner of India
Friday 27 July 2018
On Imran Khan's Rigged Victory
Najam Sethi in The Friday Times
Before the elections, every political party (except PTI), every foreign newspaper and every independent journalist had concluded that The Aliens, Khalai Makhluk, Agriculture Department, Miltablishment, Whatever, had conclusively pre-rigged the elections in an unprecedented manner. A day after the elections, every political party (except PTI), every foreign newspaper and every independent journalist has confirmed the finding. Before the elections, the Miltablishment, Supreme Court and Media were on trial. After the elections, the Election Commission of Pakistan has joined them in the dock.
The ECP claims that “the Remote Transmission System (RTS) broke down, hence the announcement of results was delayed by a few hours.” Was the RTS deliberately glitched because the Agriculture Department panicked when the opposition began to weigh in and something had to be done to get things back on track? Even if it was an unforeseen breakdown, this does not explain why the polling agents were kicked out while the votes were being tabulated or why such lengthy delays ensued.
In the next year or so, we should expect scores of petitions to be filed wherever the margin of PTI’s victory is less than 10,000 or thereabouts. Thousands of bags will be opened and hundreds of thousands of ballots recounted and thumbprints matched. Thousands of Form 45 will be scrutinized. But none of this huffing and puffing will bring Imran Khan’s house down because he is protected and propped up by the Miltablishment.
Imran Khan will be Prime Minister, he will choose the next President of Pakistan and the PTI will rule in Islamabad, KP and possibly even in Punjab while mounting stiff opposition to the PPP in Sindh. Why was such a sweeping victory required of it? What should we expect in the new Pakistan?
To be fair, Imran Khan cannot be denied his fair share of the voter, especially among the new youth, urbanising white-collar middle-class and rich. His prospects became brighter after he started to enroll “electables” regardless of the colour of their money or character. Equally, the PMLN, whatever its self-righteous claims or principles, was well and truly on a suicidal path. But electoral engineering on such a large scale was still necessary to provide legitimacy for a constitutional and political overhaul. What’s on the cards?
A State of Emergency could be imposed under the garb of financial necessity pinned to the alleged misdeeds of the previous regimes. The numbers in parliament will not be too difficult to get. Such an Emergency would restrict fundamental rights and pave the way for a witch hunt of political and media opponents in order to satisfy the bloodlust of the winners (IK has said he won’t do that), protect them from any potential buffeting by a disgruntled opposition and detract criticism from unpopular policy decisions or incompetent and corrupt mismanagement. If that happens, we should expect NAB, FIA, FBR and IB to get hyper active after all state institutions are brought on the same page.
The constitution may also be targeted for amendment. The 18th Amendment, for starters, has become irksome because it shaves the federal pool — which is required to pay for increasing defense expenditures and pensions— by devolving financial resources to the provinces. A need may also be felt to reduce the size and strength of Punjab in the scheme of things, especially since the development of a critical fissure in the historical pro-Miltablishment character of the province. Plans remain on the anvil to carve it up into three or more “units” that are politically more “manageable”.
But the “new dream team” that is lining up to run the “new Pakistan” will not find it easy going. The economy needs more than a shot in the arm. Hard times are upon us and the very middle-classes and rich that have catapulted Imran Khan to office will have to pay the price of their convictions. The value of their rupee is going to fall, so their everyday needs will become expensive; they will have to pay more indirect taxes and duties; and IMF structural reforms will dampen infrastructural growth and employment. This will give grist to the opposition, media and judiciary to stand up and create hurdles in his path.
Admittedly, the Miltablishment has stitched up an extraordinary political dispensation in difficult times. But, unlike Nawaz, the person they have chosen to lead it is strong-willed and unpredictable. In fact, Nawaz was eminently pliant. Yet, after a while, he felt compelled, given the nature of power, to try and be his own man. But this was unacceptable and he had to pay the price for even thinking such rash thoughts. Imran Khan, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. He may have embraced the Miltablishment as a tactical move but sooner rather than later he will begin to challenge the conventional wisdom of the national security state handed down to him. That’s when all bets will be off.
Meanwhile, let us not spoil their honeymoon with grudging digs and pin pricks.
Tuesday 3 July 2018
There’s nothing the Modi government can do if the opposition doesn’t want him to
Jawed Naqvi in The Dawn
INDIA’S opposition parties must quickly deal with two problems ahead of the next election. One stems from an irrational fear of Prime Minister Modi, of what tricks he might have up his sleeve and so forth to outsmart the opposition in 2019. This problem is rooted in low self-belief and a battered self-esteem, which by habit doubts the hugely positive ground reality.
The other problem the opposition must overcome is the addiction of some, not all, to the gambling casino that a group of croupiers has turned Indian elections into. The croupiers use everything they have — tantric amulets, charms, horoscopes and the inviolable right to throw the dice — to turn their political quarries into addicts and junkies. The croupiers took a call one day that Narasimha Rao would save the country. They were applauded by punters like Harshad Mehta and cheered by the gang that destroyed a dilapidated mosque to change the discourse from issues important to the people.
The croupiers took the view another day that Sonia Gandhi was a foreigner hence not entitled to lead India. Then they decided that Modi was just right for the country. The casino runners have already reaped more than they invested in the 2014 campaign. And yet, the croupiers run the establishment, which currently is a right-wing establishment. Sadly for them though, the soul of India resides on the left. This is not lazy ideological bumpf but the plain truth, beyond the grasp of TV channels and social media.
What constitutes India’s left and right? If anyone’s agenda is to stop the suicides of farmers they cannot be right wing. If the agenda is to stop the loot of the banks, which were nationalised to prevent them from looting the people, farmers mostly, it cannot be right wing. The constitution in its spirit is a leftist document. It harnessed the spirit of socialism and secularism even before the two words were added in the preamble. Defend it and you are through.
So what’s the antidote to the right-wing establishment the croupiers favour?
A recent answer, a compelling one, may lie in New York. The primary defeat last week of top-ranking House Democrat Joe Crowley at the hands of a 28-year-old political rookie named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can be and has been replicated in India. It started in recent memory with Arvind Kejriwal and flourished with Jignesh Mewani and Hardik Patel. It can only consolidate into a great force if Rahul Gandhi and H.D. Kumarswamy forget about seat arrangements and focus on saving the country from an obscurantist establishment. Ocasio-Cortez defied the croupiers, and Indian opposition parties can easily replicate her feat.
We are told that Modi has imposed his rule in blood-drenched Kashmir to influence the course of the coming elections. That’s the fear the best of my liberal and leftist friends have expressed. Will there be a televised stand-off on the borders? Anyone can see the steady evidence to the contrary — from Churchill to Manmohan Singh — that wars don’t win elections while peace often fetches electoral dividends. With all the images of body bags flashed on TV during the Kargil collision, Atal Behari Vajpayee barely scraped through in the 1999 polls, leaving his claims of military victory somewhat undermined.
Vajpayee’s BJP secured 23.8 per cent of the vote, pointedly below its 25.5pc in 1998. Worse, it suffered its biggest setback in electorally crucial Uttar Pradesh. The BJP won only 29 of the state’s 85 parliamentary seats, down from the 57 seats it won in the pre-Kargil contest of 1998.
In the United States, Bush Jr gained an embarrassingly narrow lead over John Kerry despite the claims of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides, Vajpayee never explained what president Clinton meant when he claimed in an address to the Indian parliament that it was the US that saved the day for India by pummelling Pakistan with a diplomatic démarche served on an utterly perplexed Nawaz Sharif.
Row back in time. While Vajpayee’s vote percentage had dropped despite televised jingoism, in Pakistan, the Kargil goof-up required a military coup to mask the embarrassing endgame. And those who have won popular support since were parties who promised peace with India. It was the same with the Mumbai terror strike. In 2009, shortly after the carnage, amid calls for revenge, Manmohan Singh won his second consecutive term without lifting a finger. It was the Indian people’s less-discussed endorsement of his understated, phlegmatic response to Pakistan. This the croupiers and their in-house media will not discuss.
Instead, the blue-turbaned prime minister headed off to Sharm al-Sheikh to agree on a comprehensive path to peace with his difficult and troubled western neighbour. When Singh lost in 2014 after 10 years in office, it was on account of a weakened control on his own coalition partners.
Therefore, editorial writers and worried experts who warn of a Modi plot in the recent events in Kashmir need to calm down. There’s nothing the Modi government can do to win in 2019 if the opposition doesn’t want him to. The ground reality in India has changed from the day he defeated a divided opposition.
The coming together of arch rivals Mayawati and Akhilesh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh has shown that the opposition holds all the aces. Even in Srinagar, if the National Conference and Peoples Democratic Party can bury the hatchet and invite the Hurriyat to work out a durable end to the self-wounding bloodbath, there is nothing that Modi or his hawkish advisers can do to take the initiative from them. The blood of innocent lives will not go waste if Kashmir can find a solution that undermines the croupiers and elevates the chances for a battered and abused region to join the global quest for peace and justice.
INDIA’S opposition parties must quickly deal with two problems ahead of the next election. One stems from an irrational fear of Prime Minister Modi, of what tricks he might have up his sleeve and so forth to outsmart the opposition in 2019. This problem is rooted in low self-belief and a battered self-esteem, which by habit doubts the hugely positive ground reality.
The other problem the opposition must overcome is the addiction of some, not all, to the gambling casino that a group of croupiers has turned Indian elections into. The croupiers use everything they have — tantric amulets, charms, horoscopes and the inviolable right to throw the dice — to turn their political quarries into addicts and junkies. The croupiers took a call one day that Narasimha Rao would save the country. They were applauded by punters like Harshad Mehta and cheered by the gang that destroyed a dilapidated mosque to change the discourse from issues important to the people.
The croupiers took the view another day that Sonia Gandhi was a foreigner hence not entitled to lead India. Then they decided that Modi was just right for the country. The casino runners have already reaped more than they invested in the 2014 campaign. And yet, the croupiers run the establishment, which currently is a right-wing establishment. Sadly for them though, the soul of India resides on the left. This is not lazy ideological bumpf but the plain truth, beyond the grasp of TV channels and social media.
What constitutes India’s left and right? If anyone’s agenda is to stop the suicides of farmers they cannot be right wing. If the agenda is to stop the loot of the banks, which were nationalised to prevent them from looting the people, farmers mostly, it cannot be right wing. The constitution in its spirit is a leftist document. It harnessed the spirit of socialism and secularism even before the two words were added in the preamble. Defend it and you are through.
So what’s the antidote to the right-wing establishment the croupiers favour?
A recent answer, a compelling one, may lie in New York. The primary defeat last week of top-ranking House Democrat Joe Crowley at the hands of a 28-year-old political rookie named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can be and has been replicated in India. It started in recent memory with Arvind Kejriwal and flourished with Jignesh Mewani and Hardik Patel. It can only consolidate into a great force if Rahul Gandhi and H.D. Kumarswamy forget about seat arrangements and focus on saving the country from an obscurantist establishment. Ocasio-Cortez defied the croupiers, and Indian opposition parties can easily replicate her feat.
We are told that Modi has imposed his rule in blood-drenched Kashmir to influence the course of the coming elections. That’s the fear the best of my liberal and leftist friends have expressed. Will there be a televised stand-off on the borders? Anyone can see the steady evidence to the contrary — from Churchill to Manmohan Singh — that wars don’t win elections while peace often fetches electoral dividends. With all the images of body bags flashed on TV during the Kargil collision, Atal Behari Vajpayee barely scraped through in the 1999 polls, leaving his claims of military victory somewhat undermined.
Vajpayee’s BJP secured 23.8 per cent of the vote, pointedly below its 25.5pc in 1998. Worse, it suffered its biggest setback in electorally crucial Uttar Pradesh. The BJP won only 29 of the state’s 85 parliamentary seats, down from the 57 seats it won in the pre-Kargil contest of 1998.
In the United States, Bush Jr gained an embarrassingly narrow lead over John Kerry despite the claims of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides, Vajpayee never explained what president Clinton meant when he claimed in an address to the Indian parliament that it was the US that saved the day for India by pummelling Pakistan with a diplomatic démarche served on an utterly perplexed Nawaz Sharif.
Row back in time. While Vajpayee’s vote percentage had dropped despite televised jingoism, in Pakistan, the Kargil goof-up required a military coup to mask the embarrassing endgame. And those who have won popular support since were parties who promised peace with India. It was the same with the Mumbai terror strike. In 2009, shortly after the carnage, amid calls for revenge, Manmohan Singh won his second consecutive term without lifting a finger. It was the Indian people’s less-discussed endorsement of his understated, phlegmatic response to Pakistan. This the croupiers and their in-house media will not discuss.
Instead, the blue-turbaned prime minister headed off to Sharm al-Sheikh to agree on a comprehensive path to peace with his difficult and troubled western neighbour. When Singh lost in 2014 after 10 years in office, it was on account of a weakened control on his own coalition partners.
Therefore, editorial writers and worried experts who warn of a Modi plot in the recent events in Kashmir need to calm down. There’s nothing the Modi government can do to win in 2019 if the opposition doesn’t want him to. The ground reality in India has changed from the day he defeated a divided opposition.
The coming together of arch rivals Mayawati and Akhilesh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh has shown that the opposition holds all the aces. Even in Srinagar, if the National Conference and Peoples Democratic Party can bury the hatchet and invite the Hurriyat to work out a durable end to the self-wounding bloodbath, there is nothing that Modi or his hawkish advisers can do to take the initiative from them. The blood of innocent lives will not go waste if Kashmir can find a solution that undermines the croupiers and elevates the chances for a battered and abused region to join the global quest for peace and justice.
Friday 21 April 2017
Online political advertising is a black box and democracy should be worried
Jasper Jackson in The Guardian
As your mind wearily contemplates being exposed to yet another political campaign, are your dreams haunted by battle buses, billboards and TV debates? Or is it Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google?
On the evidence of last year’s EU referendum, much of the campaigning, and much of the money spent on political advertising, will be online. And it will happen in a way that will be largely hidden from scrutiny by either the public or regulators.
During the referendum, Vote Leave spent £2.7m with one small Canadian digital marketing firm that specialises in political campaigns – Aggregate IQ. The sum was well over a third of Vote Leave’s total budget.
Two other campaign groups – both of which received large donations from the Leave campaign - gave Aggregate IQ a further £765,000, taking the total pumped through the company to almost £3.5m. Vote Leave director Dominic Cummings is quoted on the company’s website saying “We couldn’t have done it without them.”
Yet the invoices for the money they paid to Aggregate IQ, which were handed to the Electoral Commission, list vague jargon-filled specifications with little indication of how the ads were delivered. It may tell us Aggregate IQ were running a “targeted video app installed and display media campaign” but gives no clue about where those ads appeared or who saw them. Did most of the money go on Facebook or YouTube? Did they spend more money on reaching under 45s in Hull or pensioners in Canterbury? There’s no way of knowing, not least because the Electoral Commission doesn’t ask for the information.
Meanwhile Cambridge Analytica, the digital targeting experts part-owned by US billionaire Robert Mercer, were credited with super-charging the Leave.EU campaign, even getting a mention in a book about campaign by its chief funder Arron Banks. Yet according to filings with the Electoral Commission there was no paid relationship with the firm at all. The Electoral Commission is currently investigating, as is the Information Commissioner’s Office over the company’s use of data.
These two companies promise to sway the electorate using high-tech targeting of voters, yet not only does the Electoral Commission have little idea of how the money is being spent, but many of the different messages those campaigns show chosen sets of targets are hidden from the rest of us.
An ad in a newspaper or magazine, a billboard or tube poster, can be seen by anybody who happens to come across it. They are targeted in a blunt way, by location, readership etc, but who they are appealing to, the messages used and the money spent is clear for all to see.
But online, ads are directed at far more specific target groups, and shown only to them. Suspect someone is a bit racist? Show them pictures of dark skinned migrants lining up at a border. Know someone regularly visits Spain? Emphasise how much longer it will take to go through airport security.
Just as importantly, you can make sure that you don’t show the wrong ads to the wrong people. The racist dog whistle doesn’t get pushed at people likely to be from, or comfortable with, ethnic minorities. The lengthy customs checks don’t get shown to those with an all-consuming fear of terror attacks.
Of course, people will see ads that aren’t aimed at them online – the targeting is far from perfect - but the digital world allows paid-for political campaigning to split into numerous conversations that rarely overlap.
This combination of digital marketing firms that are required to reveal little about what they do, and digital ads that are different for each segment of the population, make political advertising online opaque in way traditional ads were not.
And the approach seems to work. A more sophisticated digital strategy is regularly cited by Cummings and other Leave campaigners as as example of how they outsmarted Remain. If you were planning how to win June’s election, you’d be mad not to pay close attention to how they did it, and do your best to replicate it. And that means as we approach yet another nationwide vote, it will be harder than ever to see what impact money and the political advertising it pays for is having on the result.
As your mind wearily contemplates being exposed to yet another political campaign, are your dreams haunted by battle buses, billboards and TV debates? Or is it Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google?
On the evidence of last year’s EU referendum, much of the campaigning, and much of the money spent on political advertising, will be online. And it will happen in a way that will be largely hidden from scrutiny by either the public or regulators.
During the referendum, Vote Leave spent £2.7m with one small Canadian digital marketing firm that specialises in political campaigns – Aggregate IQ. The sum was well over a third of Vote Leave’s total budget.
Two other campaign groups – both of which received large donations from the Leave campaign - gave Aggregate IQ a further £765,000, taking the total pumped through the company to almost £3.5m. Vote Leave director Dominic Cummings is quoted on the company’s website saying “We couldn’t have done it without them.”
Yet the invoices for the money they paid to Aggregate IQ, which were handed to the Electoral Commission, list vague jargon-filled specifications with little indication of how the ads were delivered. It may tell us Aggregate IQ were running a “targeted video app installed and display media campaign” but gives no clue about where those ads appeared or who saw them. Did most of the money go on Facebook or YouTube? Did they spend more money on reaching under 45s in Hull or pensioners in Canterbury? There’s no way of knowing, not least because the Electoral Commission doesn’t ask for the information.
Meanwhile Cambridge Analytica, the digital targeting experts part-owned by US billionaire Robert Mercer, were credited with super-charging the Leave.EU campaign, even getting a mention in a book about campaign by its chief funder Arron Banks. Yet according to filings with the Electoral Commission there was no paid relationship with the firm at all. The Electoral Commission is currently investigating, as is the Information Commissioner’s Office over the company’s use of data.
These two companies promise to sway the electorate using high-tech targeting of voters, yet not only does the Electoral Commission have little idea of how the money is being spent, but many of the different messages those campaigns show chosen sets of targets are hidden from the rest of us.
An ad in a newspaper or magazine, a billboard or tube poster, can be seen by anybody who happens to come across it. They are targeted in a blunt way, by location, readership etc, but who they are appealing to, the messages used and the money spent is clear for all to see.
But online, ads are directed at far more specific target groups, and shown only to them. Suspect someone is a bit racist? Show them pictures of dark skinned migrants lining up at a border. Know someone regularly visits Spain? Emphasise how much longer it will take to go through airport security.
Just as importantly, you can make sure that you don’t show the wrong ads to the wrong people. The racist dog whistle doesn’t get pushed at people likely to be from, or comfortable with, ethnic minorities. The lengthy customs checks don’t get shown to those with an all-consuming fear of terror attacks.
Of course, people will see ads that aren’t aimed at them online – the targeting is far from perfect - but the digital world allows paid-for political campaigning to split into numerous conversations that rarely overlap.
This combination of digital marketing firms that are required to reveal little about what they do, and digital ads that are different for each segment of the population, make political advertising online opaque in way traditional ads were not.
And the approach seems to work. A more sophisticated digital strategy is regularly cited by Cummings and other Leave campaigners as as example of how they outsmarted Remain. If you were planning how to win June’s election, you’d be mad not to pay close attention to how they did it, and do your best to replicate it. And that means as we approach yet another nationwide vote, it will be harder than ever to see what impact money and the political advertising it pays for is having on the result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)