Citizen candidates failed: Do cribbers really want change?

The once-great city of Mumbai tends to be disaggregated into two halves every election time, between slum dwellers and non-slum dwellers, between voters  who take bribes  and those who do not. It is time to divide the city into two new categories: the voters and the idiots. The voters are those who walk to the booths and tell the city who should run it. The ‘idiots’ are those — if you look at the etymology of the word — who prefer to be private than get into public affairs. The Athenians saw self-centredness in a participatory democracy, where the vote is the crux, as dishonourable… and hence, ‘idiots’ because they act in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Hitherto, they were seen only as cribbers, which it now transpires, is patently an inadequate description. Mainly because those who faulted politicians for the manner in which the city was managed – or mismanaged – let down the very people who were one among them. Here the distinction is made between a citizen devoid of political intent and a politician whose intent is power and pelf. [caption id=“attachment_220034” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“The cribbers wagged their tongues but did not proffer their left forefinger to be inked. AFP Photo”]  [/caption] The scores of independents, who, without resources, armed with only gumption and hope, contested on the city’s behalf, were left in the lurch by the non-voting class. The hope of the independents had lain among this underserving class. They seem to have been content and continue to be so with celebrities voicing their angst and clicking on the Facebook ’like’ button. They wagged their tongues but did not proffer their left forefinger to be inked. Nothing else but this unconcern will explain the victory of only 1 of the 79 candidates put up by the citizen groups across the city. In 2007, the victory of the candidate, Adolf D’Souza meant 100 percent success for only one was on the ballot. This time, the apathetic citizens enabled only 0.79 percent victories. What a come down! So, in a generous interpretation, Makrand Narvekar, the lone independent victor plighting his troth with the Shiv Sena soon after the results came in,  can be understood. If the city can its citizens, why can’t a candidate let down his voters, like traditional politicians almost invariably do? Probably, taking a cue from Adolf D’Souza’s tenure between 2007 and 2012 in the civic body, he too thought it is hard for a loner to uphold a principle of citizen to represent himself. This, when the cribbers were offered their first chance to help correct the course of Mumbai’s city governance, shift emphasis from a political to non-political dimension, from the politician- and contractor-centric to citizen-specific model. Even if the governing mechanism required modifications, they could have, by one single act of voting for their own kind, infused some sincerity into the process and scared the pants off the political class. They inexcusably laughed the gift-horse off the ballots, setting off fears that such citizen-candidacy has been only a five-year long affair. If it were to be that, then the city has no salvation, for, it would henceforth remain in the clutches of politicians elected to run the city on the basis of a criterion that has little to do with it. It also points to the reality that for other considerations including cash for votes, the city can be held to ransom by a political group which only messed it up to a terrible state. The other day, Bharat Dhabolkar, adman and articulate talking head conceded to me in a television studio – unfortunately it was during a commercial break in a discussion – that the city does not belong to the celebrities and that their appearances on TV screens and in candlelight vigils on city-related issues gave a false impression that Mumbai had come of age, that the citizens would take matters in their hand and correct the slide of the city. My contention was the celebrities are no more representative of the city though the citizens only see their personal views sublimated through the chic, well-groomed photogenic faces. Dhabolkar was indeed vexed with the unconcern which was manifest in the early moments of the counting on 17 February. He qualified it as being now bordering on recklessness. If only there were more Dhabolkars, ticking off the city’s apathy in public, saying, “We are not your proxies anymore or force-multipliers; the candidate from among you were”. This is required because the non-voting citizen has built upon himself a sense of victimhood about how the crass politicians do not give a damn about the city. In a huge city, where the inflated electoral lists has 1.02 mn voters, about 40,000 preferring a citizen to a politician to guide Mumbai’s destiny is not enough to form a significant statistic. According to a report in the Times of India, the independents generally polled between 300 and 500 votes per ward; 79 had contested as independents. Quite disenchanting, this mere drop, as one could say, when a flood was the need. The issue before the citizens group now is serious: how to sustain the modicum of enthusiasm for true self-governance without having to handover proxies to the political class. Should they convert themselves into pressure groups and confront the corporators for the next five years and secure accountability till the year 2017? If they did try, would the politician corporator, who has to recover his cost, pay heed to the effete? If the citizens do not walk the talk, why should he suffer them and their high moral horses? He or she needn’t give a damn. The citizens themselves opted out of the race, They abdicated.