Modi is the manifesto: Why BJP doesn't need a hefty document

The metamorphosis from Murlifesto to Modifesto apparently takes a while. In the process, the BJP, the frontrunner in this election, may not be able to release its manifesto - originally drafted by Murli Manohar Joshi and now being extensively rewritten by Editor Narendra Modi - before the elections actually kick off on 7 April. A news report today says that the Election Commission has told the BJP it can’t release its manifesto on Monday, especially to a television audience, since the elections would have begun. However, print is okay. So if the BJP plans to release its Modifesto on Monday, it will have to do without the TV crews. [caption id=“attachment_1458967” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Modi is the manifesto. PTI[/caption] To be sure, the ban makes little sense since the manifesto can always be webcast and transmitted to the electorate through social media. The ban suits also the BJP fine since, by default or by design, its manifesto has become the talking point in the run up to the first phase of the general election. The party cannot but be relishing this attention. Even if the TV channels can’t attend the unveiling, who can stop them from discussing it? As the saying goes, if you want someone to read something, the best thing to do is ban it – and this would be okay with the BJP. But some issues are worth discussing – manifesto or no manifesto. For example: Do manifestos matter? Do they make a difference to the outcome? Are the promises made in manifestoes worth the paper they are printed on? #1: Do manifestoes matter? If the opinion polls are any guide to reality, the BJP is doing quite well without a manifesto, thank you. The Congress’s all-things-to-all people manifesto is not making any difference to the aad aadmi’s voting intent. The truth is manifestoes are too complex to make a difference. What voters look for are simple messages that they can digest. A simple freebie or slogan (Rice at Rs 2, Garibi Hatao) is far easier to understand than a 60-page document that promises everything from a lower fiscal deficit to women’s empowerment to a broadband revolution. Voters are not fools. They know that all governments promise the moon and end up offering a mere reflection of it in the voter’s bowl. So the one credible promise will always work better than a platter of pies-in-the-sky. This is not to say manifestoes do not matter at all, but to be believed, they must be credible. One of the reasons why Modi is supposed to have delayed the Modifesto is that the Murlifesto made too many promises. If this is the real reason for its delay, it is a good thing too. #2: Do manifestoes make a difference to the outcome? In 2004, the BJP’s India Shining manifesto flopped miserably. In 2009, the Telugu Desam promised everything from free houses to unemployment incomes to Andhra voters, but YSR trounced him. YSR even managed to beat back the Telangana wave by promising Telangana during phase one of the voting and then reneging on it in the Seemandhra phase. This time Rahul Gandhi has promised even more rights and entitlements – from health to houses to even entrepreneurship – but the polls have not registered any impact as yet. The reason is probably this: when a government has spent 10 years in office, its record is its manifesto, not future promises. No one will believe you can deliver something in the next five years what you did not do properly in the last 10. So, at least in the Congress case, the manifesto matters less than its track record. On the other hand, Modi is a walking manifesto. Though he has not made elaborate promises, he has painted a vision of growth, sold the Gujarat model, jobs and change even while demolishing the Congress’ alleged non-performance. He has been issuing his manifesto in instalments – starting with the Vision statement in January (infrastructure, 100 new cities), and following it up by a speech to business in February. #3: No manifesto does not mean no message, no theme. Most elections revolve around a central theme. This time, the Congress wants to weave a theme around secularism and fear of Modi, while the latter wants to paint himself as the development messiah. These two themes are already driving the message from both sides, and this time it seems the combo is working for Modi better than the Congress. Development is working for Modi, while communalism could result in some kind of mild reverse polarisation of the majority community, which again could benefit him. In this scenario, a manifesto with 100 disparate themes to woo different parts of the electorate will only clutter the voter’s mind. There is no need to confuse when clarity is already there on both sides. #4: Manifestoes can be constricting. Manifestoes are a crutch when you have nothing else to tell the electorate; they are a tripwire for a party that hopes to win and form a government. A party that wants flexibility in policy-making after it is elected cannot tie itself to a promise it cannot keep. For the last 20 years, for example, the BJP has not been able to get the Ram Temple business off its manifesto. If it emphasises it, the minorities will be upset. If it removes the temple from the manifesto, it upsets the core base. A skimpy manifesto that serves up broad principles and one or two big specific promises is more workable than a document festooned with unbelieveable offerings. Modi’s big advantage is that the electorate this time is not looking for big promises. It is looking for governance – especially after the complete failure of the UPA’s diarchy to deliver in the last five years. The sense of drift and incompetence refuses to leave the UPA. This is why Modi is the message: By being himself and positioning himself as the guy who gets things done, Modi is selling the idea that he will solve their problems, whatever they are. He does not quite need a Manifesto. It seems to be working.