People's Democracy(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) |
Vol. XXXV
No. 44 October 30, 2011 |
TAMILNADU
Local Poll Results
Indicate Anger Against DMK, Allies
A A
Nainar
THE
recently concluded elections to the local bodies in Tamilnadu
had virtually
repeated the results of the May 2011 elections to state
assembly, barring a few
changes. Unlike in the assembly elections, most of the parties
contested the
elections independently and hence it happened to be a testing
ground for their
individual strengths in terms of voter preference.
AIADMK
TACTIC
The
ruling AIADMK had contested the assembly elections in alliance
with 13 parties,
big and small, whereas the DMK was in alliance with the
Congress, PMK and VCK.
As is known, the AIADMK front swept the polls, leaving only 29
to the DMK
combine out of a total of 234 seats. After the elections, this
front was torn
apart and all the parties contested the local body elections
independently.
This prompted the AIADMK to “go it alone and grab all.” Of
course, the AIADMK
put up the façade of discussions with the CPI(M) and CPI by
forming a
negotiations committee, but it was a non-serious engagement that
ended up in
dillydallying. As the AIADMK announced candidates for the
constituencies
hitherto held by the alliance partners while engaging them in
never ending
discussions, soon there was the final break-up of talks. The
CPI(M), in its
state committee meeting held on September 26, decided to forge
an alliance with
the non-Congress, non-BJP, secular and democratic parties with
the obvious
exclusion of DMK, PMK and AIADMK for varying reasons. CPI and
CPI(M) leaders were
continuously apprising each other on the progress of the talks.
But when the
CPI(M) decided to break with the AIADMK and hold discussions
with the DMDK, the
CPI remained undecided, hoping to join hands with the AIADMK. On
account of
this there was some delay in CPI joining the CPI(M)-DMDK
alliance.
The
elections took place in two phases, on October 17 and 19, and
the results came
on October 21. It was a low polling election when most of the
parties were
contesting independently. So the single largest party stood to
gain --- the
AIADMK almost swept the polls. It won all the 10 mayor posts for
the 10
corporations and 89 chairmen posts out of 125 municipalities in
the state. In
the town panchayats, district panchayats and ward elections, the
same trend was
visible. The DMK came a distant second in terms of the seats
won. However,
though the AIADMK victory was spectacular, it polled only 39.02
per cent of the
votes polled, whereas the DMK polled 26.10 per cent. The DMDK
came third with
10.11 per cent of votes, relegating to the fourth place the
Congress which
polled a paltry 5.71 per cent. The PMK, MDMK and BJP had also
polled their
committed votes and seats proportionate to the percentage of
votes polled. The
Left parties together polled 1.73 per cent of votes and the
share of CPI(M) was
1.02 per cent.
However,
the compilation of vote percentages is not similar to the
straight methodology
adopted for the assembly and parliamentary elections. Here, it
has to be borne
in mind that there are multiple votes for individual voters and
the percentages
need not be a direct and correct reflection of the relative
influence of
political parties.
DMK’S,
ALLIES’
PREDICAMENT
The
people’s anger against the DMK in particular and the UPA
partners in the state
was very much palpable even before the elections, and the
results confirm that
the anger has not subsided a wee bit. In between, by-election
took place for
the Trichy west assembly constituency where the erstwhile DMK
minister K N
Nehru was defeated with an increased margin – up from 7,000 to
14,000. This was
a clear expression of the electorate’s mind that any lenience
shown for the DMK
would lead to annulment of the land grab cases filed against
many of its
leading functionaries in various districts. The results of the
local elections
confirm that the people voted for the AIADMK in order to punish
the DMK, and
hence the massive victory for the former.
After
the declaration of the results, the media, especially the
vernacular print
media, have been expressing their fond wish to have bipolar
politics in the
state. They fail to realise that this will not be in favour of
democratic
polity, as is being purveyed by the media. The mainstream
parties, national and
regional --- of course with the exception of the Left ---
indulged in
distribution of money and articles to purchase votes. While the
Election
Commission could not curb it, the media too did not highlight
such acts.
Despite
their tall claims to the contrary, the Congress and PMK could
not even to
retain many of their pockets. The MDMK, which gave a skip to the
assembly
elections, made its presence felt this time. An unhealthy
outcome of these
elections is that the BJP could independently win about 1.35 per
cent votes by
whipping up communal politics and polarising the caste Hindu
votes.
CPI(M)’S
CAMPAIGN
In
these polls, the CPI(M) has won the chairmanship of the
municipalities at
Kuzhithurai and Sivagangai which falls in the parliamentary
constituency of the
union home minister P Chidambaram, and of five town panchayats.
Besides, the
CPI(M) candidates have won in three corporation wards, 20
municipal wards, 101
town panchayat wards, two district council wards and 25
panchayat union council
wards. It has also won more than a hundred gram panchayat
president posts.
The
CPI(M) and the Congress were the two parties which had released
their own
manifestoes for the local bodies’ elections.
For
more than three weeks, cadres of the CPI(M) enthusiastically
took their
politics to the people. About the local bodies’ elections, the
party
highlighted the following issues in its campaign --- more power
to local
bodies, allocation of more funds in the budget, resolution of
local issues like
water, roads, sanitation, health etc. The issues of social
justice and rights
of women were also taken up in the electoral battle. Many
youngsters, new
faces, downtrodden, women and dalits were in the contest and the
campaign
displayed their vigorous involvement in the local bodies’
elections.
The
CPI(M) has been in the forefront of demanding regular elections
to the local
bodies, while the two major Dravidian parties refused to hold
elections during
the pre-Panchayat Raj Act’ era (1992). Now this was the fourth
time in a row
that elections were conducted and the CPI(M) is conducting a
powerful campaign
for democratisation of and more powers to the local bodies.
During the last
elections (2006), when the DMK, then the ruling party, trampled
upon the
democratic values and indulged in large scale violence and booth
capturing, it
was the CPI(M) which approached the High Court to get
re-elections ordered.
None can forget that strictures were passed against the DMK
government by the
highest court in the state. In the constituencies the CPI(M) won
last time, it
gave clean and corruption free administration and set high
standards for
others. This time too, the Left and the CPI(M) in particular
conducted a
powerful campaign among the public, highlighting the role of the
local bodies
in delivering the much needed social infrastructure for the
common man. The struggle
for these demands will continue with whatever victory the party
has achieved in
the latest local elections in the state.
Post-election,
meeting at Chennai on October 22, the Tamilnadu state
secretariat of the CPI(M)
conveyed thanks to the voters of the state for their support to
the DMDK-CPI(M)
alliance in the local body elections.
The
CPI(M) has conveyed its heartiest greetings to the candidates of
the
DMDK-CPI(M) alliance, to those of the CPI, and to the people of
Tamilnadu who
voted for this alliance, and to the rank and file of these
parties.
The
CPI(M) said those elected chairmen and representatives on behalf
of the party
would present a fair, transparent and corruption free
administration. The
CPI(M) congratulated all those elected to the local bodies in
this election.
The
state secretariat also urged the state government to guarantee
the functioning
of the local bodies in a fair and transparent manner, besides
providing more
powers and funds to these local bodies.