I have been tracking the Assembly results of Punjab, Uttarakhand & Manipur.
The outgoing CMs are blaming "anti-incumbency" as the reason for their loss. My problem is that they make it appear that "all's fine with their Govt" & it was "only a case of anti-incumbency".
Excuse me !!!
My question to these CMs is :
If your governance has been good, why there is "anti-incumbency" ? Is "anti-incumbency" something which cannot be logically explained, has no rationale & is it purely the "whim & fancy" of the electorate ?
Will you guys do me a favour ?
Just tell whose problem is "anti-incumbency" in any case ?
When BJP lost the parliament election it was due to their policies but when congress loses it is because of anti-incumbency. Hence it is based on the context.
Even now the 'anti-incumbency' is because of BJP , akalidal and other opposition parties. If they did not contest, then there would not have been any alternative for congress.
The next problem is the election commission and police dept which was not as co-operative as was witnessed in chennai corporation elections.
Of course the main problem is the elections itself. That is why Indra gandhi brought in emergency. What a pity it could not be continued indefinitely. If it had continued, then there is no question of election or anti-incumbency.
Hence the problem of anti-incumbency rests solely with the concept of election. So congress may decide to abolish it.
Digressing a bit....
As you know elections can be abolished by doing what is the fashionable thing to do nowadays for PMK , DMK etc -- Amending the Constitution. While DMK and PMK demand amendment to give reservation to tamil obcs / mbcs using brute majority, it will set a precendent for the northindian parties to amend the constitution to establish the following:
make hindi the only language to be used in india
give 99% reservation within the obc quota for north indian obcs.
all industries in TN must give 80% reservation to north indians.
no political posts for tamilians in tn etc etc etc.
All the above are justified by the same logic used by PMK and DMK -- brute majority can amend the constitution to its benefit.
Congress may insist on amending the constitution to let only it to contest the elections. or better still no elections.
If we can amend the constitution then it can be amended any number of ways and times such that it will never resemble what it was when created.