State elections have a different dynamic

Interview with Oscar Fernandes, Union Labour Minister and former president of the Congress in Karnataka.

Senior Congress leader and Union Labour Minister Oscar Fernandes says the Karnataka verdict is not a reflection of any anti-incumbency factor working against the Centre. Nor does it, he says, have anything to do with price rise. Various acts of omission and commission by the Election Commission, especially in the context of delimitation, have cost us the State, he says. He admits that the party is now looking forward to new allies, including the Samajwadi Party. Excerpts from an interview:

When the poll process began in the State, the Congress was said to be the frontrunner. Even the opinion polls projected it as the single largest party. What went wrong?

An election result is a combination of various things, including certain local factors. So, it is not possible to pinpoint any one single factor. There were several factors, including various acts of omission and commission by the Election Commission. During the process of delimitation we pointed out irregularities in the voters list. The E.C. said it would take six months to correct them, but within a week it said everything was all right. It merely did a cut and paste job. This resulted in a defective voters list and many of our supporters were denied the right to vote.

Was multiplicity of leadership in the Congress a factor that led to your defeat? Would it have been better to project a chief ministerial candidate?

In the State it is true we have many leaders and they all contributed positively during the campaign. We fought the elections in Karnataka collectively. As for the chief ministerial candidate, people in Karnataka knew who it would be, so there was no confusion on that account.

But is it not true that the induction of S.M. Krishna into the campaign at the last moment confused voters?

S.M. Krishna is a very tall leader and it was very nice of him to extend his support for campaigning. His presence only added to the Congress appeal.

How far do you think the Karnataka verdict will impact the poll scenario in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Delhi? How much will it influence the voters in the general elections next year?

There are various local factors at work during the time of State elections. Organisational preparedness is also a factor that contributes to electoral prospects.

So I dont think the Karnataka result will have a bearing on any other State. We will win in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Delhi, there is no doubt about that. As for the general elections, State elections have a different dynamic, which is not always relevant for Lok Sabha elections. If it was not so, the BJP would not have lost the 2004 Lok Sabha elections because only a few months earlier had it won three State elections.

Did anti-incumbency factor working against the UPA government affect your prospects in Karnataka, especially in the context of rising prices?

Not at all. There was no anti-incumbency factor working against us. If anything, it should have been against the BJP because just before the State went under Presidents Rule, the JD(S) was ruling the State with the BJPs support.

Price rise is something caused by extraneous circumstances, at times beyond anyones control. Price rise is a political situation and both the State and Centre will have to share the responsibility for that.

After Karnataka, Rahul Gandhis efficacy as a vote-catcher is bound to become a topic of discussion. Though he campaigned extensively in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, the party did not fare well. What do you have to say on this?

A leader can only give an impetus to the organisational structure already present at the grassroots. The organisation at the grassroots has to be fighting fit, only then a leader can propel it. He cannot be expected to create that structure from scratch. To that extent Rahuls impact was tremendous. His presence galvanised the cadre, enthused voters, and got us votes. Despite the fact that we lost, our vote share is the biggest. We increased our seats from last time, but yes, we could have done better.

Why is it that the largest vote share did not translate into enough seats?

It was basically because of the division of secular votes. Though they did not win themselves the smaller parties dented our vote bank. This is borne out by the narrow margin of defeat of some of our candidates; in some cases the difference was less than 100 votes.

But in an election, you win some, you lose some. Thats all part of the game.

Is the emergence of the BSP at the national level a cause of concern for you? How much was the BSP responsible for the partys defeat?

The BSPs influence would be inversely proportionate to our level of preparedness. In Karnataka, though it contested all the seats, it affected our prospects only to a limited extent.

Is the BSP a reason for the newfound warmth between you and the Samajwadi Party? Could it lead to electoral alliances in future?

It is true that there is now no rancour between us as earlier. In Karnataka we supported Bangarappaji, but unfortunately he could not win.

As I see it, yes, there is warmth and it could lead to an alliance in future.