Suchergebnisse

THIS STUDY DESCRIBES HOW INDIA'S URBAN CONSTITUENCIES HAVE VOTED SINCE 1952. IT POSES THREE SETS OF QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ASKS HOW INDIA'S URBAN CONSTITUENCIES REGARDING POLITICIZATION, RADICALIZATION, AND POLARIZATION. THE SECOND ASKS IF THE CONSTITUENCIES HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME. THE THIRD DEALS WITH THE DIFFERENCES AMONG URBAN AREAS FROM ONE REGION OF THE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER.

Whether it is the politics of the nomination process, the politics of the general election, or the politics of governance, it is safe to say that all candidates will firmly announce that they represent "all the people." Each will pronounce profusely that he or she "owes no one or no special interest group." And each will insist that he or she will pursue policies based on principles, not on pressures.So much for the rhetoric, and it is quite expected and understandable. Of course, it is acceptable to be against "big government" or "big business" or "special interests." That, too, is expected. A serious (meaning, even slightly possible) contender for, and occupant of the White House will not long remain so if he or she bluntly announces otherwise, that is, that one's candidacy is largely reliant on farmers, or business, or unions, or minorities (racial or otherwise).The reality, however, is frequently somewhat different, and it is not necessarily a matter of political cynicism to say this. The nature of the three forms of the electoral/ governance system almost dictates that people who strive to govern one system develop strategies to appeal to several constituencies. Specifically, in order to be nominated one must court delegates. In order to be elected, one must count state electoral votes. In order to govern, one must construct still other kinds of coalitions. Always, at each step, the system mandates strategies that disaggregate the electorate into manageable blocs and available constituencies.