It is always disconcerting for politicians to explain election defeats and answer insolent questions posed by know-all TV anchors and rookie journalists. The best answer to the question, "Why did your party lose?" was once provided by the senior Congress leader Pranab Mukherjee after a disastrous election in Karnataka 13 years ago: "Because the other party got more votes!"

Such insouciance was not very much in evidence among the unfortunate Congress stalwarts who were dragged before the cameras on the morning of December 28 last year to explain the rout in Himachal Pradesh. As if reading from one of the leader's well-crafted scripts, they all proffered a single explanation: anti-incumbency. It was as if anti-incumbency is a natural phenomenon akin to night turning to day and summer progressing into winter.

Since the loss of Congress dominance in 1977, politicians have recognised that it is easier for a party to win a single election rather than secure re-election. Himachal Pradesh is a classic case of an electorate that has made a five-year itch into habit. The Congress and the BJP have alternated in forming governments since 1984. A rout in one election doesn't preclude either of the parties from staging a spectacular comeback in the next poll. The post of Chief Minister has become a game of musical chairs involving Shanta Kumar, Virbhadra Singh and Prem Kumar Dhumal.

Only in West Bengal, where the Left Front has won on seven consecutive occasions, and Gujarat, where the BJP has prevailed four times in succession - five times if you include the Janata Dal-BJP win in 1990 - has the anti-incumbency trend been bucked on a sustained basis. Earlier, Lalu Prasad Yadav had won Bihar four times (either directly or through proxy) before being felled by Nitish Kumar. It will be interesting to see whether or not Naveen Patnaik and Sheila Dixit can win for the third time in Orissa and Delhi.

Is anti-incumbency inevitable? Do voters tire of seeing the same party and the same faces over a prolonged period? Is the sense of boredom sufficient to ride roughshod over tangible performance?

The questions acquire some relevance in view of the claims made by defeated parties that they undertook successful development programmes but lost because they failed to communicate the achievements to the people. This seems a facile argument and would imply that victory is assured if good works are backed by effective publicity - a conclusion that implies political parties must increasingly look to public relations experts and a favourable media for re-election.

Clearly, this is an untenable proposition. Mulayam Singh Yadav undertook a massive publicity blitz before last summer's election in Uttar Pradesh. He even managed to rope in Amitabh Bachchan as his brand ambassador. Bachchan made the preposterous claim on TV that Uttar Pradesh was the most wholesome state in India - a claim that invited instant ridicule. In 2003, Ajit Jogi had the local and national media eating out of his hands in Chhattisgarh. His development record too was reasonably impressive. Digvijay Singh had the endorsement of nearly every NGO in the country and his social development record was lauded by so-called experts. Yet, all three were roundly defeated.

Leaving aside Digvijay who was defeated for his over-emphasis on NGO-style empowerment and inadequate stress on roads and power, there is a common thread that runs through Virbhadra Singh, Mulayam and Jogi: they failed the "integrity test." Virbhadra and Jogi were accused of corruption, Jogi was also charged with the misuse of power and stifling opponents and Mulayam with crony capitalism. All three lacked the spotless record of say, Jyoti Basu, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, Narendra Modi and Naveen Patnaik. The CPI (M) stalwarts depended more on organisation than on their personalities but in the case of Patnaik, the Orissa voters seemed inclined to even condone administrative sloth to endorse a fanatically honest man. Compared to the sleaze experienced during Congress rule, Naveen stood out as a breath of fresh air.

There was a time when politics implied the successful practice of chicanery. Politicians were expected to use their discretionary powers to favour political activists and oblige businessmen and dodgy contractors. In the process, they were also expected to feather their own nest. Today's voters have turned more moralistic. They want development and effective administration. They are even willing to stomach lacklustre leaders. What they seem to have little time for are leaders and parties that are perceived to be integrity-deficient. Modi was successful in taking on his detractors both within and outside the BJP because he was seen to be fighting corruption.

Of course, there are exceptions. In Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati was not perceived as a model of rectitude. Indeed, she flaunted her newly-acquired wealth as a symbol of empowerment. CBI cases were registered against her but this didn't prevent her from being able to galvanise the anti-Mulayam votes. In Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa's alleged corruption in the early-1990s was about as highly publicised as Imelda Marcos's misdemeanours. Yet, she just spent five years in opposition. With a series of intelligent alliances she was back in power. Even now history seems to be repeating itself.

Maybe there are no pre-determined prescriptions for electoral success. It is conceivable that the BJP is far more hit by charges of corruption than the Congress and some of the caste-based parties for whom uprightness is not a must-have. At the same time, an alternative pattern of politics seems to be evolving. As the general elections approach, political parties should heed the central message from Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh: a development-friendly approach must be supplemented with wholesome leadership.

Civil society must play its role propping up this trend. Political parties too must start promoting leaders who can either pay for themselves from their own income or learn to keep their greed under control. What should matter is not the quantum of corruption but the principle of learning to distinguish between public and private funds. It will also help if professional politicians are replaced by those who have at least demonstrated their ability to earn their livelihood honestly, and outside the world of politics.

Courtesy: www.newindpress.com, January 12, 2008