The 'Moral' Churning of the Political Situation After the Elections

In every scenario, there is the moral ground that the party’s political conscience must face.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP National President JP Nadda greet supporters upon their arrival for a meeting at the party headquarters as the party leads in the Lok Sabha elections amid the counting of votes, in New Delhi on Tuesday, 4 June 2024.

(Photo Credit: PTI)

After the astounding and unexpected results of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, all political parties found themselves facing stupendous challenges arising out of the political situation as it unfolded, along with the moral, political, and legal constraints of the ideological stand that they had taken during the course of the elections.

There is no running away from this ‘existential’ crisis, for a government at the centre had to be formed, but at what cost?

The churning of thoughts in every political party took into account the past, present, and future scenarios. The parameters that motivate and determine this churning are many. But amongst them, there is the moral ground that the party’s political conscience must face. This moral ground, more often than not, is not very easy to accept, for the simple reason that it is based on ‘harsh truths’, that often thwart the expectations of gaining political power and success. Every political party or political alliance fights an election with the desire and expectation to win and come to power, and accordingly, puts in an effort to achieve that goal.

But, reality sometimes has surprises for them — when no one is a clear winner as is the case with the present scenario in the country, even though the Modi 3.0 government has now been formed. It is at that point that the question of what the party ought to do to face the existential crisis arises. The question is — if a party maintains the high moral ground that it will abide by the will of the people as reflected in the results of the electoral process and not indulge in any politically unethical collaborations to resolve the existential crisis, are they belying the expectations of the people?

This is the stance that the Opposition parties (the INDIA bloc) adopted as reflected in the resolution that they arrived at in their meeting the day after the results were declared. Did the INDIA bloc then fail in its duties to the people when it fought shy of reaching out to other like-minded parties in a positive way to enable the alliance to make a claim to form the government? Was this a classic example of ‘to err in favour of caution’?

In philosophical parlance, was this a case of adopting a weaker moral stance — accepting ‘omission’ at the cost of ‘commission’? Of course, the alliance assured that it will not lose any opportunity to act if a future political situation demands action (commission). But was this assurance enough for the people who gave them a fair chance? In a sense, this is sound moral reasoning — not yielding to the greed of political power. It is the harsh truth that the people who voted for them must also accept and appreciate.

On the other hand, the ruling party that did not get to the ‘halfway mark’ on its own, perhaps, thought that it was its moral duty to seek an alliance with other partners to resolve the existential crisis of forming a government. Nothing wrong with that. But, at what cost? Are they also compromising on moral and ideological principles in the process? Is this justified on the grounds that they are only trying to resolve an existential crisis for the collective good of the people? The issue is — does the end justify the means?

Are they prepared to yield to the moral and constitutional demands of the people who have elected them and given them an opportunity to govern? If yes, then they are also morally on the right course of action. But, if self-aggrandisement is the only motive, then the end will not justify the means. This only time will tell and we must wait for that.

As to the partners, who unexpectedly found themselves as ‘kingmakers’. What about them? They too faced the moral dilemma — to join hands to resolve the existential crisis — but, again, at what cost? ‘Arm twisting’ or ‘seeking their pound of flesh’ is not unknown in politics and it seemed to happen just before the cabinet was formed. But, is that for the ‘larger good’ of the country or a manoeuvre in regional party politics alone? That would decide the morality of their political decision. It is quite evident that political power comes with some cost.

The moral dilemma is to decide — benefit at what cost? The political scenario right after the results forced all political parties to delve into this moral introspection and face the question — what ought they to do for the collective good of the people? And, that is the big takeaway from the situation that this election presented. Hope that this momentous introspection results in the collective good of the people, who, fighting harsh weather conditions did not fail in their moral and legal duty to exercise their franchise for a stable government.

[Dr. (Ms.) Shashi Motilal (Retd.) Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi, India, obtained her PhD from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, USA in 1986. She has been Visiting Faculty at the University of Akron , Ohio,  USA and Carleton University, ON, Canada, TERI University, New Delhi and IIT/Delhi and IISP, New Delhi. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.]