The political scenario after MLC elections in Andhra Pradesh shows a ground reality that the ruling party does not like the ruling YSRC party, but YS Jagan Mohan Reddy refuses to acknowledge it.
The political climate in Andhra Pradesh reflects a certain ground reality that the ruling party does not like. The Chief Minister, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, is unaware of it and refuses to recognise it. He has a spotless reputation and is above reproach, thus someone else should take responsibility for the governance’s shortcomings.
The same holds true if the party also loses several elections before the national elections of the following year. Why is that? Are voters making it apparent to the ruling party that they are not pleased with its leadership?
The YSRCP may assert that just a tiny minority of voters—and some of them from the educated sections—voted against the administration in the most recent council elections. It can also be satisfied by criticising the four MLAs who allegedly supported the opposition candidate in the MLA quota during the Council elections.
But why is there such a high level of discontent among the state’s educated voters? What led them to believe that supporting the opposition candidates would be preferable to supporting the candidates of the ruling party? Has the opposition been able to convince people of its case against the ruling party’s shortcomings?
India’s democracy has demonstrated time and time again that the supposedly ignorant rural voter always makes superior decisions on his voting preferences. He casts his ballot, waits five years, and then assesses the performance of the party in power while secretly comparing his own agenda to that of the major parties.
Why does Jagan believe that his welfare initiatives will help him easily win the next election as well? He may have forgotten that in a democracy, the outcome of policymaking is expected to reflect public opinion and that policies should adapt to shifting demands. Democracy is in jeopardy if policies are unable to adapt to changes in voter preferences or if they are unresponsive to fresh problems.
The government is unquestionably in peril when democracy is threatened. Further friction results when there is a significant disconnect between the political agenda and the societal agenda. In this situation, three questions are crucial: How much do party preferences change over time, are there any disparities in how different parties respond to shifting needs, and what factors lead to these shifting pattern variations?
It only indicates that the incumbency is in doubt when it is challenging to find solutions to these queries. The results of such policies that have disconnected from societal reality are currently being seen in Andhra Pradesh. This is not promising for the ruling party, which is hoping to receive a perfect score of 10, or 175 out of 175 in the 2024 elections.
When compared to AP, UP politics are inconsequential in terms of bulldozer politics. At AP, every foe and political adversary is up against a bulldozer. The leaders of the ruling party do not simply “avenge” these in every way; numerous lawsuits have also been brought against them. They are relentlessly pursued by the police, who also pick them up at unexpected times.
All throughout the streets, you can see the ruins of democratic processes. With the Village Secretariats, the party administers a parallel government in the pretence of providing benefits to the populace without being held accountable. Dissatisfaction builds up as a result of dubious methods. And after five years, nobody will be able to conquer it. #hydnews #hydkhabar #livehyd
