In another about 60 days I have to make a decision. These are my PURELY PERSONAL thoughts. My aim is not to persuade anybody to my views. I am a supporter of political and social democracy and so let thousand flowers bloom and thousand views come up. Who knows which view is correct?
AADMK: monolithic party. There will be no pretenders to the throne. The leader is learned and efficient. But the leader is not capable of taking all persons with varied views along with her. The leader is presumed to overlook corruption within the party or bureaucracy.
DMK –The leader is politically much experienced and suave. In spite of strong views he had in his earlier times, he matured into a cosmopolitan politician and is capable of taking persons of different views along with him. He has been a good administrator. Only his alleged weak point is that he is family oriented (but many leaders in India and even In the world are family oriented-Lalu Prasad Yadav, Nehru family, Munde family, Mulauym singh Yadav, Badal family, even Clinton couple, Bush family, Butto family, Mujhubir Rahman family, Kenyatta of Kenya, the handsome Trudeau of Canada. In England, to my knowledge, it looks there had been only one example Pitts.). He has also to contend with accusation of corruption in his family members and friends though none have been finally punished.
Pattali Makkal Katchi-Leader and heir apparent and chief minister candidate are educated people. The leader is a shrewd politician and CM candidate has useful ideas for good governance. But he has not clarified what happens if somebody close to him in family or party is accused of corruption. Will he make his own enquiries and find the truth and take strict action or just try to defend him or her. It is time for both of them to clarify. This party was originally caste based party and will it come out of that stranglehold caste politics?
Makkal Nala katchi- led by four seasoned and experienced politicians. These four parties do not have common viewpoint on politics and economics of India and Tamizhnadu, though they have prepared common minimum programme. I understand and appreciate their wise decision not to choose CM candidate. I think it is perhaps because we still do not know how many seats each participant of this coalition will get? There is no point in choosing a CM candidate now and by chance if his party gets less number of seats. But their ambiguity about DMDK which says their own leader will be CM is confusing and shows lack of firm views. One more thing is what happens if this party is capable of forming a government and then how will they choose the CM.? Will there be scope for jockeying and power struggle. So far none of them were in power and only parties in power can be corrupt or not. What is the mechanism to fight corruption not only in general bureaucracy but also by members close to their families and friends or higher-ups in their parties?
I am thinking of the dark horse Naam Tamizhar Katchi led by a mercurial leader. He has some efficient ideas for good governance but he is too strong in ethnic ideas and in the 21st century Tamizhnadu he has to be flexible in his views and verbal outpourings. He may be a good orator but his style is rather outdated.
DMDK- The leader and his consort are charismatic leaders. They need strong intellectual and economics back room boys and girls for good governance. I am also little worried about charismatic leaders without strong political background. But at the same time I think who knows what unexpected leader may give better governance than the traditional political leaders (example Kejriwal. Of course he had experience in a NGO and has strong educated back room volunteers)
BJP- By itself at the present time I do not think this party even with coalition of some other parties can form the government.
There are few smaller parties and they can only buttress this party or other.
I shall vote for the party who have good governance potentiality in spite of whether that party has chance to power or not. There is no compulsive point to vote for the presumably winning party. It is better if everybody knows how many people will choose a particular partY as first priority. It will be a good augury for good politics.
There is a too much emphasis by the parties on Prohibition and corruption. I agree corruption free government is necessary but not sufficient. Everybody in a poor country like India is corrupt in small or big way. If a middle class person cheats Income tax in a small way is also corrupt. Merely incorrupt but inefficient parties or leaders cannot ensure good governance for prosperous Tamizhnadu. May be many people will vote mostly with some gut feelings and I am not underestimating that aspect. It is not the learned and thinking section of the public makes correct decision on whom to elect. I am also not accepting the view that the leader should be a formally educated person. Atlee a Barrister was not a successful Prime Minister as Winston Churchill who was a bad student in Harrow. These learned and educated sections of society are also partial and have their own whims and prejudices.
Of course there is a facility of voting “NOTA” but I think such persons are having utopian views on who can govern. You have to choose keeping the existing polity of leaders or parties.