Why are we surprised by poor turnout?

How surprised should we be by the low turnout in the Mumbai elections? Should we regard it as a betrayal of the nation state - the line taken by most TV channels - or should we treat it as something that was only to be expected?

How surprised should we be by the low turnout in the Mumbai elections? Should we regard it as a betrayal of the nation state - the line taken by most TV channels - or should we treat it as something that was only to be expected?

HT Image

At one level, there is not a lot to be surprised by. Urban turnouts are usually lower than rural turnouts. Such cities as Mumbai rarely poll much more than 50 per cent of the electorate. In the last election, for instance, the turnout in Mumbai was something like 47 per cent.

This time around, the election coincided with a long weekend (Friday was Maharashtra Day) which usually guarantees lower turnouts. Moreover, it was exceptionally hot and statistics suggest that turnouts are lower during heat waves.

If you take all this into account, then it is not so surprising that the turnout at this election was a few percentage points below the figure for the last election. The long weekend and the heat are more than enough to explain the difference.

Largely because we were led to believe that Mumbai would register a record turnout this time. We were told that campaigns by movie stars asking people to vote would influence the Mumbai turnout massively. (Why should this be so? These were national figures taking part in national campaigns. Why should Mumbai be affected more than any other city?)

Further, we were assured that the events of 26/11 had changed the Mumbai mindset. We were informed that the residents of Cuffe Parade had suddenly been transformed into political activists. It was said that the future of India lay in the hands of bankers taking sabbaticals from the collapsing financial services industry. This was a new Mumbai, we were told, which now understood the importance of political participation.

If you think back on these claims and assurances, you will realise that not one of these statements was backed by any empirical evidence. Most of us believed them only because they were reported in the media again and again.

We were told by relatively prominent Mumbai socialites (but significantly, not by any politicians) that the mood of the city had changed. And we took them at their word.

What the low turnout figures tell us is not that Mumbai has failed India. In fact, the city has reacted in exactly the same way that it responds to every election.

What they really tell us is this: we listened to the wrong people. We wasted our time believing socialites, admen, midgets on the fringes of journalism, small-time actors and busybodies who made grandiose political statements each time they got onto TV or wrote guest columns in newspapers.
As journalists, we are partly to blame. We took people who belonged on Page 3 and put their views on Page 1.

We featured people who belonged on Night Out on News Night. They were smart, they were articulate and so they were media friendly and convenient for us to feature.

But now the truth is before us. Not only do these people not represent Mumbai, they don't even know the city.

One of the most distressing aftermaths of 26/11 was the parade of bimbos, bores and society bombshells on news channels. They acted as though they knew everything including how India should be run. And we made the mistake of listening to them.

It is a mistake that we in the media should be wary of repeating again.