The readings for today furthered my understanding of this week’s discussions where we questioned whether democracy entails equality for all or not and to what extent South Asian democracies fit into the understanding of “normative democracy”.

 

Cash can play very complex roles in democracy especially one as multi-faceted and multi-layered as South Asian democracies. The generally held view around the world is that vote-buying leads to a “decline of democracy” and the “corruption and criminalization of politics”. Bjorkman challenges this notion by providing an anthropological study of the role of money during the 2012 elections in Mumbai where he argues cash transfers did not translate into vote purchases. 

 

Instead, candidates paid local leaders (“brokers”) to mobilize voters and gather large crowns for political rallies. This money created relationships between candidates, brokers, and voters. For example, cash gifts given to brokers helped politicians identify potential partners and build a political network. Some candidates also gave money to brokers late in the campaigns upon receiving lists of their supporters. This was a way of cementing loyalty instead od actually buying votes. Interestingly, attempts to directly buy votes with cash failed. The message was clear: 

loyalty could not simply be purchased with cash. 

 

While money became a symbolic gesture to gain loyalty and trust, the actual vote choices remained unpredictable. This exchange did, however, put brokers in a unique – somewhat empowering – position to negotiate complex allyships with the candidates. Hence, Bjorkman argues election money should not be seen as “commoditizing” votes. Instead, it should be seen as a symbolic force which can mobilize networks vital for navigating the city and signaling access to power and resources.