By Dr Bhabani Shankar Nayak
LONDON:The politics of abstention is a well-established strategy and democratic practice within both national and international parliamentary traditions. In Westminster parliamentary practice, abstention refers to the deliberate refusal to vote either for or against a motion in parliament. Political leaders, parties, interest groups, lobbies, trade unions, and members of parliaments or assemblies may adopt this strategy for various reasons, choosing not to take a definitive position on a political, ideological, or policy issue. The politics of abstention has been employed as a political tactic in progressive, regressive, opportunistic, and even apathetic reasons within different contexts.
Progressive forces employ the politics of abstention when taking a position on an issue appears contradictory, immoral, or meaningless to the interests of the working masses. In contrast, regressive and reactionary forces often use abstention either to maintain the status quo or to facilitate the easy victory of governing elites. Both anarchists and libertarians have also adopted abstention as a strategy when voting fails to produce meaningful or positive changes in people’s everyday lives. For these groups, voting is considered immoral and undesirable; thus, abstention becomes a form of moral politics. Similarly, political parties and their parliamentary members may abstain when faced with real or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their individual, ideological, political, or public integrity.
The politics of abstention has been employed both as active and passive opposition, particularly as a way of rejecting the duality of dominant politics. It may also arise when there is insufficient information, uncertainty, or ambivalence between two political or ideological positions, making it difficult to take a definitive stance in support of or against a motion, policy, or political agenda.
At the same time, a culture of political apathy can also give rise to politics of abstention; a depoliticised politics of anti-political machine concomitant with the requirements of the governing classes. Opportunistic politicians and their political parties, however, often use abstention as an “escape route,” enabling ruling elites to secure a majority in parliament with ease. By contributing to quorum while avoiding a decisive vote, such abstention ultimately benefits the governing side. Thus, the politics of abstention is neither an expression of independent political positioning nor a path of equidistance.
Mr. Naveen Patnaik and his party, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), often resort to the politics of abstention to assert their independence and define their political relationship with both the Congress Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJD leadership claims to maintain an equal distance from Congress and the BJP in order to pursue independent politics for the development of Odisha and its people.
However, the so-called politics of equidistance often functions as an awkward doctrine of opportunism, one that strengthens ruling-class interests at the expense of the working masses. This opportunism has been evident in several instances where the BJD either voted in support of the BJP on key issues or abstained in ways that indirectly benefited the ruling party. The BJD justifies such actions as “issue-based support” in the interests of the state and its people. Yet, what exactly constitutes these interests remains vague and undefined. This ambiguous but reliable pattern of support for the BJP raises serious questions about the independence and secular credentials of the BJD and its leadership.
The people of Odisha have entrusted Mr. Naveen Patnaik and his party, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), with power for over two decades, and even after their electoral defeat to the BJP in the last state election, they were given a respectable and strong position as the principal opposition.
The people, therefore, have every right to question the logic behind the BJD’s politics of abstention, which ultimately serves to strengthen the BJP. In this context, the claim of equidistance is nothing more than a myth. When the BJD ruled Odisha, the BJP failed to demonstrate the qualities of a genuine opposition party; now, with the BJP in power, the BJD appears to be returning the favour by failing to act as a responsible opposition. As a result, Odisha is witnessing a democracy without a real opposition, where the BJD functions more as a dependable ally of the ruling BJP than as a check on its power.
Mr. Naveen Patnaik’s political strategy for the BJD in the forthcoming Vice-Presidential elections effectively bolster the BJP’s candidate. Will Mr. Patnaik and the BJD leadership explain to the people of Odisha the reasons behind their politics of abstention? How does this strategy align with their claim of equidistance? More importantly, how does such a position contribute to Odisha’s development or safeguard the political and economic interests of Odia voters? The reality is that neither Mr. Patnaik nor anyone in the BJD can convincingly answer these questions. Their political stance exposes the opportunistic nature of abstention and so-called equidistance, which ultimately empowers the BJP while undermining the secular credentials of the BJD and its leadership. By adopting such positions, the BJD weakens itself while strengthening the BJP at both the state and national levels.
History does not honour absentee leaders or their opportunistic politics; instead, it consigns them to irrelevance even within its dustbin. If the BJD continues down this path of political compromise and subservience, it risks erasing its legacy and undermining secular and constitutional democracy in both Odisha and India. The BJD and BJP are twins in the politics of opportunism. Political abstention and so-called equidistance amount to nothing more than hypocrisy, reflecting the lowest level of political consciousness and commitment to the people.
(The Writer Dr Bhabani Shankar Nayak is a Senior Professor in Business Strategy and presently teaches at several British University, based in London, United Kingdom, views expressed are personal).
