Civil indifference and ridiculous claims

In turn, this leads us to another question. Why do people vote the way they do? Is their ballot influenced by one issue or a mix of issues and a reasonable and cold-bloodedly rational prioritisation of concerns by an individual voter?
It's not as if corruption and honesty don't figure in this calculation. When they have found politicians of financial integrity, voters have rewarded them. Yet, in each case it wasn't merely personal ethical conduct but the fact that it came with an appealing policy and a governance package that won the mandate.
Is the converse possible? Can voters sometimes overlook corruption because other parameters — patronage, administrative acumen, identity — make a politician attractive despite his or her faults? Much as this may anguish Hazare — and discomfort his thesis of 99.5% support for the Jan Lokpal Bill — it is a hard reality.
Hazare's well-meaning but ultimately fallacious reasoning is not unique to him. LK Advani, too, appears convinced the next general election will be nothing more than a referendum on two or three major national swindles.
The true battle against corruption is not going to be fought by enacting that one monster law, attempting to convert that one election into a plebiscite, targeting into submission that one (or more than one) big-name politician. It calls for structural changes — in governance, in discretionary authority, in economic regulation — that prevent corruption. To pretend otherwise is to misread the compulsions of voters at election time.
Hindustan Times
By Ashok Malik