Hero Image

What's in a symbol?

Chennai: Once considered crucial and decisive, the importance of the symbol is on the wane, as parties with new symbols are able to reach the masses in a short span through 24X7 news channels, social media and door-to-door campaigns.

Until a few decades ago, symbols were all important and synonymous to party leaders — two leaves meant M G Ramachandran or J Jayalalithaa and the rising sun C N Annadurai or M Karunanidhi.

The local candidates did not matter. This was more so as a chunk of voters in rural areas were not literate, and could not identify names of parties or candidates, but the image of the symbol was easy to identify. The slogan of party personnel during campaigns was also "vote so-and-so symbol". In some rural sections the idea still rules.

But, parties like the TMC and individuals like T T V Dhinakaran have shown they can hit a home run despite having to contest on a new symbol with limited time. Voters too have shown remarkable alacrity in choosing the symbol they want to vote for. Therefore, parties, which lay too much stress on the popularity of symbols and presume they ensure electoral victories, could be in for a shock.

In 1973, the new party ADMK formed by MGR came with a new symbol of Two Leaves and yet defeated established parties like the DMK and the Cong(O) in the Dindigul by-poll. The Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC) was formed days before the 1996 general elections, yet it secured a massive mandate as people even in villages could identify the TMC’s bicycle symbol and voted for it. More recently, T T V Dhinakaran, having failed to secure the AIADMK’s two leaves symbol in the RK Nagar byelection, first threw in his hat in the ring, making the hat his party, AMMK’s, symbol. Dhinakaran, wearing a hat during press conferences, reached the masses through the TV channels. When the election was countermanded and the process began all over again, Dhinakaran made the pressure cooker symbol his own against the well-established two leaves and won. In the upcoming Lok Sabha elections, it is uncertain whether the pressure cooker symbol will be his, but Dhinakaran has shown that a symbol is unimportant.

The symbol, however, does bring in some traction, though it may not guarantee success. In 1989, the AIADMK (J Jayalalithaa) was denied the two leaves and it came a distant second to the DMK. When it came back to power in 1991, it was more for the merger of the AIADMK factions and the Sriperumbudur blast than the return of two leaves.

For political parties, the power of the insignia has gained new meaning since the 2016 assembly elections, when allies were asked to use the AIADMK and the DMK symbols. Jayalalithaa’s demand that smaller parties like the TMC, the Puthiya Tamizhagam (PT), the Manidhaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK) and the Tamizhaga Vaazhvurimai Katchi (TAVK) contest on the AIADMK’s two leaves symbol, created friction. The AIADMK strategy nearly knocked the party out of power.

In the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, the issue of symbol has again been a point of contention. The IUML and the VCK have been asked to contest on the DMK’s rising sun symbol. Though the IUML has toed the line, the VCK, keen on being recognized a state party, wants to use its own symbol at least in Thirumavalavan’s constituency. In the AIADMK camp too, the TMC is said to be keen on contesting on its own symbol. It has urged the EC to allot the old symbol of bicycle. An explanation offered by party managers is that the performance of an alliance partner is better when contesting on the DMK rising sun symbol. The question of transfer of votes from one party to another has often been debated. Even mediapersons are guilty of rubbishing the performances of minor parties in an alliance. The smaller parties are ridiculed for the ‘failure’ to transfer their votes to an alliance.

The fact remains, members of a party like the DMK show greater keenness in working for their own party candidates rather than for an ally. This is a tacit admission that the main parties, find it difficult to transfer their votes to other parties. Leaders, who constantly change alliances and candidates, are finding it increasingly difficult to convince the rank and file about the motives and logic behind such decisions. Last-minute changes, possibly due to extraneous considerations like money and posts, have meant the cadres are saddled with the task of carrying out alliances at the bottom of the pyramid when there is no ideological compatibility. The denial of party tickets to grassroots workers, and preference to dynasts across the spectrum, adds to the problem.

(The author is a veteran journalist)

READ ON APP