One of the challenges that all political parties want to solve is: what will win the votes of the people. As the next election approaches, the need to know the answer becomes sharper, and most parties filled with money look for self-proclaimed strategists who sometimes “delivery”, as the media and politicians believe, when the parties they work for, of course, win for huge compensation. But few strategists repeat their success because, in the end, the election results depend on people’s mood.
However, all parties think they can attract voters – otherwise they wouldn’t go to politics at all – and waving their preferences, they make statements, manifestos and gestures that illuminate the path to polls in interesting and sometimes confusing or confusing or ridiculous anecdotes and anecdotes and small wines and small wines. Politicians don’t know what people expect from them, but try different techniques. Thus, we find that one leader is addicted to self-strategy, which his critics describe as a soft whip, while some claim to be close kinship with the late leader, just like LTTE Leaders v. Prabhakaran.
But that was an old event. What’s brewing in Tamil Nadu now is different. The dramatic allegations of opposition parties and the swift rebuttal of the ruling party have become normal allegations. One of the charges the ruling party is now facing is a murder case. Every death is under strict scrutiny, and every foul game is a government failure. Indeed, criminals can run freely only if they are not worried about the law catching up with them, and the government has the responsibility to ensure that the long arms of the law do not forgive anyone.
But when opposition leaders raised their heads on the floor of the House to point out the rise of murders in the state in hopes of winning Brownie points with voters and getting their support in due course, his statistics are versus more murders in his regime. Therefore, former Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami said that crime rates cannot be compared in this way like our economic-related figures. What he said indirectly is not to talk about the past, look at the present, you will see Gore everywhere and be responsible for it.
Without entering into the correctness of such a position, one wonders if a regime is judged by crime, especially murders that occur during term of office and will affect the choice of voters during elections. Indeed, crime, especially bloody people, left a lasting impression on the people, but the people held the entire government to be responsible for murders that took place for a variety of reasons and voted on them when the time came. This is a question that political parties find interesting or no answer at all.
Otherwise, why would the opposition party loudly accuse the government of not ruling the four people of the killer and hope to gain political capital from it? When the government recalled the murder, it was retorted that people believed that people saw it as institutionalized murders, such as shootings of protesters, who marched on a powerful multinational company, and they found themselves lost. Although every life is precious, the murders committed by police in the police station are considered more terrifying than the revenge killings that take place on the highway. So when the opposition talks about the murder of criminals on parole, the government reminds them that a father and son were beaten to death at the police station.
No one can deny that the people hope for a society without criminals and crimes, and they also hope that the government will usher in this amiable environment. But when a regime protester was shot down by a sharpshooter, the party asked why criminals were hacked to death during the day, it was just the well-known case of the pot being called a kettle black. At least ordinary people will see this. However, if the opposition thinks they can portray the blackness of the ruling party by pointing out a leap in crime, they seem to have exhausted their ideas to project themselves as alternatives.
Even the BJP, which was declared to occupy the state’s power by the KMT, was addicted to picky people, and it could be said to be ridiculous. The party’s local leaders promoted the cause of Hindi or its euphemistic three-language policy version, simply shooting themselves in the foot. Because, as those leaders themselves know, Hindi is seen as anorexia (right or wrong, that’s not the problem here), and supporting Hindi learning will not make them popular among voters.
But they all do it for obvious reasons. This trend raised by the opposition therefore raises trivial and mundane questions to win the next election, an indicator of the unhealthy political system of residence, taking away the possibility of problem-based debate and people-oriented policies from its authority. All this is because the parties seem to believe people will vote for reducing plunder and killing fewer people.
