The low percentage of voting (less than 46 per cent) in the municipal elections in Mumbai predictably got the media all excited and outraged. Immediate comparisons were made with the high turnout in Uttar Pradesh and instant conclusions were drawn — the poor were more aware of their democratic duties than the comfortable urban middle and upper-middle classes. That Mumbai has always shown scant interest in voting and that the tonier and richer areas often vote the least is now almost a self-perpetuating axiom that’s trotted out in every election to show the apathy of the self-serving rich. Equally clichéd are the photos and quotes of prominent celebrities from those areas who did vote, the more to shame those who chose to stay away.

This establishes the old saying that Mumbai is a city that does not care about democracy and has no interest in politics. The second half of the statement does have some merit, but not in the way it is meant. And a deeper look at voting numbers will show that the issue of low voting percentages is more complex than it appears.
In Mumbai, while it is true that richer areas have lower turnouts, it is not as if voters in slum areas come out in large numbers on voting day either. The apathy, if at all that is the cause of this lackadaisical attitude, is reasonably evenly spread. Secondly, civic elections in other big cities — Delhi, Hyderabad and Bengaluru for example — get an equally poor response from voters.
In the case of Mumbai, the handsome victory of the Shiv Sena and its partner the BJP has been “blamed” on this poor turnout. The social media and newspapers have been full of acerbic comments from concerned citizens on the lines of — “Well, what do you expect? You did not vote, the slum dwellers did and now we all have to suffer five more years of Sena (mis)rule.” Considering that the social media habitués are mainly the educated well off, the sub-text is clear — the poor, ill-informed masses go in for the nativist agenda of the Sena while the smarter set would have voted for the secular Congress but regrettably that did not happen.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, there is no guarantee that the educated middle classes would support the Congress. Despite the fact that almost 50 per cent of Mumbaikars live in the slums, the Sena-BJP combine has performed well in not just the poorer constituencies but also in many middle and upper middle-class-dominated ones. Similarly, the Congress (and other parties) got a lot of support from the slums. So a higher voting turnout may not have substantially altered the final outcome.
There are a number of reasons why the Congress fared badly and the Shiv Sena did well and political analysts have been busy listing all of them. But in the end, one factor counts the most: organisation. While community solidarity, sentiment (towards Bal Thackeray, in this case), bungling in choosing candidates, rebellion, in-fighting are all important reasons why some parties did not do well, lack of proper grassroots organisation plays a big role in the final performance. This is true in every election, but most of all in elections for municipalities and local bodies. Not just the local corporator, but also the party bosses and workers need to be visible to the constituents on a regular basis. They have to be seen as problem solvers, available at any time of the night or day. A network that is deeply entrenched in local communities and addresses local problems in a helpful way builds up goodwill that translates into votes. The party with the better grassroots networks (in this case, the Shiv Sena), therefore, wins.

In a city like Mumbai, the problems are surprisingly straightforward: water connections, getting paperwork done (ration cards etc), at best a recommendation for a school admission. For the rest, citizens manage on their own. Many slum dwellers want to get their humble properties regularised, but those are state-level policy decisions that corporators or even legislators cannot influence much.
For the middle classes, the municipality does not matter much on a daily and immediate basis. The crumbling infrastructure and bad roads are frustrating, but an individual corporator can’t (and won’t) do much about that. But on every other count, the better off Mumbai resident has learnt to disconnect from civic services. Mumbai has no power problem, water can be bought and less and less number of people send their kids to public schools; municipal schools have been shutting down all over the city. As for the crowded civic hospitals, they do a good job despite heavy odds; nobody needs sifarish for admission. Alternatively, there is always a small private nursing home available in the neighbourhood.
In short, unlike in rural areas, where “gormint” is mai-baap, city residents (and this is certainly true of Mumbai) see no reason to engage with officialdom at any level. Hence, those who can — and the well-off, salaried classes definitely can — keep minimum contact with civic bodies and politicians in general. Life is too busy and hectic to waste time in politics. Even in the slums, a resident would see no reason to be friendly with his or her corporator unless there is any personal need. Call it apathy or a utilitarian attitude towards the political process, but there it is.
There are other factors that come into play during the elections, of course. The Shiv Sena has a committed voters base that will support it no matter what; but it counts for much more during civic elections rather than say parliamentary ones, hence the Congress performs better. The bigger issue is that those who can (and this includes families whose incomes and aspirations are rising), are slowly but surely seceding from government and politics because they feel they can manage life very well on their own. This is something for all of us to think about.