Punjab politics appears to be entering a disturbing phase in which the first question asked about a prospective election candidate is increasingly not “What does this person stand for?” but rather, “Can this person win?” In the race for electoral success, principles, public service, integrity and political ideology can appear to be taking a back seat to one powerful word: winnability.
Money and electoral strength have increasingly become important considerations in candidate selection. A candidate with substantial financial resources, a strong personal network, influence in the constituency or the ability to mobilise workers and voters can sometimes be considered more attractive to a political party than a person with a clean image, strong principles and years of public service but limited resources. This raises a fundamental question about the health of democracy in Punjab. If political parties select candidates primarily on their ability to win elections, rather than their ability to serve the people, what happens to the quality of democratic representation?
The problem becomes even more serious when allegations or declared criminal cases enter the equation. It is important to distinguish between an allegation or a pending criminal case and a conviction; a person facing a case is not automatically guilty. Yet the fact remains that Punjab’s election records have included candidates from major parties who have declared criminal cases. ADR’s MyNeta database, for example, records numerous such candidates in the 2022 Punjab Assembly election. That reality raises an uncomfortable question: has “winnability” become so important that a candidate’s criminal record, controversial reputation or questionable public image can be overlooked if party strategists believe that candidate can deliver a seat?
This is not merely a question for one political party. It is a question for the entire political system. AAP, Congress, SAD, BJP and other parties all have to answer whether their candidate-selection processes place public credibility and integrity alongside electoral calculations. No party should be able to claim the moral high ground simply by pointing fingers at its opponents.The growing emphasis on winnability is also changing the nature of political leadership. Instead of building leaders through grassroots public service, political parties can be tempted to search for personalities who already possess money, influence, caste or community networks and the organisational machinery required to win an election.
Recent preparations for the 2027 Punjab Assembly election illustrate how seriously parties are already studying candidate viability. Congress, for example, has deployed observers to assess public sentiment, organisational strength, social equations and the winnability of potential candidates. There is nothing inherently wrong with evaluating whether a candidate can win. Every political party naturally wants to win elections. The danger begins when winnability becomes the only qualification that matters.A democracy cannot be reduced to an election-winning machine.
A candidate may be extremely popular and still lack integrity. A candidate may have enormous wealth but little understanding of ordinary people’s problems. A candidate may possess influence but no commitment to democratic institutions. A candidate may have a powerful network but a controversial record. If such qualities are overlooked simply because the candidate is considered “winnable,” political parties are effectively asking voters to choose between electoral arithmetic and ethical leadership.There is another uncomfortable dimension to this debate: money.
Elections are increasingly expensive political contests. Wealthy candidates can potentially have greater access to campaign resources, advertising, workers, transportation and political networks. This can create an uneven playing field in which an honest person without substantial financial backing finds it increasingly difficult to compete.If money becomes the entry ticket to politics and winnability becomes the final test, where does the ordinary public servant stand?Punjab has a long political tradition of leaders emerging from grassroots movements, student politics, farmers’ organisations, social activism and public service. The state should not allow that tradition to be replaced completely by a system in which wealth, influence and electoral calculations determine who receives the party ticket.Political parties must ask themselves a basic question before selecting every candidate: Will this person merely win the election, or will this person strengthen democracy after winning it?
There is a huge difference between the two.Winning an election gives a person political power. It does not automatically give that person credibility, competence or integrity.And perhaps this is where Punjab’s political parties need to rethink their priorities before the 2027 Assembly election. Winnability should certainly be considered but it should be only one factor among several. Clean public conduct, integrity, commitment to the constituency, understanding of Punjab’s problems, accessibility to ordinary people and respect for democratic institutions should carry equal or greater importance.Otherwise, political parties may succeed in winning more seats while democracy itself loses something far more valuable: public trust.The irony is that parties often talk about corruption, drugs, gangsterism and the criminalisation of politics during election campaigns. But the public is entitled to ask a simple question: what standards are the parties themselves applying when choosing their candidates?
If a political party condemns criminalisation of politics in public but quietly overlooks serious concerns when selecting a candidate because that person is considered electorally useful, the public has every right to question the contradiction.Punjab does not merely need candidates who can win.It needs representatives who can lead, serve, answer questions, respect the law and remain accountable to the people after the election is over.The 2027 election should therefore become more than another contest for power. It should also become a test of whether Punjab’s political parties are prepared to raise their own standards.Because if the only question is “Can he or she win?”, Punjab’s democracy may eventually be forced to ask a much more troubling question:
“What exactly are we winning and what are we losing?”
Disclaimer: This article and accompanying images are for informational and illustrative purposes only. Some visuals may be AI-generated or digitally enhanced and may not depict actual events or persons.Views expressed are based on publicly available information and analysis