|
Poll Punditry
Mansewak Singh
| |
The real story is in the state-level factors and fragmentation
on account of identity. India did not have “national” factors
because its people do not have a binding to the idea of one
nation state. |
|
 Media
cacophony decibels are falling a bit, so there is some chance of
taking a hard look at the Indian poll results. Beyond the victory
of United Progressive Alliance (UPA), the Congress' surge, the
trouncing of the BJP, the Left's rout and complete decimation of the
Third/Fourth Fronts, there is more than sweeping generalizations.
In the age of
two second sound byte, it was easy to convert a victory like this
into “spectacular” result but it must not go unnoticed that no party
in India now even claims that it can form a government on its own.
Remaining some 65 odd seats short of a majority is being seen as
great victory. The idea of Indian political parties being monoliths
is on its way out. Regional parties have really come into their own.
Indian voters
have a habit of shocking the poll pundits, but this time it is the
ability of the pundits to fool themselves that amuses a
dispassionate student.
 One
moment’s reflection will show that the 2009 result is far less
shocking than the 1971, 1977 and 2004 results. Also, the wins of
1980 and 1984 were much bigger. But then there was no 24 hour news
TV in those days, so who knows? Predilections and desires of the
commentators are becoming analysis, just as “India Shining” message
had trapped the media last time around.
If that was
bizarre, one theory to explain 2009, that India has no place for the
“politics of extremism” (i e, for either the Hindutva groups or the
Left) is only a shade less fanciful. And if over a decade,
“anti-incumbency” used to be a favourite and shallow explanation of
all electoral outcomes, the new and equally meaningless
generalization of the results of the 2009 elections is that
“performing governments” are now being rewarded.
Politics is not
only about electoral battles and politics is not reflected solely in
the outcome of elections. Yet, those who are uncomfortable with the
influence of caste in contemporary politics have been quick to
announce the end of identity as a factor of importance in Indian
elections, all because of the less than expected gains for the
Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Those who are uncomfortable with the idea
of coalitions have been equally quick to see in the 2009 resurgence
of the Congress the return of the bipolar/single party era. Those
who prefer the simplicity of dealing with personalities are quite
willing to see Rahul Gandhi as the new saviour of the Congress and
India – investing in this fourth generation member of the
Nehru-Gandhi family all the attributes of the three previous prime
ministers from the family.
|
One moment’s reflection will show that the 2009 result is far
less shocking than the 1971, 1977 and 2004 results. Also, the
wins of 1980 and 1984 were much bigger. But then there was no 24
hour news TV in those days, so who knows? Predilections and
desires of the commentators are becoming analysis |
|
It does not take
much analysis to reject these myths. First, the Congress has no
doubt increased its tally in the Lok Sabha very impressively, from
145 to 206. But in spite of contesting more seats this time (440 in
2009 versus 417 in 2004) its vote share has increased by barely 2
percentage points. The Congress seat tally may be the highest
in the five
parliamentary elections after 1991, but its vote share is far from
the 40% plus it routinely used to register until the late 1970s.
The Congress was
able to make a large increase in votes polled in the two most
populous states (Bihar and Uttar Pradesh), but take away those
increases and its share in the rest of the country has remained more
or less the same. Second, there is no sign of a return to national
parties holding sway, for if we look at the support of the two
largest parties, the Congress and the BJP, they contested many more
seats (873 versus 781) and yet saw their share of all-India votes
fall by 1.3 percentage points. Third and correspondingly, some of
the regional parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal (rJD) and the
Janata Dal (Secular) certainly saw their support dwindle, but the
large increase in voting for others like the Biju Janata Dal (BJD)
makes any generalisation about the
future of regional parties too simplistic to stand scrutiny.
Fourth, the votes polled by certain major parties that have
mobilised on the basis of identity have increased, not decreased.
The BSP, for instance, has increased its vote share (6.2% versus
5.3%), though it must be noted that there has been a decline in
support for the party in Uttar Pradesh since the 2007 assembly
elections and it did contest more Lok Sabha seats in 2009 (500
versus 435).
 Fifth,
Rahul Gandhi can take the credit for the Congress in UP winning the
largest number of seats in a quarter of century, but not all his big
bets have paid off. The decision not to kow-tow to the Samajwadi
Party in UP resulted in spectacular gains, but its refusal to go
along with the rJD in Bihar led to an equally spectacular loss. In
any case in both UP and Bihar, the Congress decision to go alone was
forced on the party at the last minute and was not born of any
sagacity or long-term commitment.
What all the contra-trends show is not that one story is more
complete than the other, but that perhaps only all of them together
can tell the complete story. In the aggregate and in most states,
voters have leaned towards the Congress in the 2009 elections, but
that is as yet more of a nudge than a shift. The regional and
identity-based parties have suffered here and there, but they have
also gained in strength elsewhere. In other words, state and
regional factors may have played a role in determining the 2009
outcome as well, even if the impact has been moderated by the strong
showing of one “national” party in many states. None of this should
be surprising. Parliamentary politics in India is a queer game now.
It is the story of individual regions/castes/classes/groups and
their alliances jostling to assert themselves. The days of the truly
pan-India party are over.
The real story
is in the state-level factors and fragmentation on account of
identity. India did not have “national” factors because its people
do not have a binding to the idea of one nation state. May be we
should consider one main factor from Verdict 2009. That this was an
election that the NDA lost rather than the UPA won. It may not have
been any positive message of the UPA/Congress that drew support to
the alliance in many states. It may have been the refusal of voters
to endorse the hate politics of the BJP and a surprisingly
incompetent election campaign that together spelt doom for the NDA.
27
May 2009
|
Read Also