The repertoire of tricks the Indian voter has performed has kept political parties on their toes, necessitating the formation of new strategies and agendas

The Congress’ win in three Assembly seats in the > by-election in Uttarakhand came as a surprise to the observers and analysts of Indian elections. Just when we were settling down to talk about the way the >Narendra Modi-led government has been performing, the Indian voter is posing new questions about how to make sense of the choices and patterns that are emerging and changing in electoral processes. The relation that voters share with politicians and political parties seems similar to the one between Tom and Jerry — each trying to outplay the other. The repertoire of tricks that the Indian voter has performed has kept political parties on their toes, necessitating the formation of new strategies and agendas to serve the needs of the voters.

Large voter turnout

To begin with, elections in India have witnessed a >relatively large voter turnout (well over 60 per cent) just when we were beginning to discuss the apathy in the political system and the endemic suspicion of the politician as a public figure. Even as voters express their inability to get substantive benefits from the ruling elites, and complain about rampant corruption across all the parties, they have turned out in bigger numbers to beat this mood. The formalism of the electoral process — electoralism — is supplanted by the enthusiastic participation of the average voter. Even in States such as Chhattisgarh, which has seen abject neglect and sustained presence of the Maoists (who have been giving an all-out call to boycott elections), >voter turnout has been very high. Added to this, when economic reforms began to be implemented and the policy frameworks of all political parties began to look very similar, the voter changed gears and moved from registering anti-incumbency to pro-incumbency.

From bargaining benefits by voting out the existing government, the voter found a more sustainable bargain in voting in the incumbent governments. They managed this through a significant shift in the policy framework of all major political parties. All parties that began with an exclusive growth-centric rhetoric, led by the Congress in 1999, began to campaign and contest elections on a welfare agenda by 2004. This trend was further entrenched in the 2009 elections which the Congress fought on the basis of implementing the >Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. In 2014, the party attempted to repeat this feat by formulating a massive >Food Security Bill; yet the voter chose to vote the party out and elect a government led by Mr. Modi. This government hardly spoke about new welfare programmes, but focussed on ‘minimum government, maximum governance.’ This led to a debate on whether the voter needs economic opportunities, empowerment and dignity instead of doles. Voters who were disillusioned with the Congress for poor implementation of welfare programmes chose a government which promised higher growth and better governance. But even here the voter made an interesting differentiation between the party and the personality: the vote was for Mr. Modi and not the Bharatiya Janata Party. They felt that the BJP is as ineffective as the Congress but it was on Mr. Modi that they ostensibly laid their trust, since he was prepared to take responsibility. In the facelessness that the neoliberal order presents, Mr. Modi was the visible face. This could well be the reason why voters were angry with the Gandhis; it’s not that they rejected dynasty rule as is commonly perceived.

Even as we try to understand the effects and contours of the Modi wave, the post-poll surveys in Delhi suggested that the BJP might not perform well or keep its vote share intact if elections to the Delhi Assembly are held. Among other choices, the voter has consistently maintained a difference in voting for general elections and Assembly elections. Even in States that witnessed simultaneous elections to Parliament and Assembly, they voted in different measure. This was clear with the rise and the fall of the Aam Aadmi Party. >While the AAP came to power in a dramatic fashion, it suffered a whitewash in the Parliamentary elections. The AAP is now finding reasons for this sudden disillusionment with its politics. Giving up power, the way it did in Delhi, did not have the desired effect of impressing the voter. Instead, voters read Arvind Kejriwal’s choice to run away from responsibility as his inability to govern. The BJP, therefore, is in two minds whether or not to stake claim to form the government in Delhi. Will forming government be seen as taking responsibility or will it be seen as an attempt to benefit from the existing mood? What will be the long-term effects on the party and image that Mr. Modi has so carefully cultivated?

It is, perhaps, for the first time that we are witnessing a party that won by a massive majority suddenly under pressure within a short duration. The BJP’s win is also significant because it caused a tectonic shift in the electoral pattern. Just when pundits were writing off national parties and single-party governments at the Centre, and declaring that coalition governments are here to stay, the voter opted for a single party with a massive majority.

Short-lived euphoria



However, there is already talk of the waning Modi effect. Are parties beginning to wilt under the hype they have created? This also seemed to be the case with the AAP. The euphoria generated died out rather quickly. While the Congress seemed to be a party that churned out new welfare policies but failed to implement them effectively, the BJP, which promised effective implementation, seems to have no new ideas — at least till now. The big picture of governing a country of this size and diversity is certainly missing in what we have witnessed over the last two months. Mr. Modi himself seems to be struggling to find a new persona that is different from his aggressive posturing during the campaign days. The question really is this: how will the BJP counter the hype it created? Will it be able to sustain the promised shift from sectarian mobilisation to pure governance? Or are we set to witness a combination of high-intensity growth policy with low-intensity communalism? The anointment of Amit Shah as party president and Ram Madhav, a pracharak and long-term spokesperson of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh which always claimed to be only a cultural organisation, as its general secretary, could be some signs towards this incumbent combination by the BJP. Given the speed and alacrity with which the voter is engaging with the political process, political parties certainly need ideas and policies that can effectively make a difference to everyday lives.

(Ajay Gudavarthy is assistant professor, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)