Pro-incumbency gets votes in Indian democracy

This is in short the story of the Indian voter, the power of the anti-incumbency wave, the reality of the pro-incumbency and the Indian elections in the 21st century. The election story is no longer about anti-incumbency sentiments making decisions; It is about what is driving the “pro incumbency” wave in the country. The longer we are stuck on the word “anti-incumbency” like a broken record, the more short-sighted and foolish we will look after the results of the Assembly or Lok. Assembly elections have been announced. There is no doubt that India is still a country where “anti-incumbency” sentiments run high and are meant as a warning to non-performing leaders. But it is also a fact that voters are rewarding politicians with a pro incumbency decision when they feel that it remains the preferred option once the negatives and the positives are weighed against each other.

Data shows it all: Let’s look at the evidence first. As the 1980s and 1990s dominated the ouster of governments, the anti-incumbency wave became a political trend or norm that needed to be analysed (Lalu Prasad Yadav and his party were the only exceptions to the “ideal”, then three winning consecutive mandates) but the first sign came from Delhi when Sheila Dikshit won a comfortable second term defeating the “mighty” BJP, which won Gujarat again in 2002 under Chief Minister Narendra Modi. That deluge was the first sign of an impending flood. In 2004, the Congress-NCP alliance won Maharashtra for the second time in a row, as did the BJD-BJP alliance in Odisha led by Naveen Patnaik. In 2006, Congress Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi won Assam for a second consecutive term as Chief Minister and Marxists won a seventh and last term in West Bengal, followed by Modi winning again in Gujarat in 2007. Against all odds, Sheila Dikshit won for the third time in a row in Delhi, while Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Raman Singh of the BJP won Madhya Pradesh for the second time in 2008.

This was followed by one national and two state level pro-incumbency shocks. Even as Mayawati and myriad other leaders dreamed of becoming prime minister, Manmohan Singh secured a second, bigger mandate to govern India. The NCP-Congress alliance won for the third time in a row. In Andhra Pradesh, YSR Reddy gave up all old “allies” and still won a second consecutive mandate. In Odisha, Naveen Patnaik almost worked a miracle by leaving the BJP as an ally and still single-handedly winning for the third time in a row.

We could go on and on. But everyone can check the data of the Election Commission of India to confirm that the 21st century is indeed pro-incumbency dominated. Even without Kerala and UP, pro-incumbency decisions were becoming the norm in states that accounted for more than 300 of the 543 Lok Sabha seats. The obvious question is: why? At the Sea Voter Research Foundation, we identified three major reasons behind the emergence and persistence of pro-incumbency as a dominant theme and flavor in 21st century electoral politics (a short book analyzing this phenomenon is coming soon). Is). They are: presidential style and personality cult-driven politics and elections that have developed strong roots; The cornucopia of welfare schemes, which have often persuaded voters (especially women) to keep up with the known devil, and the structural weaknesses of rival opposition parties in states where pro-incumbency is becoming the norm.

Rock Star Personality: Even skeptics will reluctantly agree that the person is a grown-up party. Of course Narendra Modi is the biggest example of this. In a party based on cadre and ideology like the BJP, the Congress might not have been imagined a decade ago to dominate a party like Indira Gandhi. The moment Modi managed to define the 2014 and 2019 Lok Sabha elections as a gladiatorial contest between him and Rahul Gandhi, it was game, set and match for Modi and the BJP. Even the other hardline cadre-based party CPM has succumbed to the personality cult. The last remaining state they rule, Kerala is about Pinnari Vijayan, forget Marxism and class struggle. If “cadre” based parties can be so dominated by individual personalities, what chance do other people have?

Interestingly, these pro-power champions have their own unique personality flaws, which often contradict each other. Naveen Patnaik, who is set to break Jyoti Basu’s record of being the longest-serving chief minister of a major state by Diwali next year, is a man who led a high life before ever entering politics, and hardly Sometimes he raises his voice even during election rallies. , In contrast, we have the self-confessed street-fighter Mamata Banerjee, whose words are rarely polite to Modi’s. Chalk and cheese, but both succeed. They are all different, but they have a few things in common: they dominate their parties, are extremely popular and have ‘connections’ with voters, can be decisive and brutal when required (Arvind Kejriwal’s rivals in AAP) think about), and are willing to take up adventure gambling.

The ‘Beneficiary’ generation: In 2018, Telangana Chief Minister KC Rao pre-empted Modi by implementing a welfare scheme in which all land-owning farmers went to the farmers. 5,000 in direct cash transfer per acre per cropping season. So, if you were a farmer of five acres and sowed it twice a year, you would get 50,000 per year in your account; No questions asked. For the state having per capita income 1,50,000 per year and where small farmers rarely cross 100,000 per year in income, 50,000 were like manna from heaven. No wonder Rao won a massive mandate for the second consecutive term. Nitish Kumar became famous all over the world for giving free uniforms as well as free cycles to school going girls. Shivraj Singh Chouhan has Laxmi Ladli Scheme under which a girl gets scholarship every year during school years and then gets lump sum amount. 100,000 when she turns 21, provided she is not married before the age of 18. Arvind Kejriwal gives 200 units of electricity and 20,000 liters of water free to every household. All the pro-incumbency champions have supported welfare schemes targeted at the poor, especially women.

Above all is Narendra Modi, whose welfare schemes include clean India toilets, Ujjwala gas connections, pucca houses under PM Awas Yojana, Ayushman Bharat medical insurance for 500 million Indians, zero balance Jan Dhan bank accounts for 400 million Indians and free Huh. Food/ration during the pandemic for 80 crore Indians. Curious people always asked: Why weren’t the politicians of that era harnessing the apparent magical power of welfare schemes to win elections? Were they sly or sly? Absolutely not. There was just no money. Now there is. According to the data of the Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of India, the revenue receipts of the Union Budget have increased from approx. Over Rs 80,000 crore in 1991-92 22 trillion in the current year.

So close, yet so much…: In 2017 it seemed that BJP would lose Gujarat. It looked confident and Modi looked nervous. The Patel movement and 22 years of accumulated “anti-incumbency” were working against the BJP. Congress gave fear, but could not move forward till the last mile.

Political parties can do anything to get 40% vote share in the state. And yet, Congress failed to break Gujarat despite achieving this. This is called structural weakness. While the Congress displays it at the national level, the BJP is carrying it in its pocket. Since 1993, the BJP has failed to win Delhi, losing thrice to Sheila Dikshit and thrice to Arvind Kejriwal. It is a shame to be humiliated in Delhi for such an influential political force; But there you have it. So a weak opposition plays a role in making the ruling party last longer, even if the ruling party is no longer very popular. That was the story of the 2020 Bihar election. NDA with barely 125 seats, just two above the majority mark, while the RJD-led alliance was stuck at 110. It lost 51 of the 70 seats allotted to the Congress.

Let’s hope that more analytical attention is devoted to examining the power of the power supporter. Otherwise we will continue to behave like pundits who fail to see clearly.

Yashwant Deshmukh and Sutanu Guru are the founding editors and executive directors of cVoter Research Foundation, respectively.