Open
Forum
New Delhi, 31 October 2019
Two State Polls
SIMILAR LESSONS
By Dr S.Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
Haryana and Maharashtra Assembly elections
followed barely five months after the amazing victory of the BJP in the Lok
Sabha election, but both in campaigning and results, these were different. Though
BJP headed alliances are in a position to form governments, it is not a
cakewalk for the party that has remarkably grown in its national popularity and
global stature.
Successful functioning of any coalition in
these two States, given the poll results, will depend on several constraints
inherent in alliance politics. The BJP will now have to take the allies more seriously
and cannot afford to assume a big brother attitude. The States have
convincingly proved that Lok Sabha election and State elections are not the same
in all places. Federalism has its impact.
BJP’s individual gains declined in
Maharashtra from 122 in 2014 to 105 this time – heavy loss of 17 seats. Shiv
Sena’s strength declined from 63 to 56. The ambitious target of 220 seats set
by BJP-Shiv Sena pre-poll alliance became a day dream as it won only 161 – a
comfortable majority in a House of 288 but not a dominant position for the
senior partner of the alliance.
A notable feature is that in 2014 Assembly
election, BJP and Shiv Sena had no pre-poll alliance and in 2019 they had. But,
they issued their separate election manifestoes which had both common and
different promises. Though not antagonistic with one another, their priorities
varied.
BJP contested 150 seats and won 105 with 25.8
per cent vote share; Shiv Sena contested 124 and won 56 with vote share of 16.4
%. The BJP is undoubtedly so much stronger than its ally that observers even
comment that it could have won more seats had it contested alone.
In 2014, the combined vote share of the two
parties was more than 47 per cent whereas it declined substantially when they
contested as allies in 2019 to 42.2 per cent. Both BJP and Shiv Sena have lost
their vote share as the number of seats they contested was less than in 2014.
It shows that alliances are not simple arithmetical matter of combining votes.
Sometimes electoral alliance is not popular with the people. BJP-Shiv Sena
alliance is continuing with constant unfriendly comments between them confusing
the voters. That alliance is pure politics of survival and power sharing and
not a strategy to strengthen policies and performance is established beyond any
doubt.
Region-wise, the allies faced setbacks in
Marathwada and Western Maharashtra where NCP registered its presence
remarkably.
In the UPA, the story is different with the
NCP exhibiting better performance winning 54 seats with 16.7 per cent of votes
against the Congress securing 44 seats with 15.8 per cent of votes. NCP has become the major partner of the UPA
in Maharashtra, a change very relevant to the future of UPA and to Congress as
well as to the Third Front that is playing on and off tricks.
In Haryana, the BJP scored only 40 losing 7
seats and falling short by 6 seats to gain majority. However, it is the single largest party
winning 36.5 per cent of votes polled. The Congress won 31 seats with 28.1 per
cent of votes. This result allows comfortable bargaining power to other winners
representing about 35 per cent of vote share. Among others, the solid group
of Jannayak Janta Party (JJP) emerged as the crucial
supporting actor which the BJP got hold of to form the government. It won 10
seats with vote share of about 15 per cent. There are also 9 Independents most
of them willing to go with the front runner.
There is a common comment that BJP’s stress
on nationalism, which paid huge dividends in Lok Sabha election has not worked
this time as expected. The status of Kashmir and reference to abrogation of Article
370, the National Register of Citizens, Uniform Civil Code are no doubt great
achievements of the BJP, but as some political analysts think, they are not so
relevant to catch votes in State elections. Some party men were also of the
opinion that micro-level local issues could shift votes even in national
elections and definitely influence State and local elections more than macro
national issues.
On many elections, voters have proved that
they have considerable knowledge of the powers of the Union and State
governments and cannot be sidetracked with irrelevant issues. Day-to-day
economic matters bother them more than what happens in the borders. Employment,
price rise, debt relief, farmers’ woes, water shortage, women’s safety, pensions
are matters that they want the government to deal with effectively and urgently
keeping people’s welfare in normal
day-to-day life as the goal of State governments. Hence, they expect leaders to
speak on such matters and promise them to improve living conditions rather than
abstract issues of uniform law and national spirit. Even important issues like
gender equality and freedom of religion take a secondary place when confronted
with livelihood issues.
Another feature of election outcome is the
hard truth that purely local politics and personality clashes often become
crucial deciding factor in elections. It is undeniable particularly in places
where strong regional parties are in the field which are capable of magnifying
local problems and boosting the image of local leaders. It works even in Lok
Sabha election.
Eight ministers in Maharashtra and seven in
Haryana were defeated. Nineteen prominent leaders, who switched sides to join
the BJP on the eve of election, were also defeated. Defections may be a simple
matter for professional politicians, but may not always help in career
building.
All these lessons sound logical and election
results appear to support them. Still, the fact that electioneering in
Maharashtra and Haryana was not as vigorous as in Lok Sabha election was also a
factor that must be given due weight. BJP leaders had less time to visit the
election field and Congress leadership had pressing organizational problems
which must have impacted campaigning. As a contrast, Sharad Pawar’s brisk
electioneering brought gains to the NCP.
It is also proved that while issues like
Bharat Ratna for Veer Savarkar and value-based education may not decide voting
pattern, promises of populist schemes are also not enough. The Congress-NCP
alliance issued a joint election manifesto, which made lavish promises like 22
days of work under MGNREGA, monthly allowance of Rs 5,000 for unemployed youth,
minimum salary of Rs 21,000 per month for workers, waiving of property tax for
residences below 500 sq.ft. area, reducing fines under Motor Vehicles Act,
interest-free education loan, etc. Loan waiver and reduction of penalties
introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act were prime promises of the two parties.
In Haryana, the BJP did not promise farm loan
waiver, but it was the main focus of the Congress. Job reservation for women up to 33 per cent
was also an attraction in the Congress manifesto – an unrealistic promise, but
seems to have increased Congress tally from 17 to 31.
The two State elections have yielded similar
lessons for both winners and losers. Both have reasons to hope and worry.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|