To say that the Results of General Elections 2009 were unexpected would be an understatement, particularly when considered against the backdrop of the Congress surge and BJP defeat. While the results of General Elections 2004 were also quite unexpected as no one expected NDA to lose, the import of 2004 results differ vis-à-vis 2009 results on account of the following points:
· Opinion polls had started detecting a trend of decreasing support for NDA as the poll season progressed in 2004
· Post poll analysis of 2004 results indicated that it was state level alliances which had won or lost polls across the country
Contrast above with the analysis this time around. Similarities with analysis begin and end with the unexpected magnitude of Congress’s victory as against unexpected magnitude of defeat of the NDA. However, other than that, there seem to be weak arguments on how and why it happened?
Viewers of television channels would have been amused that as soon as the direction of leads became apparent in the early hours of May 16, 2009, all analysts on TV started to appear wise and gave a string of reasons as to why BJP lost and Congress won. Anyone watching that learned gentry could be pardoned for his mistaken belief that all of them knew what causes would influence the foreseen results. So, we were dished out reasons ranging from Rahul’s charm, Manmohan Singh’s decency, good governance of UPA etc contributing to Congress victory and Varun, Modi, Advani & BJP’s arrogance contributing to BJP’s defeat.
I will make no attempt to disguise the fact that personally I am quite disappointed with the results, not so much by the Congress’s resurgence, but very much so by the BJP’s decline. That said, the reasons being dished out don’t seem to convey the real cause; they don’t sound convincing enough for the analysis seems quite superficial and more of ‘I told you so’.
I’ll break this write up in two parts, one on why I believe that all the reasons being dished out are not convincing and second why I believe that the UPA Government should have been shown the door.
Ostensible reasons as to why the Congress scored why the BJP lost:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s clean, decent personality
Rahul Gandhi’s Charm
UPA Government’s performance
UPA’s schemes like NREGA
BJP’s negative campaign
Vote for stability
Vote against communal and divisive politics
Vote against Varun Gandhi, Narendra Modi and Ram Sene
BJP’s uninspiring candidate for PM, LK Advani
Opposition to Nuclear Deal
Since some of these points are interconnected, hence I wouldn’t necessarily be dealing with all of them in seriality:
One of the underlying themes of the analyst comments has been that these elections were a vote for moderation. Since the BJP is identified by these analysts as an extremist party, the analysis seems to pass muster in the first view. However, before agreeing to this, let us pause to ponder over a few facts:
A first time General Elections contestant, the Maharashtra Navanirman Sena won around 21% of the popular vote share in the Mumbai – Thane region, effectively decimating the Shiv Sena – BJP combine. Are the policies of MNS mild enough to be called moderate?
The favorite whipping boy of the media, Varun Gandhi won his Lok Sabha seat by a massive majority. Can he be called moderate?
An accused in the Kandhamal riots, Manoj Sahu won his seat and overall, the BJP won 2 of the 3 seats in the Kandhamal district. A victory for moderation?
Before the election results were out, newspapers were full of predictions on how the youth in Bangalore / Mangalore would punish the BJP for the horrendous attack on pub going girls and show solidarity with the pink panties brigade. Of course, once it became clear that the BJP was actually exceeding all its previous performances in the state, those voices became silent. So, a victory for the moderate BJP in Karnataka?
Ever since her defeat in assembly polls in 2006, Mamata Banerjee has been on a rampage against the Marxist, opposing each of their moves tooth and nail. Her activities in Nandigram and Singur can by no stretch of imagination be called Gandhian or moderate. But she won, registering the most spectacular victory for any opposition in West Bengal. Does this mean that she had been following a moderate agenda?
So, is this a victory for moderation? You decide?
Coming to Mamata Banerjee, I am tempted to comment on another bug bear, that it is a slap against the negative campaign of the BJP.
Let us go back to 2004. India was made to suffer the ‘India Shining’ campaign of the BJP which highlighted all what the BJP had done. Congress hit back with dark images of unemployed, hungry people and showed that side of the mirror where the shine had not yet reached. Results: BJP lost and quite justifiably, significant blame was apportioned to the India Shining campaign. Flash forward, Elections 2009. The roles were reversed with the Congress unleashing a ‘Bharat Nirman’ campaign with the BJP responding with dark images. One major difference was the external environment. While 2004 did not suffer any negatives as far as economy was concerned, 2008-09 had been a saga of inflation, decelerating economy, job losses and an atmosphere of apprehension and fear. If anything, the BJP response was more reflective of reality than the Congress’s ‘Aam Aadmi’ campaign where the Congress had been promising return to good (?) old days. The results of course went against the BJP and universally, the BJP has been condemned for running a negative campaign and trying to ruin the mood of the country. Homilies have been offered for a dime a dozen and one would be forgiven for believing that inflation, job losses, terrorism existed in some other planet and that it is a cardinal sin for any opposition party to ‘spoil the mood’ of the country. Such homilies are of course silent on why Mamata won in spite of her so negative campaign? Aren’t these the same set of people who went around proclaiming that Nano going away from Singur on account of Mamata’s blind opposition has killed the last vestiges of support for her? Even if we agree that Nandigram helped her, it does not explain the fact that Mamata’s victories have been primarily in the Greater Kolkata region where higher urbanization means a greater number of people panting for Nano like projects. This is precisely the region where the supposed anger against Mamata was supposedly the highest. Pray tell us, what exactly was positive about Mamata’s campaign? Did she not play on the fears and insecurities of people and still win?
Please ask yourself. Was Congress’s victory in 2004 and Mamata’s victory in 2009, a result of positive campaigns?
Among the most hilarious reasons forwarded for the BJP’s defeat was its opposition to the Indo US Nuclear Deal. There were comments galore that supporters of the deal won and those who opposed lost. Now at one end, we have the same set of commentators advising the BJP sagely that only issues linked to the common man’s daily lives are of any importance in elections. Anything other than Bijli, Sadak and Pani are destined to fail and should not be ever raked up. Now, we have a deal, benefits of which, if any, would take years to come. The deal is so complicated that even its staunchest advocates would be hard pressed to convince the general public of its benefits. Not going into the merits or otherwise of the deal, let us safely say that this is one matter which is not connected to the daily lives of general public in any way. The ostensible reason offered by these analysts is that the middle class wants to go with America and that they were angry with the BJP for trying to put a spoke into that wheel of friendship. Words betray me when I try to respond to this juvenile thought. And, how is this different from the blind anti Americanism of the left? To imagine that a nebulous issue, not connected to the public at all and not a part of the election campaign at all dictated the verdict is a nut even the most credulous will find tough to swallow.
Now, coming to the crowning glory. That the BJP lost because of Varun Gandhi, Narendra Modi, Kandhamal and Ram Sene. Let us take it one by one. In Uttar Pradesh, the BJP held on to its vote share of assembly elections of 2007, that too, after the exit of Kalyan Singh from the party. Of the other three major players, only the Congress gained in vote share. As per the CDS data on election analysis, the Congress was beneficiary of a huge swing of Brahmin votes in its favor. There was certainly a swing of Muslim votes in its favor for Muslims vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the BJP but this has been the common feature of Indian elections for more than a decade now. How did a depraved and weakened BJP lose elections on account of Varun is something which can only be endlessly conjectured. The only things which can be categorically stated are that one, the BJP did not gain out of the Varun Gandhi episode inspite of his needless incarceration and that the media overhyped both the event and the fallout.
Kandhamal has been painted as another reason for the BJP’s defeat. BJP more or less held to its vote share in Orissa in both assembly and Lok Sabha polls, suffering a loss of around 1% only. This coming from a party which had been stagnating for the last 5-6 years is quite a healthy figure particularly when considered against the backdrop of its effete and disconnected state leadership. Had Kandhamal worked against the BJP, it should have been wiped out even in vote share. A party winning around 1/6th of popular vote cannot be dismissed by any sane person. Moving a bit off the tangent, while the media has fallen hook, line and sinker for the BJD’s excuse of Kandhamal as the reason behind their breaking off ties with the BJP, it fails to ask Naveen as to why it took him 6 months to ditch the BJP or why was he conducting negotiations till the very end with this communal party or why was he ready to continue the alliance if the BJP had agreed for 35 assembly and 5 Lok Sabha seats?
True, Modi magic did not work across India and failed to set the stage on fire in Gujarat. I am no fan of Modi and very sincerely believe that howsoever efficient, a despot like leader is a danger to any society. However, to blame him for the BJP’s loss stretches credulity. 2004 might have been impacted by the anti Modi campaign but this time around, even the media has been less shrill in its anti Modi tirade. Moreover, over the last 5 years, Modi has come to be identified with, either wrongly or rightly, with progress and development. He has also managed to dilute his stain of communalism by demolishing Hindu temples and getting his opponents behind bars. No ally quit the BJP naming Modi as the cause. Likewise, no analysis has indicated that voters moved away from the BJP because of Modi. Some say, Modi’s name as the future Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP confused the public and harmed its prospects. If that be true, then what about the Congress? Almost everyone knows that Manmohan Singh is only a stop gap arrangement. Almost every Congressman and ally had declared that Rahul Gandhi is the future Prime Minister. Why did this not confuse the public? Is it that the BJP supporters are more naïve and more prone to bouts of confusion than the Congress supporters?
Commentators who have never even attempted to hide their loathing for the BJP are joined by erstwhile BJP sympathizers is hailing the verdict as a vote against Hindutva; a rejection of BJP’s politics of hate. I beg forgiveness from the general public but I could not make out anything which touched Hindutva, in the BJP’s election campaign. Neither 2209, nor 2004 or for that matter 1999 has seen the BJP taking up Hindutva related causes. Hindutva has been conspicuous by its absence in BJP’s election campaign. Most have accused BJP of shielding and defending Varun Gandhi. Is that so? BJP’s stated position throughout the episode was that they do not subscribe to the statements and that if true, then Varun would have to face legal action. Their support to Varun was against his imprisonment under NSA, something which was termed out of proportion by the Supreme Court itself. Let everyone ask themselves. Were Varun’s statements deserving of the type of punishment and scorn heaped over him? More importantly, does BJP become a champion of aggressive Hindutva by protesting against his imprisonment? Are demands to hang a convict Hindutva? Which position or demand of the BJP was Hindutva related? Their campaign was centered on the theme of ‘Majboot Neta, Nirnayak Sarkar’. Ad campaigns were built around developmental promises and current insecurity. Leaders’ speeches dwelt on the same lines. So, where was Hindutva in the campaign at all? Something which wasn’t there cannot be defeated, can it?
On the BJP negatives, that leaves LK Advani’s candidature as a scapegoat. Frankly, even the worst critics of Mr Advani would concede that his stature does not befit the scorn heaped on him during the course of the campaign and being heaped on him now by select groups and individuals. That said, it cannot be denied that in spite of sustained campaign and efforts of the entire Parivar, Mr Advani’s candidature failed to excite the general public mood. While reasons behind this failure calls for another analysis, it cannot be denied that compared to other Lok Sabha campaigns, there was hardly a public buzz around the prospect of seeing Mr Advani as the leader of the country. This certainly had an impact on the BJP for it probably did not, at all, secure any incremental votes on account of their Prime Ministerial candidate.
Thus, we see that most of the reasons attributed to BJP’s defeat do not, in all probability, convey the causes of defeat adequately. We must not forget that most of the analysts jumping with joy at BJP’s defeat had been predicting doom for the BJP even when it was in ascendance. Had BJP listened to them, it would never have reached the position it achieved in the 1990s’. If the diagnosis and prescriptions of these analysts seem sound today, it is only because of the law of averages. At some point of time, even the most ardent of doomsayers would be proved right. But then, one right does not set all the previous wrongs right, does it?
I will cover the part on impact of achievements of the Congress Government on election results and why I feel it should have been shifted to opposition in the subsequent part of this analysis.
· Opinion polls had started detecting a trend of decreasing support for NDA as the poll season progressed in 2004
· Post poll analysis of 2004 results indicated that it was state level alliances which had won or lost polls across the country
Contrast above with the analysis this time around. Similarities with analysis begin and end with the unexpected magnitude of Congress’s victory as against unexpected magnitude of defeat of the NDA. However, other than that, there seem to be weak arguments on how and why it happened?
Viewers of television channels would have been amused that as soon as the direction of leads became apparent in the early hours of May 16, 2009, all analysts on TV started to appear wise and gave a string of reasons as to why BJP lost and Congress won. Anyone watching that learned gentry could be pardoned for his mistaken belief that all of them knew what causes would influence the foreseen results. So, we were dished out reasons ranging from Rahul’s charm, Manmohan Singh’s decency, good governance of UPA etc contributing to Congress victory and Varun, Modi, Advani & BJP’s arrogance contributing to BJP’s defeat.
I will make no attempt to disguise the fact that personally I am quite disappointed with the results, not so much by the Congress’s resurgence, but very much so by the BJP’s decline. That said, the reasons being dished out don’t seem to convey the real cause; they don’t sound convincing enough for the analysis seems quite superficial and more of ‘I told you so’.
I’ll break this write up in two parts, one on why I believe that all the reasons being dished out are not convincing and second why I believe that the UPA Government should have been shown the door.
Ostensible reasons as to why the Congress scored why the BJP lost:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s clean, decent personality
Rahul Gandhi’s Charm
UPA Government’s performance
UPA’s schemes like NREGA
BJP’s negative campaign
Vote for stability
Vote against communal and divisive politics
Vote against Varun Gandhi, Narendra Modi and Ram Sene
BJP’s uninspiring candidate for PM, LK Advani
Opposition to Nuclear Deal
Since some of these points are interconnected, hence I wouldn’t necessarily be dealing with all of them in seriality:
One of the underlying themes of the analyst comments has been that these elections were a vote for moderation. Since the BJP is identified by these analysts as an extremist party, the analysis seems to pass muster in the first view. However, before agreeing to this, let us pause to ponder over a few facts:
A first time General Elections contestant, the Maharashtra Navanirman Sena won around 21% of the popular vote share in the Mumbai – Thane region, effectively decimating the Shiv Sena – BJP combine. Are the policies of MNS mild enough to be called moderate?
The favorite whipping boy of the media, Varun Gandhi won his Lok Sabha seat by a massive majority. Can he be called moderate?
An accused in the Kandhamal riots, Manoj Sahu won his seat and overall, the BJP won 2 of the 3 seats in the Kandhamal district. A victory for moderation?
Before the election results were out, newspapers were full of predictions on how the youth in Bangalore / Mangalore would punish the BJP for the horrendous attack on pub going girls and show solidarity with the pink panties brigade. Of course, once it became clear that the BJP was actually exceeding all its previous performances in the state, those voices became silent. So, a victory for the moderate BJP in Karnataka?
Ever since her defeat in assembly polls in 2006, Mamata Banerjee has been on a rampage against the Marxist, opposing each of their moves tooth and nail. Her activities in Nandigram and Singur can by no stretch of imagination be called Gandhian or moderate. But she won, registering the most spectacular victory for any opposition in West Bengal. Does this mean that she had been following a moderate agenda?
So, is this a victory for moderation? You decide?
Coming to Mamata Banerjee, I am tempted to comment on another bug bear, that it is a slap against the negative campaign of the BJP.
Let us go back to 2004. India was made to suffer the ‘India Shining’ campaign of the BJP which highlighted all what the BJP had done. Congress hit back with dark images of unemployed, hungry people and showed that side of the mirror where the shine had not yet reached. Results: BJP lost and quite justifiably, significant blame was apportioned to the India Shining campaign. Flash forward, Elections 2009. The roles were reversed with the Congress unleashing a ‘Bharat Nirman’ campaign with the BJP responding with dark images. One major difference was the external environment. While 2004 did not suffer any negatives as far as economy was concerned, 2008-09 had been a saga of inflation, decelerating economy, job losses and an atmosphere of apprehension and fear. If anything, the BJP response was more reflective of reality than the Congress’s ‘Aam Aadmi’ campaign where the Congress had been promising return to good (?) old days. The results of course went against the BJP and universally, the BJP has been condemned for running a negative campaign and trying to ruin the mood of the country. Homilies have been offered for a dime a dozen and one would be forgiven for believing that inflation, job losses, terrorism existed in some other planet and that it is a cardinal sin for any opposition party to ‘spoil the mood’ of the country. Such homilies are of course silent on why Mamata won in spite of her so negative campaign? Aren’t these the same set of people who went around proclaiming that Nano going away from Singur on account of Mamata’s blind opposition has killed the last vestiges of support for her? Even if we agree that Nandigram helped her, it does not explain the fact that Mamata’s victories have been primarily in the Greater Kolkata region where higher urbanization means a greater number of people panting for Nano like projects. This is precisely the region where the supposed anger against Mamata was supposedly the highest. Pray tell us, what exactly was positive about Mamata’s campaign? Did she not play on the fears and insecurities of people and still win?
Please ask yourself. Was Congress’s victory in 2004 and Mamata’s victory in 2009, a result of positive campaigns?
Among the most hilarious reasons forwarded for the BJP’s defeat was its opposition to the Indo US Nuclear Deal. There were comments galore that supporters of the deal won and those who opposed lost. Now at one end, we have the same set of commentators advising the BJP sagely that only issues linked to the common man’s daily lives are of any importance in elections. Anything other than Bijli, Sadak and Pani are destined to fail and should not be ever raked up. Now, we have a deal, benefits of which, if any, would take years to come. The deal is so complicated that even its staunchest advocates would be hard pressed to convince the general public of its benefits. Not going into the merits or otherwise of the deal, let us safely say that this is one matter which is not connected to the daily lives of general public in any way. The ostensible reason offered by these analysts is that the middle class wants to go with America and that they were angry with the BJP for trying to put a spoke into that wheel of friendship. Words betray me when I try to respond to this juvenile thought. And, how is this different from the blind anti Americanism of the left? To imagine that a nebulous issue, not connected to the public at all and not a part of the election campaign at all dictated the verdict is a nut even the most credulous will find tough to swallow.
Now, coming to the crowning glory. That the BJP lost because of Varun Gandhi, Narendra Modi, Kandhamal and Ram Sene. Let us take it one by one. In Uttar Pradesh, the BJP held on to its vote share of assembly elections of 2007, that too, after the exit of Kalyan Singh from the party. Of the other three major players, only the Congress gained in vote share. As per the CDS data on election analysis, the Congress was beneficiary of a huge swing of Brahmin votes in its favor. There was certainly a swing of Muslim votes in its favor for Muslims vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the BJP but this has been the common feature of Indian elections for more than a decade now. How did a depraved and weakened BJP lose elections on account of Varun is something which can only be endlessly conjectured. The only things which can be categorically stated are that one, the BJP did not gain out of the Varun Gandhi episode inspite of his needless incarceration and that the media overhyped both the event and the fallout.
Kandhamal has been painted as another reason for the BJP’s defeat. BJP more or less held to its vote share in Orissa in both assembly and Lok Sabha polls, suffering a loss of around 1% only. This coming from a party which had been stagnating for the last 5-6 years is quite a healthy figure particularly when considered against the backdrop of its effete and disconnected state leadership. Had Kandhamal worked against the BJP, it should have been wiped out even in vote share. A party winning around 1/6th of popular vote cannot be dismissed by any sane person. Moving a bit off the tangent, while the media has fallen hook, line and sinker for the BJD’s excuse of Kandhamal as the reason behind their breaking off ties with the BJP, it fails to ask Naveen as to why it took him 6 months to ditch the BJP or why was he conducting negotiations till the very end with this communal party or why was he ready to continue the alliance if the BJP had agreed for 35 assembly and 5 Lok Sabha seats?
True, Modi magic did not work across India and failed to set the stage on fire in Gujarat. I am no fan of Modi and very sincerely believe that howsoever efficient, a despot like leader is a danger to any society. However, to blame him for the BJP’s loss stretches credulity. 2004 might have been impacted by the anti Modi campaign but this time around, even the media has been less shrill in its anti Modi tirade. Moreover, over the last 5 years, Modi has come to be identified with, either wrongly or rightly, with progress and development. He has also managed to dilute his stain of communalism by demolishing Hindu temples and getting his opponents behind bars. No ally quit the BJP naming Modi as the cause. Likewise, no analysis has indicated that voters moved away from the BJP because of Modi. Some say, Modi’s name as the future Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP confused the public and harmed its prospects. If that be true, then what about the Congress? Almost everyone knows that Manmohan Singh is only a stop gap arrangement. Almost every Congressman and ally had declared that Rahul Gandhi is the future Prime Minister. Why did this not confuse the public? Is it that the BJP supporters are more naïve and more prone to bouts of confusion than the Congress supporters?
Commentators who have never even attempted to hide their loathing for the BJP are joined by erstwhile BJP sympathizers is hailing the verdict as a vote against Hindutva; a rejection of BJP’s politics of hate. I beg forgiveness from the general public but I could not make out anything which touched Hindutva, in the BJP’s election campaign. Neither 2209, nor 2004 or for that matter 1999 has seen the BJP taking up Hindutva related causes. Hindutva has been conspicuous by its absence in BJP’s election campaign. Most have accused BJP of shielding and defending Varun Gandhi. Is that so? BJP’s stated position throughout the episode was that they do not subscribe to the statements and that if true, then Varun would have to face legal action. Their support to Varun was against his imprisonment under NSA, something which was termed out of proportion by the Supreme Court itself. Let everyone ask themselves. Were Varun’s statements deserving of the type of punishment and scorn heaped over him? More importantly, does BJP become a champion of aggressive Hindutva by protesting against his imprisonment? Are demands to hang a convict Hindutva? Which position or demand of the BJP was Hindutva related? Their campaign was centered on the theme of ‘Majboot Neta, Nirnayak Sarkar’. Ad campaigns were built around developmental promises and current insecurity. Leaders’ speeches dwelt on the same lines. So, where was Hindutva in the campaign at all? Something which wasn’t there cannot be defeated, can it?
On the BJP negatives, that leaves LK Advani’s candidature as a scapegoat. Frankly, even the worst critics of Mr Advani would concede that his stature does not befit the scorn heaped on him during the course of the campaign and being heaped on him now by select groups and individuals. That said, it cannot be denied that in spite of sustained campaign and efforts of the entire Parivar, Mr Advani’s candidature failed to excite the general public mood. While reasons behind this failure calls for another analysis, it cannot be denied that compared to other Lok Sabha campaigns, there was hardly a public buzz around the prospect of seeing Mr Advani as the leader of the country. This certainly had an impact on the BJP for it probably did not, at all, secure any incremental votes on account of their Prime Ministerial candidate.
Thus, we see that most of the reasons attributed to BJP’s defeat do not, in all probability, convey the causes of defeat adequately. We must not forget that most of the analysts jumping with joy at BJP’s defeat had been predicting doom for the BJP even when it was in ascendance. Had BJP listened to them, it would never have reached the position it achieved in the 1990s’. If the diagnosis and prescriptions of these analysts seem sound today, it is only because of the law of averages. At some point of time, even the most ardent of doomsayers would be proved right. But then, one right does not set all the previous wrongs right, does it?
I will cover the part on impact of achievements of the Congress Government on election results and why I feel it should have been shifted to opposition in the subsequent part of this analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment