When the UPA returned
to power with an enhanced majority in 2009, very few except for the die-hard
optimists in the opposition were surprised. While there certainly were very
valid reasons as to why the UPA should have lost those elections, there was no
credible reason as to why the BJP should have been returned to the throne of
India. The carefully drafted but low key campaign probably did little to infuse the
voters’ confidence in the BJP’s promises. So, not only did they vote for the UPA
in droves, they punished the BJP such that both the latter’s vote share and seats touched their lowest levels in over 6 General Elections.
Five years back, the
BJP believed that voter anger over inflation and internal security would bring
it back to power. Today, it believes that voter anger over inflation and
corruption would do the needful. Then, the BJP had won state elections
in Jharkhand, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Himachal & Gujarat while losing
miserably in Uttar Pradesh and the Presidential polls; almost the same state of
affairs prevail today. Then, Rajnath Singh was seen as a Sangh appointee fighting the
Delhi-4 coterie while today, Nitin Gadkari is seen a Sangh appointee,
fighting his battles with the Delhi-4 + 1.
Well, the BJP lost in
2009. It may very well be on course to losing 2014 too.
The USA too had a
spectacle of a President whose performance could be rated mediocre at best and
lousy at the worst. Still, the incumbent returned to power on the basis of a sharp
campaign and identity based politics. For all the talk about economy being the
prime motivator for people, the electorate finally voted on identity and
Government doles.
In a democracy the
loser is ripped multiple times – first by the voter and then by sundry analysts, who
manage to find flaws in every iota of the loser's existence - his dress, his speech,
what he said, what he did not say and so on. Though harsh on the loser, there
is hardly any alternative to such analysis for those who wish to don the role
of challengers in the next elections. So, it would do well for the BJP to
analyse the 2012 US Presidential polls for its course correction.
- The GOP was cautious in its approach. Believing that the elections are ripe for picking, it kept its campaign focus on economy and was careful to avoid any reference to anything which could potentially turn off independent voters. It succeeded in a way for it managed to attract a majority of the independent voters. However, overall it failed because it allowed the Democrats to set the agenda for elections. There would hardly be any election where the party which has failed to set an agenda won. Be it the 2004 or 2008 US polls or our very own General elections right from 1952. True, 2004 for us was an aberration but that is what it was. BJP seems to have forgotten that its election victories in the 1990s were not won in television studios and cameo street demonstrations – those were the results of carefully crafted, long drawn mass connect and education programs. In each of those elections, the BJP attacked and presented an alternate vision, forcing other parties to react. Where is that BJP now?
- The GOP discounted the forces of identity. Believing that the core group of Obama voters would no longer be as excited as they were in 2008, the GOP calculated that its outreach would be sufficient fto seal a victory. But wrong they were. Similarly, egged on by many, most outside but some within, the BJP seems to have started believing that the average Muslim will not vote for the UPA in an emphatic manner and because no consequent anti BJP consolidation will happen, BJP will sail to victory basis its core and some additional votes. Well, if 2012 UP assembly election results have not been sufficient to disprove this theory, then nothing will. For good or for bad, Muslims will not vote for the BJP in any scenario and in any General Election, they will vote for Congress lest BJP comes to power. The average Muslim may be disillusioned with Congress and may really want to vote for any of the Muslim League clones. But, he is also wise enough to know that till these clones develop into an agenda defining force, he will have to make good with the second best, which happen to be the Congress and its allies
- The GOP discounted the importance of voter mobilisation. In words of a Republican campaign strategist; “…the droves who came to vote for Obama, we did not even know that many of them existed” What use is of latent voter sentiment if it does not get translated into electoral votes on polling day? The BJP may believe that it represents the emotions and reasons of a vast upper class, middle class, upper caste, OBC, tribal constituency but if it cannot get this constituency to come out and vote on the polling day, the day will be carried by groups who vote in numbers disproportionate to their share of population. Let us do a quick calculation. Some 80% of the Indian population is supposedly Hindu. Assuming that the same percentage applies to its electorate too, we have around 80% Hindu electorate. Say, 50% of the Hindu electorate votes in an election. But, 80% of the minority electorate casts their votes. Aggregated, we have a 56% voting of which Hindu vote is around 71%. To reach the critical 35% vote share required to win elections in a first past the post electoral system, the BJP has to win over 50% of this Hindu vote while the Congress needs to win only around 15% of such votes. So, who loses if the ostensible constituency does not vote?
- Media will report as per its own agenda. The GOP is not oblivious of the importance of media and unlike the BJP, has its own media and propaganda networks. At the same time, the liberal elites dominate the print and visual media and the latter in particular, has an impact which is difficult to beat. With this media supporting Obama and caricaturing GOP and Romney, the latter suffered a significant disadvantage in reporting. Unfortunately, in India, the odds against the BJP are stacked even higher, as far as media perceptions are concerned. Rather than sending lambs for slaughter in the meaningless television studio wars, the BJP could do good to boycott them altogether. After all, what is the point in trying to present your case to an anchor who is the complainant, the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner!
- Focus on Battlegrounds: It may have been the need to raise funds or simply an attempt to placate the faithful, the fact remains that Romney spent too much of time campaigning in states which were solidly Republican. Given that the outcome was decided by some ten and not all the fifty two stats of the USA, gives credence to belief that Obama benefited from his laser like focus on the battleground states; so much so that while the National difference in vote share for the two candidates was less than 2%, in all but one of the swing states, Obama romped home by anything in between 3% to over 5% of the popular vote. This means that even if GOP had made up for the Nation-wide vote share deficit, Obama would still have been re-elected. Same way in India, BJP by itself is present in some 380 odd constituencies and is strong enough to pose a fight in some 280-300 seats. Of these, some 60 - 70 would fall under, what may be called safe seats while a similar number would comprise of those which would be very tough to win. Ideally, the unwavering focus for the party should be on the balance 180 or so seats, so that it can realistically aim at reaching an individual seat tally of 180-190.
- Personalised attacks do make a difference. The Democrats ran a campaign which was probably amongst the ugliest in the US history. Even before the Republican nomination was sealed, the Democrat machinery unleashed a shrill attack on Romney painting him as an out of touch plutocrat. While there certainly was some sniping on Obama from the GOP fringes, the mainstream Republicans did not target Obama on issues other than performance. On the other hand, Obama himself took the lead in deriding Romney, taking names, poking fun and being generally nasty. It did work! In India too, any successful campaign has been built around personalities, either for or against. BJP itself successfully painted Sonia as a foreigner in the General Elections of the 1990s but turned coy later. Even now, only claiming that the UPA is corrupt will not provide it with any benefits till the time this corruption is given a face. Obama’s ratings started looking up post a dip only after he adopted an aggressive stance against Romney. The BJP could do well to shed its diffidence and a hands-off policy against the Nehru-Gandhis and take its battle to the enemy camp.
It is difficult to
conceive that the individually brilliant BJP strategists would be unaware of
the pitfalls of the party’s current approach. Then why is it that they have
failed to present themselves as a credible alternative to the Congress? Surely,
individual ambitions cannot be so high so as to blind them to the fallacies of only
acting like an opposition, that too on an intermittent basis? But since there
is little evidence to the contrary, we need to go with what appearances
suggest. Thence, welcome UPA 3.
