Pro-incumbency gets votes in Indian democracy
PremiumBig BJP victories suggest ‘anti-incumbency’ is old hat and we must analyse why successive elections are being won so often
The re-election of Yogi Adityanath as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and the ‘surprise’ victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Uttarakhand, along with ruling parties doing unexpectedly well in Goa and Manipur, compels us to conjure a fable to describe reality. Let’s say there is a country that was stricken by an infectious ailment every few years. Pundits discussed and analysed this phenomenon. Then, a few regions of the country stopped showing the same periodical syndrome. Some scholars noticed this, but media pundits either ignored or dismissed it as a fluke. As time passed, more and more regions started providing evidence that the ‘once every few years’ phenomenon was waning. Media pundits kept discussing the old syndrome, even as statistical data revealed the contrary. Finally, a time came when even the most obdurate pundits had to pay attention to the shift.
That in brief is the story of the fabled power of anti-incumbency and the reality of pro-incumbency in Indian elections of the 21st century. The electoral story is no longer about verdicts determined by sentiment against those in power. We need to understand what is behind this wave of ‘pro-incumbency’ in the country. Use of the term ‘anti-incumbency’ has the ring of a stuck record now. No doubt, non-performing leaders do face ouster by electorates. But voters are also rewarding with re-election those who emerge as the preferred choice once all the negatives and positives are weighed against each other.
Data reveals all: Let’s look at the evidence first. Since the 1980s and 1990s saw governments largely being thrown out, anti-incumbency became the political trend. Lalu Prasad Yadav and his party were the only exception to that ‘norm’ back then. But the first hint that the tide could be turning came from Delhi, when Sheila Dixit won a comfortable second term by beating the ‘powerful’ BJP, which in turn, won Gujarat again in 2002 under its then Chief Minister Narendra Modi. That trickle was the first hint of the flood that would follow. In 2004, a Congress-NCP alliance won a second successive term in Maharashtra, as did the Naveen Patnaik-led BJD-BJP alliance in Odisha. In 2006, Congress Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi won a second term in Assam, and the CPM won a seventh (and last) successive term in West Bengal, followed by Modi winning yet again in Gujarat in 2007. Against all odds, Sheila Dixit won a third consecutive term in Delhi, while Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Raman Singh of the BJP won second terms in Madhya Pradesh in 2008.
Then came one national and two state level pro- incumbency shockers. Even as Mayawati and other leaders were dreaming of prime ministership, the self-effacing Manmohan Singh won a second, bigger mandate to rule India. The NCP-Congress alliance won a third consecutive term. In Andhra Pradesh, Y.S.R. Reddy dropped all old ‘allies’ and still won a massive second consecutive mandate. In Odisha, Naveen Patnaik dumped the BJP as an ally and still won a third consecutive term.
We could go on and on. But data from the Election Commission can confirm that this century is one dominated by pro-incumbency. Even without Kerala and UP, such verdicts were becoming the norm in states that accounted for more than 300 of the 543 Lok Sabha seats. The question is: Why? At C- Voter Research Foundation, we identified three major reasons: presidential-style and personality- cult-driven politics has taken firm root, a cornucopia of welfare schemes that have often persuaded the voters to persist with the ‘known devil’, and the structural weaknesses of opposition parties in states where pro-incumbency is becoming the norm.
Rock star personalities: Even sceptics would agree that the individual has become bigger than the party. Of course, Modi is the most telling example. In a cadre and ideology based party like the BJP, for one person to dominate the party like Indira Gandhi did the Congress was perhaps unimaginable a decade ago. The moment Modi succeeded in defining 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 cadre-based party, the CPM, has succumbed to a personality cult. Kerala is all about Pinarayi Vijayan, forget Marxism and class struggle. If ‘cadre’ based parties can go this way, what chance do others have?
Pro-incumbency champions tend to have unique personality cults, often in glaring contrast to each other. Naveen Patnaik, who looks set to break Jyoti Basu’s record of a major state’s length of chief ministership by next Diwali, is a man who once led the high life before joining politics, and he rarely raises his suave voice even at election rallies. In contrast, we have the feisty self-confessed street-fighter Mamata Banerjee, whose words for Modi are rarely polite. Chalk and cheese, but both successful. They all differ, but have a few things in common: they tower over their parties, are immensely popular and have that ‘connect’ with voters, can be decisive and ruthless when required (think of Arvind Kejriwal’s rivals in AAP), and are willing to take bold gambles.
The ‘Labharthi’ generation: In 2018, Telangana Chief Minister K.C. Rao pre-empted Modi with a big welfare scheme of direct cash transfers for farmers and won a massive mandate for a second term. Nitish Kumar became famous for giving free bicycles to girls attending school, along with free uniforms. Shivraj Singh Chouhan has scholarships for girls. Kejriwal offers free electricity and water supply. All pro-incumbency ‘champions’ have used schemes aimed at the poor, particularly at women.
Above them all is Modi with his panoply of welfare schemes that include Swachh Bharat toilets, Ujjwala gas connections, PM Awas Yojana pucca houses, Ayushman Bharat medical insurance, Jan Dhan bank accounts and free food rations during the pandemic. Some may ask why did politicians of the era gone not use the same magic wand? Were they callous or daft? Not at all. There was no money. Now there is. According to finance ministry and central bank data, revenue receipts of the Union budget have gone up from about ₹80,000 crore in 1991-92 to over ₹22 trillion in the current year.
So near, yet so… In 2017, it looked as if the BJP would lose Gujarat. It appeared confident and Modi looked visibly nervous. The Patel agitation and 22 years of ‘anti-incumbency’ were working against the BJP. The Congress did give a fright, but couldn’t finish ahead. Political parties would do anything to get a 40% vote share in a state. And yet, the Congress failed to breach Gujarat despite getting that. This is a structural weakness. While the Congress displays it nationally, the BJP is prone to it in pockets. Since 1993, the BJP has failed to win Delhi. For such a major political force, that’s a shame; but there you have it. So a weak opposition does play a role in prolonging pro-incumbency even after the incumbent is no longer very popular. That was the 2020 Bihar story.
Clearly, we need better pro-incumbency analysis. Else, we’ll be like pundits who fail to see the obvious.
Yashwant Deshmukh & Sutanu Guru are, respectively, founder editor and executive director of C-Voter Research Foundation
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!