Understanding why voters elected BJP to power in four states

The quest to identify the determinants of voting continues with the results of the just-concluded state elections. There is a reason why caste as a factor is so prominently displayed in all the forecasts, analyses and results. These data are tabulated in interviews and easily processed. As is the sex of the voter. Unfortunately, for many reasons, data on the income of the respondent, or his family, are not available; if asked, the quality is problematic. Even national surveys conducted by respectable agencies have a problem collecting these data.

But it does not mean that the economic determinants of voting are not important — indeed, many believe that it is the most important determinant. Hence, the Ray Fair model on the influence of unemployment and inflation on voting in the US, first published 50 years ago. Since then, many others (including myself) have religiously examined the economic determinants of voting. Citizen Raj studied all the elections in India from 1952 to 2014 (published in March 2019) with the forecast that the BJP, on its own, would gain a simple majority of seats. And who can forget James Carville’s evocative campaign pitch for Bill Clinton in the 1992 US presidential election — “It is the economy, stupid!”

I have had many discussions and expressed many a point of view over the years on the subject of caste vs economic welfare as influencers in the voting decision. There are reasonable arguments on both sides — yet, I have consistently taken the view that while caste and religion are important determinants, they are not very helpful in dissecting the trends in elections.

Trends have to do with changes, not levels. It is not very helpful to look at the percentage of voters from a particular caste who voted for the Samajwadi Party in UP — what would be most helpful is the knowledge about the change in this vote share. Admittedly difficult to obtain but that does not mean it is not an important determinant. Just because we can’t identify the line does not mean that it does not exist.

But we distract, in the same manner that some media channels distracted by showcasing a great AAP victory as the only news of note. To win four out of four state elections in such a convincing fashion may just be the biggest political news of the day, or year. There will be time to dissect it more (especially just before the 2024 election) but casual empiricism suggests that a better than 2:1 ratio in seats between number 1 and number 2 is, frankly, historic. Even more historic is how wrong the forecasting noise was prior to this multi-state election (and we are abstracting from the inexplicable Congress suicide in Punjab). Broadly, and also as echoed by several political commentators ex-ante and ex-post (and hence subject to easy verification), the conventional literati opinion was as follows.

Correctly echoing the view that the economy matters most, the most popular reason for the BJP losing was that India had been hit by Covid. True. True for India and true for all corners of the world. There has been a loose tendency for “experts” to spout this hypothesis: Incumbents would be voted out “because of serious mismanagement of Covid”. There is not a leader in any part of the world against whom this charge cannot be levied. And it is the most common accusation/reason for changing the government — the unsurprising reality is that in some instances the incumbent loses, in some the incumbent wins.

What happened in the five state elections? Was there a single state in India that was not affected by Covid? Was that the reason the AAP won in Punjab? And the BJP won convincingly in 4/4? No and No. Hence, we should all respect the wisdom of the median voter. Maybe she did figure out that Covid was not the fault of the state governments or of the central government — it was an act of god, an earthquake. And in the case of an earthquake, the rational person will look at relief efforts conducted by the government to address the consequences of the earthquake. That is the reason for the likely unprecedented 4/4 victory for a political party (with a minimum of twice the ratio between the first and the second party —I honestly cannot remember a parallel instance, but it’s worth researching — and I am doing so). What the central government did was put the economic welfare of the bottom 50 per cent, and not just the poorest, at the top of their disaster (earthquake) management concerns. Unlike an actual earthquake, the impact of Covid was universal, affecting all the people, upper and lower castes alike.

The people who most needed help got it. One (Indian) historical constant is that over the years, the rich and poor alike consume about 10 kg of rice and wheat (foodgrains) per capita per month. For decades, the stated purpose of the PDS system (and it has been present since the late 1970s in one form or another) has been to supply 5 kg of foodgrains. And that was theoretical. We all remember Rajiv Gandhi’s accurate assessment (in 1985) that only about 15 per cent of the money meant for the poor actually reached them. Study after study has confirmed the accuracy of that assessment. What was different this time was intent and technology. One Nation One Card was the new policy, and targeting was helped via Aadhaar (one of the greatest revolutions of our time — and surprisingly, opposed by many intellectuals on privacy concerns).

In addition to One Nation One Card, came the positively ingenious and win-win policy decision to increase the food allocation to 10 kg per month from the previous 5 kg — all the primary food needs of each individual would be provided, along with a helpful 1 kg of pulses. And to effectively deliver this to the people with an efficiency that Flipkart or Amazon would envy. Now, look at all the TV reporter interviews on the subject of Covid, welfare, jobs and the economy conducted in the recent elections. How many people mention the rations as the reason they will vote for the BJP? Improvement in law and order was another important factor (again, the upper class are rarely the victims of a decline in law and order, hence their apparent lack of respect for this important determinant).

How many (people) mention the temple? And how many of the analysts who were surprised by the results had mentioned the temple as an ex-ante determinant? The surprise in the election was not the reality of 4/4 and two to one. The surprise was entirely in the pre-judgement (prejudice?) of the analyst.

(The writer is Executive Director IMF representing India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Bhutan. Views expressed are strictly personal)