Narendra Modi’s grip on the electoral arithmetic in Gujarat

Despite strong public opinion prevailing in other parts of the country, successive elections to the Gujarat assembly in 2007 and 2012 were handsomely won by Narendra Modi. Not just critical opinion, there seems to be quite a lot of documentary evidence of the not-so-great performance of Gujarat over the years in terms of the human development, government policies openly favouring the rich and the very rich businessmen and industry groups flouting normal fiscal prudence and administrative norms (running up sizable fiscal debt), the widening of the urban-rural divide, government doing everything to delay and deny justice to the 2002 riot affected and displaced Muslims apart from the official insensitivity towards them and neglect of their rehabilitation needs. Despite all these facts, many of which the congress party brandished as the part of their propaganda at various times before the 2012 elections, 48% of the valid vote polled went in favour of BJP (and in Gujarat the party does not mean anything without Modi), with Congress polling about 39%.

The Muslims constitute only about 9% of the population of the state. For the sake of a simplified analysis, even if Muslims vote enblock against him that hardly affects Modi electorally, as long as he could garner the majority of the remaining votes on the supposed strength of economic development of the state, apparent priority accorded by the government to business and industry (which goes well with the traditional Gujarati ethos), well developed urban infrastructure, good availability of electricity and electronic connectivity, etc. From the reports critical to NaMo and his policies and programs, it may appear that Gujarati society is after all not monolithic and his actions did affect sections of the population in negative ways, especially the poor and the marginalized and those inhabiting the rural Gujarat. Do the voting percentages and patterns in different parts of the State, the regions and the districts demonstrate the disenchantment of these sections? Only a detailed statistical analysis of the poll data can establish that or refute the hypothesis.

Since the voting patterns in 2012 election show a fairly complete polarization between those for and against NaMo (all other parties in the opposition neither significant in gathering votes nor seats) obviously there is a fairly clear divide in the state – it remains, however, to be demonstrated as to whether this divide is indeed between those apparently benefiting from the stress Modi placed on the economic development  (coinciding with the benefits visible in the urban and semi-urban areas of the state) and others being denied of the same. That BJP won comprehensively in the urban areas, cities in particular, is beyond dispute as shown by statistics. But the party also appeared to have got majority of seats – if not greater vote percentage- in most of the 5 major regions of the state.

The 8-9% difference between the BJP and the Congress votes during the last election is too large to have happened without a benefit that accrued to Modi on the back of the perception of a development dividend delivered. There are some indications of the role played by the so-called neo-middle classes of the Gujarati society in this election. There is a sizable section of the population from the poorer classes of the rural areas forced to migrate to urban and semi-urban areas as a result of economic difficulties and backwardness. It is quite possible that they have been attracted by the promise of an economic revival of their fate in the wake of the development ‘magic’ they are consuming as new entrants of the burgeoning middle classes in the cities and urban clusters of Gujarat. And for them the perception is that entrepreneurial ethic is getting the desired attention and support from the government. And naturally they became the latest vote bank for Modi.

Lastly, the recent delimitation of the assembly constituencies may also have played a role in tilting the electoral balance by way of redistributing the purely rural areas and combining them with relatively more urban areas and generating a new constituency with both urban and rural category of voters. This again needs more detailed examination provided relevant statistics are available.

Hope to revisit Modi’s magic formula for wining elections and how it could impact countrywide if at all some other time.



Tsunami of public opinion and the response of the marooned political class

The political class in this country has always moulded the public opinion and is used to commandeering it by (dividing them into religion or caste-based communities,) appealing to raw and the basest and the most archaic instincts of people and historical schisms between communities in terms of their caste, cultural and religious identities. Lack of information, education and enlightenment among the people in broad swaths of the country which foster superstition, outdated outlook and conservatism came in handy in perpetuating this hegemony. And in this they have always had implicit support of the ruling classes, the economically rich and powerful, both in the cities and villages.

But the development breakthrough brought in by the emerging capitalism in India since the 1990s through the policies of liberalization has changed this force field. India is changing with growing aspirational urban middle classes, whose ranks are slowly but surely being swelled with new entrants from poorer and historically and socially backward classes. Ironically, this is helped by the affirmative policies embraced by successive governments and that of positive discrimination that is the staple of the serial political drama played out by the political class for the last three decades. With the growth in the urbanization, education, enterprise, exposure to international standards through television and mobile telephony (probably two major drivers of demands for consumer products that indirectly helped economic growth) came the need for information. At least urban Indians (especially those in semi-urban, tier-2 or tier-3 cities and towns) - and their numbers are no longer miniscule or could be safely ignored in political calculations - are getting to know about the products, standard of life, standard of services available in the most developed and metropolitan cities of the country. They are also getting informed how the best of capitalism is brought out in the first rate cities in the first world countries by harnessing it through intelligent and efficient regulation and steadfastly following the rule of law. 

This underlies the importance and increasing role of the media (especially the electronic version) in highlighting the deficiencies, inequities, unreasonableness in our political system and amplifying the popular impatience about the status quo sought to be maintained by the establishment – the government bureaucracy and the political class – and delays in redressal of the public grievances.

There is also the new technological developments in internet based communication and dissemination (social media platforms, blogosphere) that has made this tide of anti-political class sentiment due to its speed and extent of spread – through spontaneous articulation, repetition, recycling, resonance, lack of a command structure, runaway unpredictability – resemble a tsunami, that of public opinion (something the political class has not yet learnt to commandeer to its selfish goals).

It is in the light of the above that we could analyse what might appear as a beginning of a rethinking by the political class on the bill and later the ordinance to retain the lifeline available in the existing Representation of the People Act (RPA), proposed to be snatched by the Supreme Court in its July judgment, to the convicted members of the parliament and the assemblies. Is this a belated recognition of the strength of public opinion against the criminalisation of politics? It is difficult to be sure, though. Indications are there about the political parties individually readjusting their public posturing, especially keeping in view the imminent need to face the electorates for the assembly elections in four states during the end of this year and for the big parliament election early next year. 

It was the Congress party that actually took the lead through an all-party meeting to reach a consensus about bringing about a bill in the Parliament making the requisite changes in the Representation of the People Act (RPA) so that the elected representatives can continue to hold their position despite conviction, with some marginal restrictions. Practically every party, including the BJP, supported the move. But somehow between that meeting and the actual debate in the Parliament when the bill was introduced, the principal opposition party and also smaller parties like BJD, CPI etc, were smart enough to sense the public mood (to be more accurate the mood of the articulate and educated middle classes) and opposed the bill brought by the ruling party. When at the end of an acrimonious day of debate the bill was referred to the standing committee, it was clear that the political class bought some time for themselves.

Pressures from the parties supporting the UPA, like the SP and RJD, whose leader Lalu Yadav was looking at the spectre of disqualification as MP after his possible conviction in the fodder scam case, partly forced the hand for Congress. There was also this arrogance of power, feeling of hurt among some cabinet ministers who pride themselves as the legal eagles being forced to bite dust on their own legislative turf. One found a determined government pushing the so-called Congress Core group into resolving to bring the law by the backdoor of an ordinance to be regularized later in the parliament’s winter session.

The response of the BJP was crafted on the basis of their cynical estimate that their current losses, if any, due to the application of the new legal provision, would be more than made up by cornering the Congress in the forthcoming assembly elections later this year if they can get on to the right side of the enormously negative public opinion about the ordinance. They went to town crying hoarse (including protesting to the President) about the Congress party’s mala fide intentions in pushing the bill as an ordinance and parading their own consistent stand opposing the bill since the parliament debate.

Congress party’s own prevarication was finally ended when they realized firstly that persuading the President, if not about the legality but the morality of the ‘criminal’ ordinance, would not be a cakewalk. Secondly in some quarters of the party, especially its youth enclaves, the realization had set in that pushing through this ordinance would alienate the party from the young India of the social media, the new voters, aspiring among other things a better definition and practice of the rule of law. Certainly they were loath to loose the game to the opposition even before it began.

Thus the two main political parties, though not voluntarily, showed for once a remarkable alacrity in deferring to the undercurrent of a progressive public opinion in favour of a more lawful political space where the electoral exercise might aspire to become cleaner and fairer. If this trend can be sustained it will certainly be good for our democracy.