https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_kolkata/issues/85671/OPS/G49CT0RE6.1+GQSCT0S9J.1.html
Evaluating govt.’s performance and its impact
1 of 6
VIBHA ATTRI NAMAN JAJU
As the dust settles on the 2024 general elections, an intricate tapestry of voter sentiment and political dynamics emerges, shedding light on how the BJP was left stranded for a majority.
According to the CSDS-Lokniti post-poll survey 2024, there was general satisfaction with the Union government’s performance, though it has declined compared to 2019. This time, about six in 10 respondents reported being fully or partly satisfied with the Modi government, a six percentage point decline from 2019 (Table 1).
The construction of the Ram Mandir was reported as the most favoured initiative, appreciated by over two of every 10 (22%) respondent. One in 10 voters cited the promotion of Hindutva and the elevation of India’s international standing as the government’s most commendable achievements (Table 2). As can be imagined, satisfaction on account of religious and cultural initiatives rather than core economic performance must have cost the party.
54% of those who appreciated the Ram Mandir construction voted for the BJP. Similarly, 41% of those who favoured poverty reduction initiatives supported the BJP (Table 3).
One-seventh (14%) of the respondents said that they did not like any work of the Modi government in the last five years.
Nearly a quarter of the electorate cited price rise and unemployment as the most disliked work of the Union government’s performance. Additionally, one in 10 highlighted poverty. According to the pre-poll survey conducted by CSDS-Lokniti, 27% of voters identified unemployment as a significant issue. Similarly, concerns about price rise have surged to 23% in 2024. Additionally, 8% of respondents reported increasing communalism/religious conflicts as the most disliked aspect of the government’s performance. Though the BJP retained some support from voters who identified rising prices, unemployment, and poverty as their primary concerns, the combined opposition effectively attracted a significant portion of these voters (Table 5).
The data shows that fully satisfied voters predominantly supported the BJP and its allies, with eight in 10 such voters voting for the NDA alliance. However, among those who were dissatisfied to some degree with the work done by the NDA, a significant portion voted for the INDIA bloc or other Opposition parties. This cumulative dissatisfaction with key issues ultimately tipped the scales against the BJP, explaining the drop in vote share and seats in these elections.
The authors are researchers at Lokniti-CSDS
NDA wins, performance pays
1 of 2
DEVESH KUMAR RISHIKESH YADAV
Voters often support the parties in the expectation of getting particular services, and when governments fail to fulfil these expectations, these voters turn to alternative appeals. At times, when governments fulfil those promises, the voters reward those parties handsomely. The 2024 results indicate, that in pockets the incumbent Union government has been rewarded by the voters, leading them to vote in favour of the BJP-led NDA government.
Historically, when voters were satisfied with the performance of incumbent governments, they were often re-elected, barring the notable exception of 2004, where despite reasonably high levels of support, the incumbent government lost the elections. In both the pre and post-poll surveys of 2024, (44% & 46% respectively), little less than half of the respondents have indicated that the BJP-led NDA should be given be given another chance (Table 1).
The main reasons why the NDA coalition was given a chance include government development work, leadership, good governance and welfare schemes. One-fifth of the respondents have indicated Narendra Modi’s leadership as one of the prime reasons. The lack of alternatives also played a role, with five per cent choosing the NDA government due to lack of options. Another one in every 10 voters said that they had good welfare schemes (Table 2).
A lot of issues remain unaddressed by the incumbent government. These issues discouraged the voters from supporting the current dispensation. For instance, unemployment was an issue for voters during the pre-poll. But the campaign, on account of the promises of employment resonating with voters, reduced this proportion in the post-poll (Table 3). Satisfaction with the NDA’s performance led many to give it another chance, while discontent shows that voters have exercised restraint, by not giving the BJP a clear majority on its own.
The authors are researchers at Lokniti-CSDS
https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_kolkata/issues/85671/OPS/G49CT0RE6.1+GQSCT0S9M.1.html
Personal financial conditions played key role in voting choice
1 of 5
People who felt their economic situation had worsened were more likely to have voted for Opposition, while those who felt the situation remained unchanged divided their votes almost equally between the ruling regime and the challenging party
SANJEER ALAM
In democracies, economic currents often sway voters. With India’s economic rise, the state of national economy has come to occupy centre stage of political and public debates. Economic issues such as growth, unemployment, inflation, rural distress, and so on figured prominently in political debates in the run-up to the Lok Sabha election. While the ruling party or alliance flaunted the impressive GDP numbers and new economic initiatives aimed at benefiting people, the Opposition bloc’s campaign remained focused on unemployment, price rise, and other forms of economic distress. Tapping into the downside of the economy, the Congress carefully crafted a package called the Nyay (justice), to be able to reach out to vulnerable sections.
For ordinary voters, complex macro-economic numbers may not mean much, but they have a fair sense of what they have gone through economically. Given this, it is people’s assessment of personal or household’s financial conditions rather than their perception about the performance of national economy that is expected to play an important role in shaping voting choice. The idea of “pocketbook” voting holds that those who feel economically secure or have experienced improvement in their financial well-being are more likely to vote for the candidates of the ruling regime. Conversely, individuals facing economic hardship, job loss, or financial instability may seek to punish the incumbent.
Rural-urban divide
So, in this election, how did people feel about their personal/household economic/financial conditions? Did it influence their voting preference? If so, to what extent? The CSDS-Lokniti post-poll survey helps us answer these questions.
As per the survey findings, only four of 10 respondents felt that their personal/household financial conditions improved over the past five years. This means that the economic condition of households of a great majority of people either remained unchanged or worsened. Interestingly, this number is about as great as it was in 2019. A closer look at the data indicates that a significant number of respondents actually experienced their economic conditions worsen. Compared with 2019, this number increased a bit. What this implies is that achchhe din (good days) could not expand its reach during the past five years (Table 1).
Who are those whose economic fortune improved or worsened? Economic processes are likely to affect sub-groups of voters differentially as their sources of livelihood and income markedly differ. An interesting pattern can be observed in rural and urban settings, the two spatially polarised contexts in terms of sources of livelihood and income. Data show that more rural voters than their urban counterparts felt that their economic conditions had improved. At the other end of the scale representing economic distress, the percentage of urban voters exceeded, though marginally, that of rural voters. The data also show that the processes of economic development have impacted different economic classes differentially. While half of the rich respondents said their economic conditions had improved, the corresponding figure for the poor was as low as 37%. A larger fraction of the poor than others saw their economic fortunes decline (Table 2).
The way people perceived their economic conditions appear to have played an important role in shaping their political preferences. Data reveal that those whose economic conditions remained unchanged divided their votes almost equally between the ruling regime and the challenging party/alliance. However, those who experienced their economic conditions worsen had a clear preference for the Opposition camp. More than half of them would have voted for the Congress and its allies as against 23% for the BJP and its allies. Conversely, most of those whose economic conditions had improved said they voted for the BJP-led NDA (Table 3).
A negative outlook
That key economic issues, such as personal economic well-being, mattered in the election is confirmed when we go back and take a look at other indicators as well. In the pre-poll survey held a couple of months ago, three of 10 respondents were of the view that the BJP-led NDA government worked for the benefits of the rich. About 15% of the respondents had held that there was no development at all during the past five years. Unsurprisingly, those who held a negative view of the ruling regime had expressed their intention to vote for Congress and its allies (Table 4).
In sum, over the past five years, economic conditions of many people did not improve. A fairly large fraction of people actually saw their economic conditions worsen. Since this is only a preliminary bivariate result, it is difficult to say how much of a role personal economic conditions play in shaping final electoral outcomes. But it is quite clear that people’s assessment of their own economic conditions made a large difference in the voting choice.
Sanjeer Alam is
Associate Professor at CSDS
We argue that BJP might not have lost greatly among many social sections. Yet, the losses at the State level among various social sections pushed the BJP below the majority mark and also denied any addition to its overall vote share. Secondly, the drop in BJP’s seat share has brought the era of coalitions back to the centre of power equations. These developments slow down the process of BJP becoming a dominant party that it had almost become during the last decade.
Modi factor seems to have stagnated over a decade
1 of 4
SANDEEP SHASTRI
Ever since the rise of Narendra Modi on the national scene in 2014, his leadership has attracted voters to the BJP on a considerable scale. The electoral strategy of the BJP (and the NDA) in the 2024 polls was to make Mr. Modi’s leadership the face of their campaign. However, the Opposition alliance consciously did not declare a Prime Ministerial face. The CSDS-Lokniti data indicate the possible impact of the leadership factor in shaping the electoral outcome.
Fading popularity
Mr. Modi remained in the lead as voters’s choice to become Prime Minister. A little over four in 10 respondents (41%) stated that their preferred Prime Ministerial choice was Narendra Modi. Rahul Gandhi was mentioned by a little over one-fourth (27%) of the respondents as their preferred choice (See Table 1).
It may be important to record that the question on preferred Prime Ministerial choice has been asked during earlier elections also. This time, there was a six-percentage point decline in the mention of Narendra Modi as the Prime Ministerial choice compared with 2019. The gap between Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi as the preferred Prime Ministerial choice has fallen by eight percentage points. (Table 2).
Was there any impact of the Prime Ministerial preference in the decision on voting? Six in 10 respondents (60%) reported that it had an impact on the voting decision. Three-fourths of the respondents who reported voting for the BJP mentioned that it had an impact with as high as four in 10 saying that it had a great impact.The impact of the leadership factor in determining voter preference was much less among those who voted for the Congress and its allies. (Table 3).
The post-poll surveys have been tapping the response to whether there would have been any change in voting preference if Narendra Modi was not the Prime Ministerial candidate. When this question was asked in 2014, a little over one-fourth (27%) of those who voted for the BJP said that they would have changed the way they voted. In 2019, two-thirds (32%) took this stand. This time, one-fourth (25%) said that they would have changed the way they voted if Mr. Modi was not the Prime Ministerial candidate. Clearly, the initial ability of the Modi factor to make voters move to the BJP seems to have stagnated over the decade.
Sandeep Shastri is Director-Academics, NITTE Education Trust, and the National Coordinator of the Lokniti Network
https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_kolkata/issues/85671/OPS/G49CT0RE7.1+GSSCT1SK0.1.html
Sandeep Shastri is the National Coordinator of the Lokniti Network
Suhas Palshikar is chief editor of Studies in Indian Politics Sanjay Kumar is Co-director Lokniti-CSDS
No comments:
Post a Comment