The new BJP government completed 100 days in government a few days back. We have also had a couple of by-polls in between. Much has been written about the Lok Sabha election of 2014 and the persona of its protagonists in the interim and the discourse in the media both formal and social, has long since moved on to the the merits and performance of the new government. Now, four months after that mandate, the decisiveness of which was surprising to most and even shocking to some, is perhaps a good time to peel a few more layers of the onion and try to understand what really happened in the Lok Sabha elections in 2014.
The terms wave (or 'lehar' in hindi) is often used to describe a decisive swing in the pendulum of public opinion in Indian political writing. After 2014 superlatives like tsunami, or even 'tsunamo' have also been used by many (including yours truly). In this post I intend to try to dissect the results of 2014 to understand the anatomy of this phenomenon a little better, what constitutes a wave and how it manifests itself.
In the last post I ended with an analysis of the results of 2014 in the context of elections over the last 60 years. Here's a look at the graphic again.
In terms of the definition we used for a wave, and in that context of a 'wave election' one can see similarities in the result of 2014 to previous ones in 1977, 1984 and to some extent in 1998. i.e. in each of those elections there was a definitive swing in vote share towards a party/formation riding the 'wave'. We know in hind-sight that in each of these elections there were strong reasons (or passions) for the dramatic shift in public opinion. While in 1977 it was a wave of anger against the emergency, in 1984 it was a sympathy wave after Indira Gandhi's assassination and in 1998 it was a culmination of the decade long and fractious Ram Janmabhumi movement as well as dejection with the first experiments with coalition politics
Now if we look at the same picture but this time in terms of total votes instead of vote shares the phenomenon is even more stark. In each of the so called wave elections the winning party (the one riding the wave) gained significantly in terms of number of votes, surpassing the maximum they had ever garnered in the past by a significant margin. This is true for the Janta coalition in 1977 just as it is for the Congress in 1984 and for the BJP in 2014. Essentially one of the consequence of a wave election seems to be that the party riding it gains a significant incremental chunk of voters.
Also to be seen is that at least in 1977 and in 2014 the increase in the votes for the winner is not really at the cost of a similar decline for the loser. For example in 1977, there was a surge of support for the Janta coalition, but the congress did not do that badly in terms of the number of votes it secured. If anything it secured a marginally higher number of votes. We see the same in 2014 - compared to 2009 the BJP saw a 100% increase in the number of votes but it was not as if the Congress was decimated. In terms of the number of votes the decline for the congress was less than 10%.
So obviously there is another factor at play here and that is incremental voters (with respect to the previous year). The below graphic shows the trend in the number of votes cast over the years. Here again we can see the spikes (in terms of percentage increase) in the wave elections of 1977, 1984 and 2014.
It is fair to say that a significant chunk comes from newly registered first time voters, but there is also a fair share of the previously 'disinterested' voters, i.e. voters who did not find it worth their while to vote in the previous election. In other words the increment in the total number of voters is a function of the increase in number of registered voters (newly registered first time voters) and the voter turnout (increase in which is from previously disinterested voters showing up). The graphic below shows how both of these have trended over the years.
We can see that the number of registered voters has been increasing through the years at a fairly uniform clip (bar spike in 1989 owing to the reduction of voting age from 21 to 18 and some ups and downs in the 1990's owing to cleaning up of electoral rolls). What is more interesting is the trend in voter turnout where we see spikes in the so called wave elections of 1977, 1984, 1998 and most prominently in 2014.
To sum it up, it seems that the defining characteristic of a so called wave election is the presence of a significant issue (real or emotive) that captures the imagination of the voting population leading to a dramatic increase in voter participation. What is even more interesting is that in all of these elections, it seems that this incremental vote (net new or previously disinterested) has a pronounced impact on the result, significantly adding to the vote base of the party riding the wave.
Now let us come back to the 2014 elections try to apply what we have seen to understand the nature of the wave/tsunami it turned out to be. As we saw in the earlier graphics, the 2014 election was an outlier both in terms of the increase in the number of registered voters as well as the voter turnout.
The increase in the number of registered voters (at 13.7%) is the highest increase in the last 2 decades. On the other hand the voter turnout in this election, at 68%, is the highest vote share ever recorded in an Indian national election. It beats the high vote shares recorded in previous 'wave elections' by a margin and is a good 10% higher than the 58% recorded in 2009. Together this meant that that there were roughly 136 Million incremental voters in 2014 compared to 2009 translating to roughly a 33% jump.
It is important to take a minute to digest the magnitude of these numbers. At 136 Million the number of incremental voters in India's lok Sabha election in 2014 was higher that the total number of voters in the last presidential elections of the next biggest democracy in the world (the US). In the domestic context this 136M incremental number roughly equals to the number of voters (2009) in the three most electorally significant states of UP, Maharashtra and West Bengal put together.
The picture becomes even more stark when we look at how the number of voters has trended in the respective states(graphic above). A quick look at the graphic below shows that between 2009 and 2014 the number of voters in UP increased by 46% while in the case of Bihar it was close to 48%. In Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan it was greater than 50%.
What does this tell us? Essentiall that this election was not about holding on to traditional vote bases. It was all about getting the new guys and girls, the incremental voter. This is statement is truer for states like UP and Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, and Gujarat where the increase in the number of voters was close to 50% though it could be applied reasonably to the rest of the country as well.
It also tells us that just looking at the vote shares can lead to fallacious impressions in this election. To delve deeper into what this means let us take a closer look at the results from UP, which it would be fair to say sprang the biggest surprise in this elections. Lets look at a graphic with the vote shares first.
Simply looking at the vote share percentages might suggest that the the BJP's meteoric increase in UP is a direct consequence of the a steep decline in the Congress and the BSP and a smaller decline in the SP. It also seems that the growth momentum of support that Kanshi Ram and Mayavati had built over the last 5 elections is finally cracking up and even that the BSP's support base is deserting it.
A look at the trend in the number of votes (graphic above) seems to contradict some of this. If we look at the graphic above what it tells us is that the only party losing in terms of the number of votes is the Congress. If anything the SP has improved its voter base quiet significantly and event Mayavati's BSP got marginally higher votes in 2014 than in 2009. The conclusion is simple - it is that broadly speaking it is not as if the BSP and SP's core support base, their loyal voters, deserted them in droves. The BJPs trippling its tally of votes in UP can only be explained by the hypotheses that they were successful in capturing a significant share of the incremental vote in UP.
Lets try to understand the demographic of this incremental voter a bit better. It would be fair to say the a big chunk of it would be late teens/twenty something, first time voters. This next generation of voters has been very aptly described as 'post ideological' by Shekhar Gupta. In other words, born in the late 80's early 90's, this generation of voters is in some sense the post mandal kamandal generation as well as the post liberalization generation. Is it possible that the new generation of OBC/dalit voter finds himself empowered enough to leave the comfort and safety of caste loyalties and anspire for something more. Maybe, but if thats the case then this should count as one of the successes of the identity based politics of the 90's. It would also mean that parties like SP and the BSP will have to evolve with the next generation of voters, just the politics of identity might not do. This is probably even more applicable to the Congress than anyone else, just harping on the secular-communal line will probably not be enough . When was the last time you met a 20 something voter who identified with the Congress or was inspired by its 'young' leader. As the inimitable Ravish Kumar has pointed in many of his essays, politicians and parties will have to discover the message, idiom and medium to communicate to this new generation of voters.
Which finally brings us to the reasons for the increase in voter participation in this election. A lot of credit for this should go to the Election Commission of India. In the year preceding this election the ECI conducted numerous enrollment drives to register new voters and also created online channels for voter registration. However this by itself cannot explain the dramatic increase in the willingness of gen-next and the middle class voter to come out of their shell and participate in the democratic process. The advent of social media and the gave an altogether new dimension to the election by providing voters with an active platform for political discourse. We can argue about the reach of the medium but its power as a amplifier/multiplier for a message was evident as early as the anti corruption and 'nirbhaya' protests. There was simmering discontent with the performance of the UPA government, and around the issues of corruption, but it was harnessed masterfully by one side who spoke to the next-gen voter, on their media, and put forward an aspirational agenda which was tailored for them. Maybe this is what the much talked wave of 2014 was all about.
The terms wave (or 'lehar' in hindi) is often used to describe a decisive swing in the pendulum of public opinion in Indian political writing. After 2014 superlatives like tsunami, or even 'tsunamo' have also been used by many (including yours truly). In this post I intend to try to dissect the results of 2014 to understand the anatomy of this phenomenon a little better, what constitutes a wave and how it manifests itself.
In the last post I ended with an analysis of the results of 2014 in the context of elections over the last 60 years. Here's a look at the graphic again.
In terms of the definition we used for a wave, and in that context of a 'wave election' one can see similarities in the result of 2014 to previous ones in 1977, 1984 and to some extent in 1998. i.e. in each of those elections there was a definitive swing in vote share towards a party/formation riding the 'wave'. We know in hind-sight that in each of these elections there were strong reasons (or passions) for the dramatic shift in public opinion. While in 1977 it was a wave of anger against the emergency, in 1984 it was a sympathy wave after Indira Gandhi's assassination and in 1998 it was a culmination of the decade long and fractious Ram Janmabhumi movement as well as dejection with the first experiments with coalition politics
Now if we look at the same picture but this time in terms of total votes instead of vote shares the phenomenon is even more stark. In each of the so called wave elections the winning party (the one riding the wave) gained significantly in terms of number of votes, surpassing the maximum they had ever garnered in the past by a significant margin. This is true for the Janta coalition in 1977 just as it is for the Congress in 1984 and for the BJP in 2014. Essentially one of the consequence of a wave election seems to be that the party riding it gains a significant incremental chunk of voters.
Also to be seen is that at least in 1977 and in 2014 the increase in the votes for the winner is not really at the cost of a similar decline for the loser. For example in 1977, there was a surge of support for the Janta coalition, but the congress did not do that badly in terms of the number of votes it secured. If anything it secured a marginally higher number of votes. We see the same in 2014 - compared to 2009 the BJP saw a 100% increase in the number of votes but it was not as if the Congress was decimated. In terms of the number of votes the decline for the congress was less than 10%.
So obviously there is another factor at play here and that is incremental voters (with respect to the previous year). The below graphic shows the trend in the number of votes cast over the years. Here again we can see the spikes (in terms of percentage increase) in the wave elections of 1977, 1984 and 2014.
It is fair to say that a significant chunk comes from newly registered first time voters, but there is also a fair share of the previously 'disinterested' voters, i.e. voters who did not find it worth their while to vote in the previous election. In other words the increment in the total number of voters is a function of the increase in number of registered voters (newly registered first time voters) and the voter turnout (increase in which is from previously disinterested voters showing up). The graphic below shows how both of these have trended over the years.
We can see that the number of registered voters has been increasing through the years at a fairly uniform clip (bar spike in 1989 owing to the reduction of voting age from 21 to 18 and some ups and downs in the 1990's owing to cleaning up of electoral rolls). What is more interesting is the trend in voter turnout where we see spikes in the so called wave elections of 1977, 1984, 1998 and most prominently in 2014.
To sum it up, it seems that the defining characteristic of a so called wave election is the presence of a significant issue (real or emotive) that captures the imagination of the voting population leading to a dramatic increase in voter participation. What is even more interesting is that in all of these elections, it seems that this incremental vote (net new or previously disinterested) has a pronounced impact on the result, significantly adding to the vote base of the party riding the wave.
Now let us come back to the 2014 elections try to apply what we have seen to understand the nature of the wave/tsunami it turned out to be. As we saw in the earlier graphics, the 2014 election was an outlier both in terms of the increase in the number of registered voters as well as the voter turnout.
The increase in the number of registered voters (at 13.7%) is the highest increase in the last 2 decades. On the other hand the voter turnout in this election, at 68%, is the highest vote share ever recorded in an Indian national election. It beats the high vote shares recorded in previous 'wave elections' by a margin and is a good 10% higher than the 58% recorded in 2009. Together this meant that that there were roughly 136 Million incremental voters in 2014 compared to 2009 translating to roughly a 33% jump.
It is important to take a minute to digest the magnitude of these numbers. At 136 Million the number of incremental voters in India's lok Sabha election in 2014 was higher that the total number of voters in the last presidential elections of the next biggest democracy in the world (the US). In the domestic context this 136M incremental number roughly equals to the number of voters (2009) in the three most electorally significant states of UP, Maharashtra and West Bengal put together.
The picture becomes even more stark when we look at how the number of voters has trended in the respective states(graphic above). A quick look at the graphic below shows that between 2009 and 2014 the number of voters in UP increased by 46% while in the case of Bihar it was close to 48%. In Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan it was greater than 50%.
What does this tell us? Essentiall that this election was not about holding on to traditional vote bases. It was all about getting the new guys and girls, the incremental voter. This is statement is truer for states like UP and Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, and Gujarat where the increase in the number of voters was close to 50% though it could be applied reasonably to the rest of the country as well.
It also tells us that just looking at the vote shares can lead to fallacious impressions in this election. To delve deeper into what this means let us take a closer look at the results from UP, which it would be fair to say sprang the biggest surprise in this elections. Lets look at a graphic with the vote shares first.
Simply looking at the vote share percentages might suggest that the the BJP's meteoric increase in UP is a direct consequence of the a steep decline in the Congress and the BSP and a smaller decline in the SP. It also seems that the growth momentum of support that Kanshi Ram and Mayavati had built over the last 5 elections is finally cracking up and even that the BSP's support base is deserting it.
A look at the trend in the number of votes (graphic above) seems to contradict some of this. If we look at the graphic above what it tells us is that the only party losing in terms of the number of votes is the Congress. If anything the SP has improved its voter base quiet significantly and event Mayavati's BSP got marginally higher votes in 2014 than in 2009. The conclusion is simple - it is that broadly speaking it is not as if the BSP and SP's core support base, their loyal voters, deserted them in droves. The BJPs trippling its tally of votes in UP can only be explained by the hypotheses that they were successful in capturing a significant share of the incremental vote in UP.
Lets try to understand the demographic of this incremental voter a bit better. It would be fair to say the a big chunk of it would be late teens/twenty something, first time voters. This next generation of voters has been very aptly described as 'post ideological' by Shekhar Gupta. In other words, born in the late 80's early 90's, this generation of voters is in some sense the post mandal kamandal generation as well as the post liberalization generation. Is it possible that the new generation of OBC/dalit voter finds himself empowered enough to leave the comfort and safety of caste loyalties and anspire for something more. Maybe, but if thats the case then this should count as one of the successes of the identity based politics of the 90's. It would also mean that parties like SP and the BSP will have to evolve with the next generation of voters, just the politics of identity might not do. This is probably even more applicable to the Congress than anyone else, just harping on the secular-communal line will probably not be enough . When was the last time you met a 20 something voter who identified with the Congress or was inspired by its 'young' leader. As the inimitable Ravish Kumar has pointed in many of his essays, politicians and parties will have to discover the message, idiom and medium to communicate to this new generation of voters.
Which finally brings us to the reasons for the increase in voter participation in this election. A lot of credit for this should go to the Election Commission of India. In the year preceding this election the ECI conducted numerous enrollment drives to register new voters and also created online channels for voter registration. However this by itself cannot explain the dramatic increase in the willingness of gen-next and the middle class voter to come out of their shell and participate in the democratic process. The advent of social media and the gave an altogether new dimension to the election by providing voters with an active platform for political discourse. We can argue about the reach of the medium but its power as a amplifier/multiplier for a message was evident as early as the anti corruption and 'nirbhaya' protests. There was simmering discontent with the performance of the UPA government, and around the issues of corruption, but it was harnessed masterfully by one side who spoke to the next-gen voter, on their media, and put forward an aspirational agenda which was tailored for them. Maybe this is what the much talked wave of 2014 was all about.
