2009 Indian general election analysis
 |
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into the articles on the elections in the individual states. (Discuss) Proposed since August 2009. |
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.) Please help improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (August 2009) |
 |
This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. Discussion about the problems with the sole source used may be found on the talk page. (August 2009) |
The 2009 general elections defied the predictions made by pre-poll predictions and exit polls and gave a clear mandate to the incumbent Congress government. According to many analysts after the election, many factors can be attributed for a landslide. According to the National Election Study 2009, published in the The Hindu newspaper after the election, the victory to the UPA government is attributed to saturation of caste-based identity politics, the focus on good governance and BJP's limitations, gave Congress the edge.[1] Another factor is the vote-splitting by the Third Front, especially the BSP and MNS in Maharashtra, which resulted in Congress gaining many of its seats without getting a majority in the corresponding constituency. Many also attributed the victory to the campaigning of Rahul Gandhi which many feel has contributed significantly of energizing the base, especially the younger voters. Overall, the high rural turnout, and satisfaction of the incumbent Congress government, attributed to the mandate given to the UPA government to be in power for another five years.
Contents |
[edit] BJP versus Congress performance
Source: NES 2009 and Hindu Newspaper
Congress gained 2.1% from the last election, giving an extra 61 seats, due to larger gains in key battleground states such as Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. BJP suffered a decline in vote percentage in nearly every state, only gaining in Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka. Apart from than the state of Karnataka, BJP has not been able to create a new social base and the results reflects the BJP parties' stagnation throughout the country. The report concluded that previous successes of BJP have been because they had the leadership of Atal Behari Vajpayee and coupled with Congress' decline and sympathy wave of the Kargil War, they were able to win in a landslide in 1999. But in recent elections, the lack of leaders and Congress' resurgence, BJP couldn't keep up in terms of party recruitment and BJP not holding on to alliances, especially in southern states, like Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, are reasons for BJP's decline.
| State | Vote Share | Swing from 2004 |
|---|---|---|
| All India | 28.6% | +2.1% |
| Andhra Pradesh | 39.0% | +2.6% |
| Assam | 34.9% | -0.2% |
| Bihar | 10.3% | +5.8% |
| Chhattisgarh | 37.3% | -2.9% |
| Delhi | 57.1% | +2.3% |
| Gujarat | 43.5% | -0.4% |
| Haryana | 41.8% | -0.3% |
| Himachal Pradesh | 45.6% | -6.3% |
| Jharkhand | 15.0% | -2.9% |
| Jammu and Kashmir | 24.7% | -0.4% |
| Karnataka | 36.8% | 0.0% |
| Kerala | 40.1% | +8.0% |
| Maharastra | 19.6% | -4.2% |
| Madhya Pradesh | 40.1% | +6.0% |
| Orissa | 32.8% | -7.6% |
| Punjab | 45.2% | +11.0% |
| Rajasthan | 47.2% | +5.8% |
| Tamil Nadu | 15.0% | +0.6% |
| Uttar Pradesh | 18.2% | 6.2% |
| Uttarakhand | 43.3% | 5.0% |
| State | Vote Share | Swing from 2004 |
|---|---|---|
| All India | 18.8% | -3.6% |
| Andhra Pradesh | 3.7% | -4.7% |
| Assam | 16.2% | -6.7% |
| Bihar | 14% | -0.6% |
| Chhattisgarh | 45% | -2.8% |
| Delhi | 35.2% | -5.5% |
| Gujarat | 46.6% | -0.8% |
| Haryana | 12.1% | -5.1% |
| Himachal Pradesh | 49.5% | +5.3% |
| Jharkhand | 27.5% | -5.5% |
| Jammu and Kashmir | 18.6% | -4.4% |
| Karnataka | 39.7% | +4.9% |
| Kerala | 6.3% | -4.1% |
| Maharastra | 18.2% | -4.4% |
| Madhya Pradesh | 43.5% | -4.6% |
| Orissa | 16.9% | -2.4% |
| Punjab | 10.1% | -0.4% |
| Rajasthan | 36.6% | -12.4% |
| Tamil Nadu | 2.3% | -2.8% |
| Uttar Pradesh | 17.5% | -4.7% |
| Uttarakhand | 34% | -7.0% |
| West Bengal | 6.1% | -2.0% |
[edit] Muslim, youth and women's vote
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[3]
| Party | 1996 | 1998 | 1999 | 2004 | 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indian National Congress | 32% | 32% | 40% | 36% | 36% |
| Bharatiya Janata Party | 2% | 5% | 6% | 7% | 3% |
| Left Front | 13% | 8% | 10% | 9% | 11% |
| Samajwadi Party | 25% | 19% | 11% | 15% | 10% |
Muslims, youth and women voters were targeted by many parties in the 2009 election. But, contrary to conventional wisdom, they didn't play a big role in this election. While turnouts were high within each voter base, Congress won as much within the Muslim voter base as the previous election. Also, while study showed a slight favour toward women's vote with the Congress, the rise is less than the Congress' gain overall. There was a significant increase in women members in Lok Sabha, where it increased to 59 members from 45 members in 2004.
The post election study also disproved the misconception that youth voters tend to disproportionately vote for radical parties such as Left and Bahujan Samaj Party. The study showed that no such pattern existed in this election, nor did it find that BJP tended to do better amongst voters under 25, which was witnessed in the 1990s till the 2004 election. The data collected by NES also didn't show that youth voters played a role in the UPA victory, since it found that the preference of Congress was no more than BJP and other parties. The data also disproved that younger voters prefer younger politicians such as Rahul Gandhi over older politicians, since the study showed that there is no clear preference. Overall the study concluded that younger voters' political attitudes mirrored the attitudes of the older generation.
[edit] Leadership, turnout and issues
[edit] Leadership
| Election Year | Manmohan Singh | Sonia Gandhi | L.K. Advani | Rahul Gandhi |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 0% | 16% | 2% | |
| 1999 | 1% | 27% | 1% | |
| 2004 | 1% | 27% | 1% | 1% |
| August 2006 | 12% | 28% | 2% | 2% |
| January 2007 | 10% | 22% | 3% | 3% |
| September 2007 | 10% | 22% | 3% | 3% |
| January 2009 | 12% | 20% | 10% | 6% |
| 2009 | 17% | 15% | 14% | 6% |
| Chief Minister | Party | % Approval | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naveen Patnaik | BJD | 63% | Orissa |
| Nitish Kumar | JD(U) | 61% | Bihar |
| Shivraj Singh Chauhan | BJP | 50% | Madhya Pradesh |
| Sheila Dikshit | INC | 49% | Delhi |
| Narendra Modi | BJP | 45% | Gujarat |
| Raman Singh | BJP | 40% | Chhattisgarh |
| Ashok Gehlot | INC | 40% | Rajasthan |
| Prem Kumar Dhumal | BJP | 39% | Himachal Pradesh |
| B.S. Yeddyurappa | BJP | 33% | Karnataka |
| Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee | CPM | 30% | West Bengal |
| B.C. Khanduri | BJP | 30% | Uttarakhand |
| Mayawati | BSP | 27% | Uttar Pradesh |
| Parkash Singh Badal | SAD | 27% | Punjab |
| Omar Abdullah | JKNC | 18% | Jammu and Kashmir |
[edit] Analysis of key swing states
 |
Please expand this article. More information might be found in a section of the talk page. (May 2011) |
[edit] Andhra Pradesh
| Social Background | INC | TDP+ | PRP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 44.9% | 33.3% | 11.5% |
| Female | 41.3% | 37.2% | 13.5% |
| Economic Class | |||
| Very poor | 45.5% | 41.2% | 8.6% |
| Poor | 42.9% | 39.6% | 12.6% |
| Lower | 43.6% | 38.1% | 12.3% |
| Middle | 42.2% | 33.2% | 14.0% |
| Upper | 43.0% | 27.8% | 10.9% |
| Caste-community | |||
| Upper castes | 38.2% | 33.7% | 4.5% |
| Reddys | 65.9% | 20.1% | 3.4% |
| Kammas | 21.0% | 63.7% | 7.3% |
| Kapuss | 30.8% | 16.2% | 53.1% |
| Yadavas | 35.0% | 45.9% | 10.8% |
| Gowdas | 36.4% | 40.3% | 10.8% |
| Other BCs | 38.3% | 37.7% | 15.5% |
| Malas | 51.0% | 28.8% | 13.5% |
| Madigas | 47.7% | 46.1% | 4.7% |
| Scheduled Tribes | 54.3% | 33.3% | 7.2% |
| Muslims | 50.7% | 24.8% | 6.9% |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[4]
Andhra Pradesh proved to be an important and a decisive state, that contributed to the landslide of UPA alliance. The Congress got 33 seats and 16 million votes, making this state Congress' largest state in both seats and popular vote. An in-depth analysis of NES, found that, Congress compared to the 2004 election actually lost 2.59% of the popular vote, but was able to wrestle four more seats than the last election. Comparatively Congress only lost 1.97% in the assembly election, but lost 28 seats overall, and Telugu Desam Party, led by former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, actually gained 44 seats, even though it lost a seat in the Lok Sabha. Many attribute this to the fact that the Praja Rajyam led by Chiranjeevi and Lok Satta led by Jaya Prakash Narayan, split the non-Congress vote, leading to Congress easily winning both Lok Sabha and the assembly election. PRP, garnering 15.76% of the vote in the Lok Sabha election, and 16.12% of the vote in the assembly election, proved to be a real spoiler for the Grand Alliance.
It can also be concluded that the Grand Alliance (TDP, TRS, Left) would have benefited in the state assembly elections, if it was held separately from the Lok Sabha elections, since there seems to be a sizable base of voters that have confidence in the UPA government nationally, but not as much towards the Congress government in Andhra Pradesh. This led to a surge of voters for the national election that might have boosted and helped Congress win the state assembly elections. The Congress government concluded from the results that the welfare programs, like employment guarantee scheme and loan waiver programs from farmers that particularly benefited the rural areas, helped them gain power in Andhra Pradesh. Apart from national policies, state policies such as housing for the poor (Indiramma), health care (Rajiv Arogya Sree), old age pensions and fee reimbursements for college students, might have helped Congress be in power for another five years.
In terms of social base, TDP slightly got more support from the backward caste, while TDP and PRP received majority support from these groups overall compared to Congress. But Congress itself received greater support from Dalits, Malas and the Muslims, where less than 50% of Muslims voted for Congress in this state.
[edit] Kerala
| Social Background | UDF | LDF | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic Class | |||
| Low income | 38% | 52% | |
| Lower Middle income | 45% | 45% | |
| Middle income | 41% | 39% | |
| High income | 53% | 32% | |
| Caste-community | |||
| Nair | 33% (+4) | 27% (-14) | |
| Ezhavas | 27% (+5) | 57% (-1) | |
| SCs | 15% (+5) | 69% (-5) | |
| Muslims | 69% (-2) | 26% (-3) | |
| Christians | 69% (+13) | 32% (-15) | |
| Urban | 55% (+4) | 39% (+4) | |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[4]
Kerala was also another state that proved to play a crucial role for the UPA landslide in the general election. While Kerala has seen its share of reversals from Congress to the Left, the UDF managed to go from an eight point deficit to the LDF to a three point lead. The major factor that contributed to this is not the unpopularity of the chief minister in Kerala, who has the support of 60% of the people in Kerala according to one poll, but due to the LDF's tie up with Peoples Democratic Party. This move was opposed by not only the UDF but also members of the LDF like the CPI and RSP, who resented this move due to alleged corruption of the leaders of CPM and PDP. Cases like the Lavalin case, where half the public believe that the CPM state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan was involved, hurt the Left in this state. Out of those who believe CPM's role in this corruption case, 57% of them voted for the UDF. The LDF, hoping for Muslim votes due to the tie up with PDP, failed to take place, since they lost Muslim votes compared to the 2004 election. This election also saw BJP's demise in this state, where it lost four percentage points compared to the last election, proving this state to be difficult for BJP to build a vote base.
[edit] Tamil Nadu
| Social Background/Category | DMK+ | AIADMK+ | DMDK |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Basis of voting | |||
| Upper castes | 39% | 37% | 13% |
| Thevars | 33% | 47% | 13% |
| Vanniyars | 46% | 42% | 6% |
| Mudaliars | 50% | 30% | 5% |
| Lower OBCs | 34% | 44% | 12% |
| Dalits | 43% | 28% | 11% |
| Muslims | 38% | 17% | 6% |
| Large proportion of Congress voters shift to DMDK | |||
| Congress 2004 | 52% | 21% | 15% |
| DMK 2004 | 71% | 10% | 7% |
| PMK 2004 | 12% | 75% | 9% |
| MDMK 2004 | 20% | 60% | 7% |
| AIADMK 2004 | 11% | 65% | 5% |
| AIADMK alliance does better among women, rural voters | |||
| Men | 40% | 30% | 11% |
| Women | 40% | 35% | 9% |
| Rural | 40% | 38% | 10% |
| Urban | 40% | 26% | 10% |
| Are Demands from LTTE justified? | |||
| Demand not justified | 50% | 29% | 8% |
| Demand justified, but violence wrong | 45% | 38% | 11% |
| Demand justified and violence unavoidable | 35% | 36% | 14% |
| No opinion | 48% | 43% | 5% |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[4]
Tamil Nadu not only proved to be a crucial swing state in this election, but was the biggest surprise in terms of results. The reason for this surprise is because since 1998, arithmetic (Party that had the biggest alliance, in terms of numbers) usually prevailed in the general elections. Also before this election, the alliance that had PMK and MDMK, who usually carry ten seats combined, carried the state. But in this election that was not the case, since ADMK and its allies lost to a shrunken DMK alliance. Another reason why many believed DMK might not fare well is due to the public's disapproval of family succession in DMK politics[5], from Karunanidhi's (current Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) family and the waning popularity of DMK and Congress over the previous few years. Against all odds, DMK was able to increase its seats from 16 to 18 seats, while PMK lost all of its seats, and MDMK went from four seats to one seat. AIADMK, having had no seats, was able to gain nine seats; nevertheless, its alliance did worse than expected from the party members. Even though Congress was part of the winning alliance, it contested more seats in this election and went from ten seats to eight seats. In terms of caste, the voting generally stayed the same as previous elections, even though the Vanniyar caste was won by DMK alliance even though PMK switched sides with AIADMK in early 2009. This is seen by many as a rebuke for the PMK from leaving the UPA to the Third Front. ADMK lost the upper caste vote that it won in the last 2004 election, due to vote splitting from BJP, but was able to gain the Thevar and OBC caste that it lost in 2004. While many expected DMK to lose some of its Muslim votes, especially with Maneedaneya Makkal Katchi trying to split the Muslim votes, DMK and its allies managed to retain their Muslim vote base.
More importantly, in this election many felt that the LTTE issue would play a big role in Tamil Nadu, due to its large share of LTTE sympathizers. But that was not the case, since DMK and AIADMK got an equal number of votes from them (with AIADMK doing slightly better with pro-LTTE voters), and the DMK victory cannot be attributed to this issue.
The DMDK, led by Vijaykanth, proved to be an important player in the 2006 Tamil Nadu assembly election, garnering 10% of the voters and securing 10.1% in this Lok Sabha election. According to the study, it secured more votes than the winning margins of candidates in about 25 constituencies. In 2006, polling showed that DMDK was able to get more DMK votes than AIADMK votes, but in this election according to the table on the right, they were able to wrestle more Congress voters from 2004, than any another party. Contrary to the claim of many in the AIADMK camp blaming DMDK for the defeat, there is no evidence for this to be true.
Overall, polling suggested that the overall popularity of the Central Government led by UPA proved to overcome the arithmetic factor, where they found 73% of the people in Tamil Nadu have a high satisfaction level for the UPA government. The polling also suggested that 37% of the voters preferred Karunanidhi over 34% for Jayalalithaa and 9% for Vijaykanth, proving that the corruption charges hoisted at the DMK government at the state level was not a factor. This is further supported by the high satisfaction of the public of 68% towards the state government. Also when asked whether a DMK led government (2006–present) or an AIADMK led government (2001–2006) was better, 42% of the voters said the current DMK+ government was better, while only 25% shared the view of the former AIADMK government. Overall the DMK front did much better amongst the poor, mostly due to welfare schemes such as free TV set distribution and lowered prices of rice, which could have been the biggest factor in why DMK alliance was able to garner 27 seats.
[edit] Uttar Pradesh
| Caste | INC | BJP+ | BSP | SP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brahmins | 31% (+12.5) | 53% (+11.0) | 9% (-8.2) | 6% (-4.5) |
| Rajputs | 16% (+6.7) | 53% (+7.9) | 7% (-4.9) | 12% (-7.9) |
| Other upper caste | 31% (+18.8) | 54% (+9.8) | 10% (-3.4) | 6% (-8.2) |
| Yadavs | 10% (+6.5) | 6% (+1.3) | 5% (-3.4) | 73% (+0.8) |
| Kurmis | 24% (+18.3) | 23% (-11.6) | 10% (-4.7) | 18% (-4.2) |
| Lodhs | 20% (+12.5) | 17% (-23.9) | 32% (+12.7) | 32% (+20.7) |
| Other OBCs | 17% (+8.2) | 29% (+12.8) | 19% (-11.4) | 25% (+4.2) |
| Jatavs | 4% (+1.9) | 5% (+2.2) | 84% (-1.3) | 5% (+0.9) |
| Other Dalits | 16% (+11.0) | 8% (-2.6) | 64% (+9.9) | 10% (-2.9) |
| Muslims | 25% (+11.1) | 6% (+3.3) | 18% (+0.7) | 30% (-16.7) |
| Others | 17% (+5.1) | 24% (+5.3) | 25% (-4.6) | 18% (-7.3) |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[6]
Uttar Pradesh was a crucial state in this election and was of particular interest for the candidates from all parties and also the media. Controversies like supposed hate speech by Varun Gandhi, campaigning of Rahul Gandhi, and rumors of Mayavati as potential Prime Minister, has made this state a key battleground state for the election. Just like most state, this state also to the surprise of many, showed a revival of Congress in this state, and a decline of local parties that have dominated for past few years such as Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party. Like many of states, the results in UP showed yet another discrepancy between seats won and votes polled. Even though SP got the highest number of seats, BSP actually won the popular vote in this state. To many, BSP's performance was a surprise, since she swept by a landslide two years ago. But when look at the numbers, the huge shift of support mainly lies in terms of caste, since there were major changes in voting behavior in terms of caste in this election, as opposed to two years ago in the assembly election.
Even though SP got the most seats, Congress turned out to be the biggest winner, winning 21 seats, and gaining ground on every caste compared to the 2007 assembly election. This is largely attributed to the shrinking of the bases of local political parties such as SP and BSP, and many caste base decisions by parties that angered the base. For example, Congress significantly gained amongst Kurmis and Koeris, at the cost of the BJP, which is attributed to former SP Beni Prasad Verma joining the BJP. Also Kalyan Singh's alliance with SP, significantly angered the Muslims, who have traditionally been SP's most faithful supporters, which significant shift towards Congress from SP. But the SP was able to make up for the setback by gaining amongst the Lodhs, so that it can expand from its usual image as a Muslim-Yadav party. Farmers also proved to have played a role in the gains made by Congress, since 27 percent of those polled said that Congress was the best party for the farmers as opposed to 22% who said the same about SP, 20% for BSP and 15% for BJP.
This is also another state, where significant portion, 65% of the people, were satisfied with the Central government's performance. In the same poll, only 55% of the people were satisfied with the BSP government which is lower than other States. This is mostly because a large percentage, 55% of the public feel that Mayawati is wasting public's money on statues and parks, and not spending them on welfare. From a reversal of the decision two years ago, when asked to choose the best Chief Minister, 31% chose Mulayam Singh Yadav of SP over 29% who chose Mayawati of BSP, while 18% chose Rajnath Singh. This state also unanimously voted against criminals, which didn't help the BSP, since they have fielded many of them in this election. The conclusion of the results by many analysts is that this election, showed the revival of Congress in this state.
[edit] West Bengal
| Caste | Left | TC+ | Swing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upper castes | 41% | 49% | -5% |
| OBC | 43% | 46% | -12% |
| Dalits | 53% | 29% | -4% |
| Adivasis | 49% | 26% | +7% |
| Muslims | 37% | 58% | -9% |
| Category (won by Left) | 2004 | 2006 | 2009 |
| Rural | 52% | 51% | 42% |
| Agricultural workers | 48% | 58% | 46% |
| Other workers | 46% | 51% | 30% |
| Marginal farmers/ Share croppers |
43% | 50% | 44% |
| Farmers | 57% | 48% | 31% |
| Salaried Farmers | 39% | 50% | 62% |
| Urban | 48% | 49% | 48% |
| Professionals | 53% | 50% | 31% |
| Salaried Professionals | 39% | 58% | 52% |
| Business | 54% | 48% | 39% |
| Skilled workers | 57% | 50% | 56% |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[6]
West Bengal along with Tamil Nadu, represent not only a key battleground state, but a big surprise to many, due to the dominance of the left in West Bengal, for over half a century. A swing of 8% away from the Left was enough for the Congress alliance to wrest away over half of the seats. The Left getting 15 seats and 43.4% of the vote is its worst performance since 1977. Since it is common to see the Left win this state in double digits, Trinamool Congress and its allies beating the left by two percentage points is a remarkable victory. Trinamool Congress and allies ended up winning 26 seats, beating the record of 16 seats won in 1984, which was a record number of seats won by a non-Left alliance in West Bengal until now.
Compared to the 2004 election, Congress was able to retain 93% of the vote, Trinamool Congress was able to retain 85% of voters, while BJP lost 27% and the Left lost 12%. Overall the Trinamool-Congress alliance lost only 3% of its 2004 voters. The dissatisfaction of the state government is another reason why Trinamool Congress was able to wrest this state, since it went from 66% down to 58% in this election. More significantly, even though Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee of CPM and Chief Minister of West Bengal is preferred by only 30% of the voters as opposed to 52% in 2006, he is still the preferred candidate. The reason for the decline of the left is mostly due to the Nandigram issue, where 48% of people from West Bengal disapprove CPM's role.
Even though the Left managed to keep its urban vote base, it lost heavily in rural areas, which used to be its stronghold. The left also lost all social communities compared to 2004 election, except for the Adivasis, but compared to the 2006 election, it lost eight percentage points from that community. Overall the unity of the opposition, and the decline in popularity of the state government, contributed in a change in mantle at the national level.
[edit] Rajasthan
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[6]
Rajasthan is another state which tends to swing from one party to another. In the last election BJP was able to get 49% of the vote and 21 seats, while Congress only got 41% of the vote and four seats. The result in this election was the exact reversal, where Congress won 20 seats, and BJP was only able to win four seats. This is attributed not to the state level progress, even though 61% approve of the state government. The reason is Mr. Gehlot the current Chief Minister of Rajasthan, is only 4% ahead of his rival Vasundhara Raje of the BJP. The main reason is the overwhelming positive image the people of Rajasthan have about the UPA government. When asked to compare the UPA government now, with the NDA government from 1999–2004, 42% said UPA government was better, as opposed to 27%. The polling also showed that they highly prefer Manmohan Singh over both Sonia Gandhi and Lal Krishna Advani. This election also shows for the first time Congress making gains in urban areas, not only rural areas and making gains in all social caste groups, which explains the landslide of Congress, this time around.
[edit] Analysis of states that UPA did well
[edit] Maharashtra
| Social Background | Congress-NCP | BJP-SS |
|---|---|---|
| Marathas and Kunbis | 35% | 49% |
| OBCs | 36% | 45% |
| Dalits | 55% | 28% |
| Rich | 37% | 37% |
| Poor | 39% | 39% |
| Very poor | 47% | 26% |
| Muslims | 69% | 9% |
| Aggregate vote share | 38.9% | 35.2% |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[7]
Maharastra was an important UPA state, and was a state that the BJP and its allies hoped to make some inroads, mostly from the failure of the state government in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. But due to the split in Shiv Sena, and the formation of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, and the successful combination of middle and poor classes helped Congress and its allies to win 25 seats, as opposed to 20 seats won by BJP-SS. Out of the six seats in Mumbai, four seats were taken away from Shiv Sena, mostly due vote splitting by MNS. In-fighting not only occurred amongst Shiv Sena, but also NCP, due its strained relation with Congress at the local level. This resulted in a rebellion, and two NCP candidates contesting an NCP bastion in western Maharastra, which eventually resulted in them losing that constituency. It has been long held that the Maratha vote, has been the key in the dominance of Congress-NCP alliance victory recently, but the NES study shown in the table to the right, is that its actually the BJP-SS that have gotten a huge chunk of Maratha vote. Even though on the outside, it seemed that Congress-NCP was able to win its seat with consolidation, there is an internal rivalry brewing Congress and NCP partly between Marathas and Dalits, and it is yet to be seen if that is a factor in future elections.
[edit] Assam
| Category | Swing | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Compared to 2004, Congress gains among... | |||
| Assamese-speaking Muslims | +23% | ||
| Bengali-speaking Hindus | +21% | ||
| Bodos | +18% | ||
| Assamese-speaking Hindus | +8% | ||
| Other Other STs | +3% | ||
| But lost among... | |||
| Bengali-speaking Muslims | -50% | ||
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[7]
Assam was a state that survived an almost total wipe-out, by losing only two seats, in the last election, but this election was a different story. This election featured, BJP allying with Asom Gana Parishad, which they didn't in the last election. Even though, Assamese Hindus helped BJP-AGP get five seats, the alliance with BJP, did cost the AGP its Assamese Muslim constituency, while the alliance with AGP, cost the BJP, its Bengali-speaking Hindu vote. This was seen by polling which showed BJP-AGP alliance only able to get 35% of the Bengali-speaking Hindu vote, as opposed to 62 percent in the last election. The main reason for the tie-up has been the Assamese speaking Hindus, which BJP-AGP were able to get 59% of the vote, which is the same as the last election, but they didn't split the vote like the last election. The BJP-AGP suffered a massive defeat amongst the Bodos, mainly due to the fact, that the BJP supported the Bodo Independent candidate from Kokrajhar seat, who now got the support of Congress, under a new party Bodoland People's Front. The main reason for Congress to safely win seats in this state, is the split amongst the Muslims which made it easier for Congress to win over its BJP-AGP opponents.
[edit] Haryana
| Caste | Vote % | Swing (from 2004) |
|---|---|---|
| Jats | 42% | +17% |
| Yadavs | 56% | +15% |
| Lower OBCs | 54% | +8% |
| Dalits | 33% | -32% |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[7]
Haryana was another state, that surprised many pundits since Congress was able to win nine out of ten seats in the state. BJP allying with Indian National Lok Dal did not pay off, since they were not able to win a single seat. BJP was hoping to win the all important Jats, with the INLD but that didn't materialize, instead the Congress were able to gain 17% amongst that group, and was critical for the victory of Congress in this state. The most important reason for this landslide, has been the support of the state government and the current Chief Minister of Haryana, Bhupinder Singh Hooda. According to a recent poll, 60% of the voters were satisfied with his governance, and 48% of the people believed that his government was better than the previous Chautala government as opposed to 21%. While Congress was able to make significant gains amongst almost all caste groups, they significantly lost votes with the Dalits. This is attributed to the BSP, which got significant percent of Dalits, even though they couldn't win a seat. Another party that made significant inroads, were the Haryana Janhit Congress, which split itself from the Congress government, and is led by Bhajan Lal. It got 10% of the vote in the state, and 75% of its votes were from former Congress voters, while 17% were from former BJP voters. This showing proved to be a mistake made by BJP not allying itself with HJC rather than INLD.
[edit] Delhi
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[7]
Delhi also proved to be important hold for Congress, and they were able to sweep the capital, winning all seven seats. BJP was able to win six of the seats in 1999 election, due to the sympathy wave of the Kargil War, but was only able to hold on to one seat in the last election. This is mostly due to the huge support for the Congress government at the state level led by Shiela Dikhshit, where she has the support of 71 percent of the people. This is shown from recent polling, that showed that many believe that the Congress government at the state level was able to better provide electricity and water (58%), ensuring safety of women (45%) and holding the price line (37%). Initiatives such as Bus Rapid Transit also garnered support of 48% as opposed to 16%. In both this election and the 2008 assembly election, Congress was able to make gains in almost every core constituents, such as Muslims, Dalits. The Congress also gained amongst the upper classes and the highly educated Sikhs and Punjabi Khatris, who have usually supported the BJP in the past.
[edit] Jammu and Kashmir
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[7]
Jammu and Kashmir continued its trend of having low turnout, but did have higher turnout in this election compared to the last general election. The result showed the victory of Omar Abdullah-led National Conference, which allied with the Congress this time around. This was yet another state, where BJP was able to make inroads by allying with National Conference in the past, but due to fears of communalism and losses in state elections, the National Conference switched alliance from the NDA to the UPA. This proved to be very successful since it was able to not only win the assembly elections four months before the general elections, but was also able to win five out of six seats in the general election. This election was notable in a separatist leader running from Baramulla constituency, which was significant even though he came out in third place. In terms of caste, the BJP continued to get majority of Hindu upper caste votes and Dalit votes in the Jammu region. This didn't materialize into seats, because Congress was able to get 55% of the Muslim vote. Overall even though the people still regard the Mufti government as the best government by 48 percent, 43 percent of them voting for Congress-NC alliance, shows that they have trust that the new government will deliver.
[edit] Punjab
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[7]
Punjab is a state that many believed before the election might help Congress stay in power. The BJP-Akali Dal coalition, almost swept the state in the 2004 election, but the high satisfaction of the Central Government, and the disapproval of the Akali Dal Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal promoting his son as deputy chief minister, seemed to give Congress hope that they can take back the state. Although the Congress was able to reverse the number of seats from 2004, the many within the Akali Dal were relieved that they were able to hold ground with the Sikhs, and hold some ground in the election.
[edit] Uttarakhand
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[7]
Uttarakhand, a newly formed state, voted overwhelmingly for the UPA led government, by them sweeping the state, winning all five seats. This occurred despite a high level of satisfaction of about 63% towards the local BJP government that is in power under B.C. Khanduri. This is attributed to an even higher satisfaction of the UPA-led Central government, where 67% of the people in this state approve of them.
[edit] Madhya Pradesh
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[7]
Madhya Pradesh is yet another example, where national level satisfaction trumped the state level satisfaction. Even though Madhya Pradesh is a bastion for the BJP, since 1999, it was able to significantly give the Congress a boost, by having it increase its seats from four to twelve seats. Although BJP was able to get more seats than Congress in this state, Congress gaining any seats in this state came as a surprise to many. This came as a huge surprise not only to many political pundits, but also to the BJP government in Madhya Pradesh. Many felt that Congress has been very weak in the state, and the high popularity of Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, with about 80% of voters in the state approving his governance indicates BJP's strengths. The reason for Congress to make significant inroads, has been a high satisfaction of the Central government, especially amongst rural areas, which resulted in Congress gaining many seats. This is further proven, by the fact that 71% of the voters were satisfied with the UPA Central government for the past five years. This included many who voted for the BJP government in the state assembly elections. The support for UPA was disproportionate since BJP was able to have an eight point advantage over Congress in urban areas, while only a two percent advantage in rural areas. Even though this was seen as hope for Congress at the national level, there is no evidence that this will translate into seats at the state level elections.
[edit] Analysis of states that NDA did well
[edit] Bihar
| Social Background | BJP-JD(U) | RJD-LJP | INC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brahmins | 69% | 3% | 18% |
| Rajputs | 80% | 5% | 3% |
| Bhumihars | 48% | 13% | 6% |
| Kurmi-Koeris | 62% | 10% | 4% |
| Yadavs | 13% | 65% | 4% |
| Lower OBCs | 58% | 12% | 8% |
| Muslims | 9% | 31% | 29% |
| Pasis | 24% | 50% | 6% |
| Other Dalits | 32% | 20% | 4% |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[8]
Bihar was one of few states, where Congress did very poorly, and NDA won this state, winning 32 out of 40 states. Bihar was also one of the few states that was watched widely throughout the election, and was one of the reasons why the UPA government was formed in 2004. The alliance formed by RJD, which was led by Laloo Prasad Yadav and Lok Janshakti Party led by Ram Vilas Paswan, was able to ally itself with UPA and defeat Nitish Kumar and NDA in 2004. But due to the high popularity of Nitish Kumar and JD (U), and the breakup of RJD and Congress due to failed seat sharing talks, led to a split in votes amongst the core constituents of the RJD, resulting in a landslide for the NDA.
A closer look at the numbers indicate that even though JD(U) and NDA banks on a small population of Kurmi-Koeris, who represent 30% of the population, while RJD holds the Muslims, Yadavs and Dalits which accounts for 47% of the population, the split from Congress, cost the RJD, seats, and helped NDA win a lot of the seats that seemed un-winnable a few months ago. While Congress may have played a spoiler, the governance of Nitish Kumar, who 61% of the people of Bihar named him as their choice for Chief Minister, have really helped them increase their vote-base. An even higher percent of people, around 81%, were satisfied with his governance, which included many Yadavs and Muslims, which are part of RJD's core constituents.
While nationally, Central government's performance trumped state governments, in their vote for the Lok Sabha, this state was one of the few exceptions, since 37% said that their vote was based on state government's performance, as opposed to 29% which said it was Central government's performance. 17% of the respondents said both played a major role in its voting. Nitish Kumar with his welfare programs, was also able to get the most backward classes, who represent 25% of the electorate, which helped NDA get more votes than the last election. This election also represented the worst defeat Laloo Prasad Yadav has ever faced, and his reliance of LJSP and its leader Ram Vilas Paswan, didn't deliver, since they could only get him 50% of the Pasi vote, and only 20% of Jatav and Dalit votes. This led Laloo Prasad Yadav, to admit that it was a mistake to go into this election, without Congress, which turned out to be one of the reasons why RJD and allies lost badly in this election.
[edit] Karnataka
| Social Background | BJP | INC | JD(S) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upper castes | 55% | 25% | 16% |
| Lingayats | 74% | 17% | 5% |
| Vokkaligas | 38% | 28% | 30% |
| Nondominant OBCs | 44% | 40% | 9% |
| Scheduled Castes | 38% | 56% | 4% |
| Scheduled Tribes | 42% | 45% | 10% |
| Muslims | 11% | 68% | 14% |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[8]
Karnataka was one of the few states that many felt was important for BJP to come out as the single largest party. Even though BJP couldn't be the single largest party, they were able to increase their number of seats to 19 from the last election. The previous assembly election and this election is representative of the decline of Congress in this state, and the uprising of BJP. After the debacle with H.D. Kumaraswamy, over Chief ministership, BJP managed to get sympathy vote and take power in Karnataka. This coupled with a satisfaction of 60% towards the BJP government has helped BJP do well in this state.
Another reason for BJP's success lies in their early choices of good candidates, which was lacking in Congress, when most of their candidates were announced late and in-fighting which might have cost them in many constituencies in Northern Karnataka and Bangalore. Another significant aspect of this election is that BJP not only was able to hold on to younger and educated voters in Karnataka, but made great in-roads amongst rural community which was lacking nationwide for the BJP. This along with increasing support amongst upper class, Lingayats and Vokkaligas, has helped BJP secure its victory. The only groups that were dissatisfied with the BJP has been minority communities of Dalits, Muslims and Christians who believe they are more unsafe in the last one year, especially due to the pub attacks in Mangalore. Another interesting aspect is that while Congress led by 26% amongst those voting primarily for the performance of the Center, BJP led by 38% amongst those voting for the performance of the state government and 8% amongst performance of both. This indicates, that the state government had a greater influence amongst the voters than the national government's performance.
[edit] Gujarat
| Social Background | INC | BJP |
|---|---|---|
| Upper castes | 26% | 63% |
| Patidars | 9% | 83% |
| OBCs | 44% | 49% |
| Dalits | 62% | 20% |
| Adivasis | 55% | 37% |
| Muslims | 69% | 13% |
| Others | 36% | 56% |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[8] Gujarat is yet another state where BJP hoped they could have done better than the number of seats they have gotten. The BJP was able to only gain one seat and in terms of percentage won 47% as opposed to 44% for Congress, which is the same percentage, BJP won in 2004. Many in the BJP camp were hoping for more seats mostly because they swept Gujarat at the assembly elections. The reason for this is that they were not able to convert the sweep in Saurashtra region at the assembly election and South Gujarat, where many have lost jobs in the diamond industry, which resulted in Congress winning enough seats to prevent a landslide. But due to the high popularity of Modi in central Gujarat, they were able to do extremely well, by defeating two Union Ministers, Vaghela and Rathwa. But overall the BJP was able to hold on to the state mostly due to Narendra Modi's performance at the state level, where 65% expressed satisfaction, and 61% of the state agreed that Modi was an effective leader. The win also casts light that the win was based mostly on communities, since BJP was able to increase the number of votes amongst its core communities, while Congress retained, Dalits, Adivasis and Muslims.
[edit] Chhattisgarh
| Social Background | BJP | INC | BJP vote swing (2004) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upper castes | 52% | 38% | +12% |
| Lower OBCs | 55% | 26% | +18% |
| Dalits | 29% | 44% | -7% |
| Adivasis | 43% | 40% | +3% |
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[8] Chhattisgarh ran on expected lines, when BJP was able to win ten out of eleven seats. This is largely in part because of the high popularity of the BJP led state government and its leader Raman Singh. This is yet another example, where NDA was able to win states only because of the state level performance, and not due to concerns around the Central government. More than 70% were satisfied with the state government and that included 50% of Congress voters. BJP also continued to do very well in Naxalite affected regions, polling more than 50% of that region. Even though in terms of popular vote, BJP went from 48% to 45% compared to the last 2004 election, Congress was not able to take advantage of it in terms of seats. The popularity of the state government also helped it make great inroads amongst all castes except for the Dalits.
[edit] Himachal Pradesh
Source: NES Election 2009 Analysis[8]
Himachal Pradesh voted heavily for the BJP, which garnered almost 75% of the vote. The reason for this is mainly due to the immense support of the people towards the state government led by Prem Kumar Dhumal and BJP. This is yet another state that went to the NDA, mainly because state government's performance trumped the Central government's performance. In fact 32% of the people who voted said that State government's work played a bigger role in their voting, while 20% said Central government's work had an influence in their voting. Also people who gave equal weight to both, voted slightly in favor of the BJP, allowing them to sweep this state.
[edit] References
- ^ "How India Voted: 2009 Overview". Hindu Newspaper. May 19, 2009. http://www.hinduonnet.com/nic/howindiavoted2009/page2.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-09.
- ^ "Is the DMK family war out in open?". Archived from the original on 2009-08-16. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/is-the-battle-for-dmk-succession-out-in-open/40143-4.html. Retrieved 2009-08-14.
[edit] External links
|
|||||
