Pl always give your source or URL for any such piece.
On 18/05/2014 12:57 PM, 'Ajay' via humanrights movement wrote:
India’s election isn’t as historic as people think
*
BY ADAM ZIEGFELD
After an election that took a month and a half to complete, the BJP —
a party usually described as right-of-center and Hindu nationalist—
looks to have won a majority of seats in India’s lower house of
parliament. (Votes are still being counted, so all seat and vote
totals are tentative). Opinion polls had predicted a BJP win, but not
one of this magnitude. Even before the results were in, many were
calling this a historic election. The ruling party, Congress, was
beset with corruption scandals, while the BJP appeared to be riding
high on the popularity of its prime ministerial candidate, Narendra
Modi. Since the news analysis in the days and weeks to come is almost
certain to emphasize the historic proportions of this election, here
are a few reasons why this election might not be as historic as it is
likely going to be made out to be.
First, as of the most recent counting, almost 70 percent of Indians
did not vote for the BJP. Commentators such as Max Fisher at Vox
<http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5723664/indias-election-in-one-stunning-map> claim
that the BJP “dramatically … swept the vote.” In fact, the BJP won
about 31 percent of the vote, a new high for the party. Although this
is the first national election in which the BJP has ever won more
votes than any other party, less than a third of Indians voted for it.
The BJP’s legislative majority is largely a function of India’s
single-member district (SMD) electoral system, the same system used in
American, British, and Canadian legislative elections. In an SMD
system, votes rarely translate proportionally into seats. This system
rewards parties that are the largest in each electoral district. The
BJP’s vote is patchily distributed across India, which works to its
advantage. In a number of states where it is disproportionately
strong, the BJP was, in district after district, the largest party,
even if not always by a very large margin. For example, in India’s
largest state, Uttar Pradesh, the BJP won about 42 percent of the
vote. However, it is likely to win 71 of Uttar Pradesh’s 80 seats
(almost 90 percent) because the remaining 58 percent of the vote was
split across a number of different parties.
Meanwhile, in states where the BJP won few seats, it did quite poorly.
Thus, relatively few of the BJP’s votes were wasted—that is, cast in
electoral districts where the party ultimately failed to win a
legislative seat. As a result, the party won a legislative majority on
a fairly small vote share. Previously, no party had won a legislative
majority with less than 40 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, Congress
suffered an ignominious defeat in part because its vote was fairly
evenly distributed across the country. Coming in second or third place
across many electoral districts brings no electoral reward. In this
election, Congress looks a lot like the Liberal Democrats in Britain—a
party that typically wins respectable vote shares in lots of districts
but fails to win many seats.
Second, with a few exceptions, this election did not change the basic
geography of elections in India. Thanks in large part to dozens of
small regional parties that each wins support in only one or two
states, political competition in India varies tremendously from state
to state. Across the board, the BJP improved its performance (see
Figure 1). However, its performance improved most in states where it
was already fairly competitive. In states where the party has never
been strong, it remains the third, fourth, or even fifth most popular
party. The BJP remains relatively uncompetitive across a large swathe
of southern and eastern India. Until the BJP can significantly improve
its performance in these areas, the party is unlikely to be able to
win much more than a third of the national vote, which will make it
difficult for the party to reliably replicate a similar election
result in the future. That being said, if the BJP can retain its
following in the populous northern states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh
and the northeastern state of Assam, then this election could mark an
important turning point for the party. However, that is a big “if.”
The BJP has previously experienced noticeable electoral declines in
Uttar Pradesh following big election wins.
Indian election results by state
Third, this election probably does not herald a major realignment in
Indian politics. This was a great election for the BJP. By the same
token, this was — far and away — Congress’ worst ever showing. But,
2014 represents little more than a role reversal for the country’s two
main parties from 2009. In the last election, Congress won about 29
percent of the vote to the BJP’s 18 percent. This year, those numbers
are 31 percent for the BJP and 19 percent for Congress. The gap in
seat shares between the largest and second largest parties widened
significantly in this election, but that is a function of where votes
were won. In terms of popular support, the BJP largely accomplished in
2014 what Congress achieved five years earlier. The fact that the
tables have turned is noteworthy, but probably not a sign of a
fundamental shift in the nature of political competition.
Fourth, regional parties remain an important part of Indian politics.
For the past 20 years, regional parties—parties active mainly in only
one or two of India’s states—have been critical ingredients in
governing coalitions at the national-level. Having won a majority of
seats, the BJP can likely govern without any regional allies. In that
sense, regional parties’ influence in national politics is almost
certain to decline in the near-term. But, the 2014 verdict does not
herald a nationalization of politics. India’s two main national
parties won only about 50 percent of the vote. The other half went to
these tiny, most regional, parties, just as in the past four national
elections. Several states held state-level elections simultaneously
with the national elections, and in each one, the victors were
regional parties. Although their voices may be quieter in
national-level politics for the next five years, 2014 was not actually
a bad year for regional parties.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "humanrights movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to humanrights-movement+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:humanrights-movement+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
humanrights-movement@googlegroups.com
<mailto:humanrights-movement@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"humanrights movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to humanrights-movement+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanrights-movement@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
