A voter in Arunachal Pradesh.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
As the results of the 18th Lok Sabha election were announced on June 4, 2024, they sent ripples across the political landscape. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won 240 seats, but fell well below the majority mark in the Lok Sabha. Though the general election lacked the “criticality” of a power shift, it would be a mistake to overlook the Indian voter’s nuanced behaviour and the diversity of factors they consider when making electoral choices.
This article examines such “diversity” through the lens of prudence and paradox inherent in electoral behaviour, drawing on data from the poll surveys conducted by the Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). The article uses pre- and post-election surveys conducted by Lokniti, predominantly from 2024 but also includes data from 2014. By examining voters’ responses to diverse themes captured in the survey, it aims to reflect both the discerning and contradictory nature of voter decision-making, representing two different sides of a vibrant democracy.
CSDS-Lokniti 2024 pre-poll survey | post-poll survey
Duality in decisions?
Any discussion on voters’ choices must start by examining the independence and substance of those choices. As 56% of respondents make their independent voting choices, it is crucial to examine whether those choices are informed and substantial. According to Lokniti’s pre-poll survey of 2024, unemployment and price rise were the most important issues for 50.7% of voters to decide on whom to vote for, outnumbering the construction of the Ram Temple, which influenced only 7.5% of voters, and the ideological rhetoric of Hindutva, which was a voting issue for a mere 2.3%. This shift points to a preference for substantive socio-economic issues over ideological constructs.
The BJP’s hegemony is often said to rest on ideology. Over the past decade, the BJP has worked to solidify its narrative, creating an ideological arc that includes milestones from the dilution of Article 370 to the inauguration of the Ram Temple. Despite the significant emphasis on unemployment by voters, this ideological arc has exerted considerable influence on voters, with 22.4% of respondents highlighting the construction of the Ram Temple as the most appreciated work done by the central government in the last five years. However, when examining how this appreciation translates into electoral support, the shrewdness of the Indian voters becomes apparent. While many acknowledge the significance of the Ram Temple, this did not necessarily translate into votes for the BJP. Over 21% of respondents credited the country’s overall development for granting the ruling party another term. In stark contrast, the dilution of Article 370 and the construction of the Ram Temple were cited by only 1.3% and 5.2% of voters, respectively, as reasons to support the BJP.
This dichotomy, where voters appreciate the construction of the temple but do not vote for the same, challenges the notion that Indian politics is predominantly organised around ideological cleavages. The prudence of voters has accentuated the diminishing appeal of purely ideological narratives, which have proved insufficient to override socio-economic priorities. This reflects a complex and discerning electorate that prefers tangible socio-economic progress over ideological symbolism.
The subject of leadership
While the ideological arc helped the BJP, it was not solely responsible for its success in forging a pan-Hindu vote from a fragmented electorate, culminating in the once-in-a-generation electoral victory of 2014. It was Narendra Modi’s charisma and unique popularity that played a pivotal role, with Mr. Modi’s personal popularity surpassing that of the BJP by about eight percentage points, according to the Lokniti post-poll survey of 2014. These developments indicate a desire among the electorate for a strong and charismatic leadership.
In the post-poll survey of 2024, when asked whether the country should have a strong leader who does not have to bother about elections, over 67% of voters advocated having such leaders. However, 57.5% of voters emphasised the need for checks and balances, with around 70% affirming the right of citizens to interfere and hold leaders accountable. This juxtaposition highlights the prudence in valuing robust leadership but not a leader who cannot be questioned and held accountable.
The need for a strong leader and the impact of the Hindu voter’s ascendancy compel us to examine how minority communities are perceived by the electorate. Revealing a nuanced stance, around 49% of respondents agreed that in a democracy, the will of the majority should prevail. However, over 48% of the electorate supported the protection of minority interests, even if not liked by the majority. Also, over 57% of Hindus supported the idea that Muslim Dalits should be included in the Scheduled Castes list. The paradox here is that majoritarian inclinations coexist with a prudent recognition of minority protections in a democracy, which highlights that Hindu-majority cultural-religious expressions cannot always be reduced to anti-minority/Muslim sentiments.
Institutions of change
The post-poll study showcases a blend of prudence and paradox in voter behaviour, highlighting democracy’s dynamic nature. This nuanced behaviour reflects the essence of democracy, which is “change”. According to the survey, 42% of voters consider the opportunity to change the government through free and fair elections as democracy’s most essential characteristic, while over 34% prioritise equal rights for everyone. This underscores voters’ commitment to democratic principles, balancing majoritarian inclinations with minority rights protection. Although these elections did not result in a ‘critical’ power shift, they reveal the electorate’s complex decision-making, navigating between stability and change, ideological preferences, and pragmatic concerns, reflecting a discerning and progressive democracy.
Abhishek Sharma is a researcher with Lokniti-CSDS and a candidate at the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi. He focuses on the digital aspects of elections. X: @Abhish1001. The views expressed are personal
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.