Dynamics of Indian Party System in 16^th Lok Sabha Elections 2014: The Mandate for the BJP

 

Dr. Lalit Kumar

 

ABSTRACT:

The 2014 general elections was regarded as the most important in Indian history since 1977. It saw the decimation of ruling Congress Party, spectacular victory for BJP and a new style of campaigning that broke every rule in the political game. The BJP became the first non-Congress Party to win clear majority on its own by getting 282 Lok Sabha seats in the Lower House with thirty one percent votes when the party’s catchment area of winnable seats was less than 350 seats. The paper is trying to find out that whether coalition politics is replaced by the majority party rule? Secondly, what kind of new developments took place in the Indian party system in 16^th Lok Sabha election?

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

The 16^th Lok Sabha elections 2014 embarked on distinctly different phase of Indian democratic journey, with distinct change in party politics in the 21^st century. Since independence, the party system passed through various phases. It stayed through a ‘one party dominant system’ or ‘Congress System’, briefly a bi-party system, subsequently a multi-party system and then transformed to bi-polarity or multi-polarity and then majority party rule. In 15^th Lok Sabha elections 2009, party system moved towards alliance politics and alliance formations, led by national political parties, such as Congress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), the BJP led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), Communist Party of India (Marxist) {CPI (M)} led Third Front and Lalu-Paswan-Mulayam grouping, called the Fourth Front.

 

The parliamentary elections in 2014 was different from earlier elections, produced one major party rule (BJP led NDA) at the Centre, which brought changes in the power structure at the top.

 

Origin and Evolution of Party System in India:

The colonial experience was producing political parties in Asia. Over a period of time, numerous social, economic and political organizations, notably British Indian Associations of Calcutta, Madras, Bombay-1851/52, Singh Sabha and Arya Samaj etc tried to generate a political consciousness among the masses, in general and made a platform for the party system, in particular.¹ The formation of Indian National Congress by A. O. Hume in December 1885 was the beginning of new life for evolution of parties.²

 

Rajni Kothari and Morris Jones conceptualized first phase as ‘Congress System’ and ‘one party dominant system,’ respectively. The regional forces registered their presence by eroding the overwhelming dominance of Congress in eight state assemblies, namely Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, Madras/Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Rajasthan, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh out of sixteen states in 1967.³ The post-emergency general election was held 1977, which ended thirty years of Congress Party rule, eleven years of government of Indira Gandhi and twenty one months of an emergency that had set the nation on an authoritarian course. In this phase, there was bi-party situation and direct fight between the Congress Party and Janata Party in 1977 parliamentary elections.⁴ The outcome of the 7^th Lok Sabha elections in 1980 restored, Congress’ dominance with two-thirds (2/3) majority in the Lower House, securing 351 seats. It constituted sixty seven percentage seats in the House of People by polling less than forty three percentage of total valid votes casted in its favour. The 1984 national elections were overshadowed by the assassination of Indira Gandhi, generated sympathy wave in favour of Congress Party. As a result of this, Congress Party under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi got 404 Lok Sabha seats with 49.10 percent of votes.

 

Emergence of Multi-Party System at National Level and Coalition Politics: 1989-1999:

The decisive stimulus for change came between 1989 and 1991 in what was christened as the three ‘Ms’ of Indian politics, that is, ‘Madal, Mandir and Market’ (Mandal Commission report, Lord Rama Temple and new economic policy). The five general elections held between 1989 to 1999 outcome demonstrated certain facts of life concerned with party politics. Firstly, the Indian National Congress was unable to return to the position it had before 1989. Secondly, there was no viable alternate of party to replace the Congress Party. By 1999, the Janata Dal (JD) turned into a small number of region based parties with various JD offshoots, willing to join BJP coalition government.⁵

 

National Alliance System and Resurgence of Congress Party: 2004-2009:

For the first time, in 14^th Lok Sabha elections in 2004, Indian politics witnessed a contest at national level between two serious alliances, namely the NDA and the UPA.⁶ The alliance formation was turning point in Congress Party’s fortunes, which proved crucial and led to victory in 2004 national elections. While, the BJP succumbed to hubris (very great pride), spurning some key allies such as DMK etc.⁷ The Congress Party was tied-up with TRS, RJD, DMK, NCP, JMM, PDP and others. This alliance formation enabled it to form a ruling coalition under Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister of the country. The BJP electoral performance was much below expectations and its key alliance partners, barring a few expectations, did worse.⁸

 

In 15^th general elections 2009, there remained three major contenders for power. Each combine led by major national party, namely the BJP, the Congress and the CPI (M), which pulled together their respective constituents. These major national parties stressed on different political issues. The BJP’s NDA emphasized on the issue of leadership and personality factor along with criticizing the ruling coalition of the UPA-I. The Congress responded to these, besides trying to seek re-election on the basis of its own programme. The outcome of general elections indicated that the issues raised by the NDA and Third Front during the campaign, did not cut much ice with Indian voters; instead, they gave larger mandate to Congress Party than in 2004.⁹ In a nut shell, the general elections in 2009, was contested on menu of issues, which rose by political parties in general, and three formations, in particular. The National Election Study 2009, by Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, indicated that the issues such as nuclear deal, terrorism, ‘Ram Setu’, and black money etc. raised by political parties had almost no impact on voting decisions of voters and voters did not consider these as relevant. By and large, it seems that 15^th Lok Sabha elections were determined by the outcome of many “small battles, fought on local issues”, not on caste and community lines.¹⁰

 

On the whole, every party stressed on particular issue and raised key slogans during its election campaigns and rallies. These slogans provided broad indications of their policy thrust. The slogans of the Congress Party were ‘stability’ and ‘inclusive growth’, through inclusive governance, ‘Bharat Nirman’ (India growth), ‘aam aadmi ke badhte kadam, har kadam per bharat buland (common man steps towards progress and on the each step of common man India is growing) and above all, during rallies and other occasions, the Congress Party used a song ‘jai ho’ (towards victory) from Oscar winning film Slumdog Millionaries to attract the masses.¹¹ The BJP promoted key slogans ‘good governance’, development, security and attempted to project the personality of its leader, L.K. Advani by airing slogans ‘majboot neta, nirnayak sarkar’ (strong leader, decisive government). The leadership of BJP spoke against indecisiveness of the UPA-I government. The 2009 parliamentary elections became more of collection of numerous state elections, in which local issues were defining the contest. ‘The localization of national election’ was only a reflection of changing India. The results of the 2009 parliamentary elections, conclusively demonstrated that the Congress’ alliance strategy paid it rich dividends. Consequently, the UPA won 262 seats, with Congress alone getting 206 seats and crossing the 200 mark for the first time since 1991, its share of popular votes also rose to 28.6 percent, an increase of two percent of over 2004. On all accounts, the position of the Congress Party in the Parliament was impregnable.¹²

 

Toward Majority Party Rule: 2014 General Elections:

The parliamentary elections in 2014 was different from earlier elections, produced one major party rule at the Centre, which brought changes in the power structure at the top. The BJP got absolute majority in the Lower House with 282 Lok Sabha seats. Now, party is not much depended on the support of alliance partners to remain in power for full term. Consequently, constituents of the NDA have lost much of their importance in national policy affairs and in power sharing arrangements. Therefore Indian polity, in general and party system in particular now entered into a new era of ‘one party majority rule’, in which BJP occupied the position of dominance in ruling alliance of NDA in 2014.

 

Table: Tally of Seats in 16^th LoK Sabha Election 2014 by Political Parties

NDA led by BJP	Seats	UPA led by Congress	Seats	Others*	Seats
BJP	282	Congress	44	AITC	34
SS	19	NCP	05	AIADMK	36
TDP	16	RJD	04	BJD	20
LJP	06	IUML	02	TRS	12
SAD (B)	04	JMM	02	YSRCP	09
RLSP	03	KC(M)	01	SP	05
Apna Dal	02	RSP	01	PDP	03
AINRC	01			AAP	04
NPF	01			JD(S)	02
NPP	01			JD(U)	02
PMK	01			INLD	02
				BSP	00
				CPI (M)	09
				Ind. & 0ther	14
Total	336		59		148

Source: Statistical Report on General Elections, 2014 to 16^th Lok Sabha Elections, https://eci.gov.in/files/category/97-general-election-2014; The Hindu 17 May 2018 and The Tribune, 17 May 2018.

*In general elections 2014, there was straight fight between NDA and UPA. The CPM led Third Front was not in the race for power because CPM was trying to safe its citadel.

 

Unlike 2009 general elections, the main contest was between two alliances, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) head by the Congress Party and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the BJP in 2014. Each alliance was supported by smaller regional parties, although in several states the two main alliances faced considerable opposition from the strong regional parties that fought election independently.¹³ These were regional parties and their leaders namely J. Jayalalitha-AIADMK; Mamata Banerjee-TC; Naveen Patnaik-BJD, Chandrashekhar Rao-TRS, Chandrababu Naidu-TDP and Jagan Mohan Reddy-YRS Congress, which maintained distance from the Congress and the BJP, survived in their respective regions. The facts showed that eighty six registered parties, which contested Lok Sabha elections between 1989 and 2014, sixty four continue to exist in 2014 parliamentary elections. While, some dropped off, others have merged with other parties. With the fragmentation or federalisation of the party system, there has been a substantial increase in number of the parties contesting and winning seats. The category of regional parties has been a substantial increase. From nineteen parties representing eleven states in 1989, now there were thirty one parties representing eighteen states in 16^th Lok Sabha formed after the 2014 elections.¹⁴

 

The emergence of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) gave voters another option in 2014 general elections. Its new approach to politics and aggressive campaign against corruption appealed to many voters.¹⁵ There had been a surge of support for AAP after its success in 2013 Delhi assembly election. Consequently, the AAP was turning out to be an emerging third force. But AAP’s abdication from government responsibility caused widespread disillusionment among voters.¹⁶ It won only four Lok Sabha seats from Punjab and two percent of the national votes. However, the AAP did much to set the agenda of the election, directing attention towards the issue of governance and corruption.¹⁷

 

The issues of corruption, governance and development were prominent in elections. The BJP emphasised development of robust infrastructure, opening up of Indian economy to private capital, and building a brand India making it a globally competitive economy. Narendra Modi harped upon the Gujarat model of development based on rapid industrialisation by providing necessary incentives to the business houses to set up industries and business and focusing on the development of infrastructures such as roads, ports, electricity and water. The BJP manifesto proclaimed that India instead of remaining a market for global industry, should become a global manufacturing hub.¹⁸ The BJP and Modi campaign was focused on economic growth, development, infrastructure and creation of jobs etc rather than previous core issues of the party such as Lord Rama Temple, Article 370 and Common Civil Code. Narendra Modi maintained distance from inflammatory remarks of party leaders such as Amit Shah, Giriraj Singh and Pravin Togadia by stating that “they don’t derail the party”. Narendra Modi like Tony Blair reinvented the BJP, and made the party market friendly, which was not pushing ‘swadeshi economics’, but governance and not religious politics.¹⁹

 

Modi filled a vacuum in public discourse. At a time when the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had slipped into a seemingly irreversible silent mode and Rahul Gandhi was still hesitant public speaker. His skill as a natural orator made him a star attraction for audience hankering for effective commutation. The aim was to establish Modi not just as a pen-India leader but, very importantly as an urban hero.²⁰ The month of Modi’s coronation as PM candidate was also period when rupee plunged to its lowest level to dollar and retail inflation was in double digit. He symbolized and channelized the anger of urban people against the UPA-II government by using various slogans such as Ma Ganga ne bulaya hai; Janata Maaf nahi Karegi, Bahut Hua Bhrastachar, Abki bar Modi Sarkar (the voter will not forgive, enough of corruption, time for Modi government) chappan inch kee chahati etc.

 

The Modi had addressed more than 200 rallies by end of March 2014 since becoming BJP’s prime ministerial candidate in September 2013. And planned to address 185 rallies spread across 295 constituencies, often doing four, at time even six, in a single day. It is estimated that Modi would have travelled 300000 kilometres, or seven time the earth’s equatorial circumference.²¹ These rallies established that he is not just as a politician but as a trailblazer, who had evolved, or rather reinvented himself, from demagogue to statesman, from divisive figure to governance guru, from a Hindu identity politician to a problem solving man-the kind who would appeal to an increasingly urbanizing society.²²

 

The BJP set ‘mission 272-plus’, which strategized election as a business venture. The mission 272-plus was signified a desire to win clear majority in the general election. The plus word is referred to think positive. “The more we aim, the more we will get” stated by Narendra Modi. The mission 272 was calculated move, keeping in mind that the BJP did not have an all-India base like Congress, but largely focused on north, west and central India. The belt from Maharashtra in the west to Bihar in the north had 314 Lok Sabha seats across fourteen small and large states.²³

 

Clear Mandate for Modi led BJP:

The Narendra Modi tornado crushed out the Congress Party, which was reduced to double digit tally of forty four Lok Sabha seats, for the first time since independence, and lost the office of the Leader of Opposition. The outcome of 16^th Lok Sabha represents the new phase of ‘post-Congress polity’. The Congress Party will not be the main contender against the BJP in this phase; it will not have the intellectual capacity or political energy to truly put forward an alternative to the BJP either in term of governance or ideological mooring of politics.²⁴ The major change in the system is that coalition politics has been replaced by the majority party rule. The country is transiting from problem of coalition government to those stemming from ‘majority party rule’ under a strong leader.²⁵ A peaceful transference of power in term of parties and structure in 2014 highlighted a notable degree of political maturity. In other words, the replacement of the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), after ten years with a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) clear majority is one obvious result of what can be considered a historic election.

 

The decisive mandate in favour of Narendra Modi and the BJP challenged traditional political assumption of caste and religion. The Modi’s success at articulating an economic agenda and turning it into an electoral rallying point that transcends barriers of caste and religion is a precedent in Indian politics.²⁶ The four factors seem to have worked in favour of BJP. (I) Narendra Modi took firm control over the party and generate among its core support base. (II) Well organised electoral campaign (III) the anti-incumbency factor fuelled by widespread perception of corruption, lack of development and poor governance of the ruling Congress. (IV) The BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi and his party campaign focused on economic growth and jobs rather than decisive Hindu nationalist issues as building Ram Temple at Ayodhya Article 370 and Common Civil Code etc.²⁷ For that, Modi and his team had started early and single-mindedly spearheaded a well-conceived election campaign, using social media and gadgets to reach out to the maximum number. The BJP and RSS cadre worked like a team to orchestrate a presidential form of campaign, pitching a performer Modi against an inexperienced Rahul Gandhi, while the Congress muddled along, trying to make it a communalism versus secularism fight. The Congress had no effective communicator to match Modi. To choose between Modi and Rahul, the voters did not have to think twice.

 

The 2014 verdict reflected how deep public disenchantment has been with the UPA, whose leadership had inspired little hope. The yearning for change, people had solidly stood behind a national party led by a strong leader. They reacted angrily to relentless price rise, persistent economic slowdown, non-governance, politics of freebies, appeasement of minorities and rampant corruption. The last two years saw the country's growth dip below five per cent. The job opportunities shrank. The Congress forgot reforms so essential to push growth and create jobs. Focusing on rights-based entitlements, it wooed the poor, who were hit hard by price rise, which remained unmanageable and extracted a heavy political price.²⁸ In a nut-shall, the aspirational middle class, which in 2009 had pinned its hopes on Manmohan Singh, turned to Narendra Modi, who held out the promise of growth, jobs and efficient governance. To domestic and global business houses Modi offered a re-play at the national level of the popular vibrant Gujarat model.

 

The credit of BJP success must go to the key states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which contributed 104 Lok Sabha seats out of 120 in National Democratic Alliance (NDA) kitty. The BJP won ninet three and its allies in U.P. Apna Dal got two, and Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) and Rashtriya Lok Samata Party (RLSP) won six and three seats in Bihar, (see table 1.1) respectively.²⁹ The NDA emerged as a “well-integrated and determined fighting political machine”, like “a broad catch all spectrum of parties” as earlier characterised by Paul Wallace.

 

Mamata, Jayalalitha and Mayawati were dreaming of playing a greater role in Delhi if hung Parliament come. Mamata Banerjee tried to forge a post-election federal front-a coalition of non-Congress and non-BJP chief Ministers.³⁰ But their dreams shattered because BJP got absolute majority in the Lower House. The AIADMK, Trinamool Congress and BJD did well in 2014 parliamentary elections (see table1.1), but not in position to be kingmakers. The other potential prime ministerial pretenders drew blank. Mulayam Singh Yadav won just five seats, all won by family members. Sharad Pawar’s NCP was down to just five seats, Nitish Kumar got two, Kejriwal’s AAP bagged only four seats, all of which came from Punjab. The biggest defeat was of the Congress, finished at just forty four seats-its worst ever performance. The BJP remarkably won 282 seats on its own and won all the seats in Rajasthan and Gujarat, its alliance won seventy three of the eighty, forty-two of forty eight and thirty one of forty in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bihar respectively (see table 1.1).³¹

 

The Modi government adopted a markedly different style from the previous UPA-II government. The BJP led NDA government was less encumbered by coalition allies, the power has been centralized. Narendra Modi took briefing from civil servants across the government. The Prime Minister’s Office was highly active, making it difficult for some cabinet ministers to take lead on policy formulation. In August 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the Planning would be replaced by another body with a narrower remit. The allocation of funds to the states was likely to be taken over by Finance Ministry.³²

 

The study draws following observations:

·      The 16^th Lok Sabha election was between the personalities as Narendra Modi versus Rahul Gandhi- ‘parcharak’ versus prince, and the small-town tea boy versus the child of elite privilege.

·      The leadership become the almost decisive factor in 2014 general elections. Modi and his supporters surely worked extra hard towards achieving this objective. The BJP campaign and the rhetoric centred around the issue of a “leader who can deliver”, and leader who symbolized people aspirations. Narendra Modi audaciously copied Indira Gandhi strategy, tactic and techniques from 1971, with one difference. Indira Gandhi’s from beginning to end, campaign was just a six month long essay. Whereas, Narendra Modi Prime Minister project has been in making for over dozen years.

·      The center of gravity of an Indian election was moving from identity politics to ‘aspirational politics’ in which election was fought in the context of India itching for change and Modi being its principal agent of transformation.                                         

·      The ‘bahubalis’ (musclemen) have less of a role to play in the election. Now, the musclemen replaced by machine men in 2014 polls.

·      The major change in the system is that coalition politics has been replaced by the majority party rule.

·      There is a sure sign of nationalization of the party system, in which regional parties remain resilient in non-Hindi regions. However, the votes were fragmented, precisely because the BJP was able to win 282 Lok Sabha seats with thin thirty one percent votes.

·      The dynastic domination/rule is not now Congress Party phenomenon. It rapidly spreads in almost all the political parties.

·      The ideological differences between political parties got blurred. While, the neo-liberalism remained the dominant ideology whether it was the UPA or the NDA in power.

 

REFERENCE:

1.     S.R. Mehrotra, The Emergence of the Indian National Congress, Delhi: Vikas Publications, 1971, p.296. 

2.     Ibid., pp.418-419.

3.     K.L. Kamal and Ralph C. Meyer, Democratic Politics in India, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1977, p.110.

4.     Myron Weiner, India at the Polls, the Parliamentary Elections of 1977, Washington D.C: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978, p.1.

5.     Yogendra Yadav, “Electoral Politics in Time of Change: India’s Third Electoral System 1989-99”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.34, No.34-35, August 1999, pp.2394-2395.

6.     E. Sridharan, “Electoral Coalitions in 2004 General Elections, Theory and Evidence”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. xxix, No.51, December 2004, p.5418.

7.     Baldev Raj Nayar, “India in 2004: Regime Change in a Divided Democracy”, Asian Survey, Vol. 45, No.1, January-February 2005, p.75.

8.     Ramashray Roy, “The Text and Context of the 2004 Lok Sabha Elections in India”, in Ramashray Roy and Paul Wallace, India’s 2004 Elections; Grass Roots and National Perspectives, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2007.p.11.

9.     Praveen Rai, “Issues in General Election 2009”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLIV, No.39, 26 September 2009, p.80.

10.   The Times of India, 15 April 2009.

11.   Venkitesh Ramakrishnan, “Political Perceptions”, Frontline, Vol. 26, No.7, 10 April 2009, pp.130-131.

12.   Ramashray Roy, “Regional Base and National Dreams: Alliance Formation, 2009 National Elections”, in Paul Wallace and Ramashray Roy (eds.), India’s 2009 Elections; Coalition Politics, Party Competition and Congress Continuity, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2011, p.38.

13.   Andrew Wyatt, “India in 2014: Decisive National Election”, Asian Survey, Vol. 55, No.1, 2015, p.34.

14.   K. K. Kailash, “Regional Parties in the 16^th Lok Sabha Elections, Who Survived and Why?”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLIX, No.39, 27 September 2014, p.65.

15.   Wyatt, n.13, p.34.

16.   Rajdeep Sardesai, 2014 The Election That Changed India, New Delhi: Viking Penguin, 2014, pp.186-198.

17.   Wyatt., n.13, p.34.

18.   Suhas Palshikar and K. C. Suri, “India’s 2014 Lok Sabha Elections; Critical Shifts in Long Term, Caution in Short Term”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLIX, No. 39, 27 September 2014, p.45.

19.   Sardesai, n.16, p. xvii.

20.   Ibid., p.113.

21.   Ibid., pp.278-279.

22.   Ibid., p.114.

23.   Ibid., 16, pp.137-145.

24.   The Hindu, 17 May 2014.

25.   Paul Wallace, “Introduction: Single Party and Strong Leadership”, Paul Wallace, (ed.), India’s 2014 Elections, A Modi-led BJP Sweep, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2015, p.9.   

26.   Walter K. Andersen, “The Bharatiya Janata Party: A Victory for Narendra Modi”, in Paul Wallace, (ed.), India’s 2014 Elections, A Modi-led BJP Sweep, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2015, p.56.

27.   Ibid., p.48.

28.   Editorial, “ A Mandate for Change India Votes for A Decisive Government”, The Tribune, 17 May 2014.

29.   Maneesha Roy and Ravi Ranjan, “Saffron Deluge Inundates Masters of Mandal Politics in Bihar”, in Paul Wallace, (ed.), India’s 2014 Elections, A Modi-led BJP Sweep, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2015, pp.139-140.

30.   Sardesai, n.16, pp.207-215.

31.   Ibid., p.329.

32.   Wyatt., n.13, p.36.

 

Received on 02.12.2018       Modified on 20.12.2018

Accepted on 30.12.2018      © A&V Publication all right reserved