The State Election Results

There are certain comments about these election results that I'd like to share with the reader. Of course, I have absolutely no experience of being on the ground, and have no sources except for a media that often goes wrong. This is why I post my comments as questions rather than comments. Here they are:

(1) Are we moving towards bipolarity in every state?: I share the shock of every observer who thought that Mayawati's tally of 207 in the last polls was the peak. Evidently, the SP has come back with an ever larger tally of 220+. There are several other states that have gradually moved towards clear mandates rather than fractured houses - Goa, Karnataka and Orissa being cases. Has the Indian voter become disenchanted with fractured mandates? Does he/she seek political stability, so much that the past 'sins' of parties such as SP would be forgiven? Most importantly, what does this bipolarity suggest for Indian administration? Tamil Nadu being a case in point, sees massive fiscal drain due to poll promises. Do free bicycles, TVs and electricity justify their costs? Time will tell.

(2) Is the BJP past its peak?: My article three years back talked about a Congress resurgence denting the BJP. Of course, the Congress seems to be the party on the defense now. However, in states where the anti-Congress space is already occupied (Manipur, Kerala, AP, J&K), the BJP has consistently failed to make a mark. Then there are states where the Congress is a footnote (UP, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Sikkim) and in these states, the BJP too is irrelevant. Which now brings us to the question of whether the BJP will see any growth in future. Yes, it conquered Karnataka recently, but then it can be argued that the anti-Congress apparatus in Karnataka collapsed, and that is where the BJP grew. Two other growth stories for the BJP are Bihar and Punjab, but we are yet to see if these are Orissa-like bubbles fueled by a strong alliance partner. It is true that in states such as Rajasthan, Goa, Uttarakhand and Himachal - where there has been strong bipolarity - the BJP can strengthen its stranglehold and create a Chattisgarh-like situation of retaining power repeatedly. But realistically competing on such few seats, can the BJP ever hope to cross the magical 200-mark in the Lok Sabha?

(3) Is Development now REALLY the issue?: After the turbulence of the 1990s, we are increasingly seeing parties retain states repeatedly. Just in 2004, you would probably not even exhaust one hand counting the number of Chief Ministers serving their second consecutive term. But look at that number now. Firstly, there is an elite club of the two-plus timers: Pawan Chamling (Sikkim), Sheila Dixit (Delhi), Okram Ibobi Singh (Manipur), Naveen Patnaik (Orissa), Manik Sarkar (Tripura), Tarun Gogoi (Assam) and Narendra Modi (Gujarat). The list of two-timers is also equally large: Nitish Kumar (Bihar), Raman Singh (Chattisgarh), Bhupinder Hooda (Haryana), Shivraj Singh Chauhan (Madhya Pradesh) and most probably, Prakash Singh Badal (Punjab). Are our delivery mechanisms at the state level improving? Does the voter now attach value to continuity? Is this continuity not good for investment decisions? Given that these states are among the best-performing states in the country, isn't there a correlation between continuity and growth?

(4) Have state and national elections been dehyphenated?: This question first arose in 2009, when Andhra Pradesh, voting at the same time, gave the Congress a massive majority of seats in the Lok Sabha elections, while at the same time giving the party a slender majority in the assembly elections. Similarly, the Congress' impressive performance in UP in 2009, has not been reflected in these elections - the Congress could only win one-third the number of assembly segments in which it lead in 2009. While conceptually there is no reason for the two polls to correlate well, it has historically been seen that they do. It is only now that we see evidence of such strong divergence. There could be several possible reasons for this - (1) issues are different (2) constituencies are larger, and hence more uniform (3) campaigning differs. Is this healthy for democracy? I believe so. Given the bipolarity in states like UP, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal (where the two major national parties are fringe players), it is better for stability at the center if these states vote differently during national elections.