Perils of election analysis

Strange are the ways of the people. There are always explanations for failures and successes in elections, but a lot more remains inexplicable. The results of the three state assembly elections are no different.

Congress victories in Maharashtra, Haryana and Arunachal Pradesh have been interpreted as a failure of the opposition parties, which were divided and failed to put up a good fight. In Maharashtra, the BJP and Shiv Sena were not in shape, while Raj Thackeray’s MNS cut into their votes. In Haryana, the BJP and Chautala’s INLD fought separately, dividing the anti-incumbency votes.

The National Election Study (NES) of the Delhi-based Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) on the May general elections found that only 16 per cent of Maharashtra voters were satisfied with the performance of the state government. But the ruling Congress-NCP combine got 39 per cent votes. The study termed the Cong-NCP performance in Maharashtra as a “victory by default.” Five months later, the combine won roughly the same percentage of votes and retained power in the state - another victory by default.

In Haryana, the NES study found that 64 per cent voters were satisfied with the state government in May when the Congress scored 49 per cent votes. But in the assembly elections, the party could not win a simple majority! In May, the BJP and INLD were in alliance, but the Congress swept them away. In October, they were separate, but the Congress couldn’t do as well as expected.

A state government, which had 16 per cent approval, won against a divided opposition in Maharashtra and another state government that had 64 per cent approval could not win against a divided opposition in Haryana. In fact, after its alliance with the BJP broke, the INLD did extraordinarily well.

Any explanations?

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Tell us what you're thinking...