Should We Be Surprised by the Results of the Indian Elections?
Results are in from the most recent national parliamentary elections in the world’s largest democracy and, according to the NY Times, they represent a stunning political coup. The incumbent Indian National Congress party significantly improved on its previous election showing, to the point where it now holds 205 of 543 seats in parliament on its own, and, with its coalition partners, is only 12 seats from a majority, which it should be able to pick up with relative ease by working with small parties and/or independents.
While this will undoubtedly have an important influence on Indian domestic politics, my question for the readers of the Monkey Cage is whether we ought to be surprised by these results. One would think that in the midst of a global economic downturn, incumbent parties that had been in power for years would be struggling to hold on to their current seats, not picking up large numbers of seats from the opposition. Plus, the Times notes that there has been a strong anti-incumbency tradition in India in recent national elections.
So why the success of the Congress Party? Was it something idiosyncratic to Indian politics, or are we perhaps witnessing the beginning of a trend where incumbent parties fair better than expected during this global economic crisis? Is the Powell and Whitten argument about the necessity for “clarity of responsibility” in economic voting about to bite in a global way, with voters perhaps being more willing to give a pass to leaders for global events beyond their control? (Although, if this was the case, wouldn’t we expect voters to assign less responsibility in a small country like Iceland, where the incumbent government was both forced to resign and voted out of office, than a large country like India? Or, perhaps, will we witness a new harbinger of “responsibility” in coming elections, with something like willingness to regulate banks playing a role now?
As always, comments are invited. I would be especially interested in hearing from specialists in Indian politics (which I most certainly am not!) as well as from those following other elections that have taken place/will take place shortly in the shadow of the global economic crisis.
Comments
The Times article was really frustrating, it described the Congress victory as a landslide. They had a good election, but this is the first “landslide” I’ve heard of where you win less than 40% of the seats in parliament and your coalition doesn’t get a majority. The article also ascribed the victory to the pro-US policies of the government, again I’m pretty sure this wasn’t a factor.
Despite a low literacy rate, Indian voters have proven to be fairly sophisticated. Singh ran a pretty good government, and it helped that voters in West Bengal decided to punish a Communist state government that is running out of steam.
Posted by: Ed | May 18, 2009 09:18 PM
Many Indian pundits have stated that this result is a nod towards political continuity in a difficult economic time. As much as I would like to believe this, I don’t think it is entirely correct. The average Indian voter couldn’t care less about the credit crunch
This result is more than anything else a vote against extremist positions of any sort (be it the Hindu fundamentalism of the BJP, the second largest party, or the Communists). Plus, as the Times correctly points out, the fact that the incumbent government actually gave more to the rural poor than just lip service was a huge vote-earner.
How the incoming government continues its poor-oriented, populist policies (1 kg of rice for less than 5 cents, for one) in a ballooning fiscal deficit environment holds the key to its long term prospects.
Posted by: rahul | May 19, 2009 04:26 AM
Maybe it’s a little confusing to refer to this as a “coup”?
Posted by: Andrew![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.themonkeycage.org/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 19, 2009 03:58 PM
Hey, that was the expression used by the NY Times, not me. But I agree - stunning political triumph would have made their point a little more clearly.
Posted by: Joshua Tucker![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.themonkeycage.org/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 19, 2009 04:00 PM
I agree with the anti-extremism point. It is hard to over-emphasize how regularly the Congress and its allies (UPA) play this card. And after Mumbai, the card was quite valuable. This was evident in the state elections that were ongoing at the time: the Congress did very well in the states, especially those that voted after the attacks. And this in spite of the fact that the anti-incumbent effect in India is pretty well established.
Congress also did a brilliant job of out-maneuvering the Left Bloc, with which it had a governing arrangement following the 2004 election. Ed is probably right, above, that “pro-US” is not very important to most voters. The crazy thing is that the Communists acted as though it would be, and withdrew support from the UPA over the Indian-US nuclear deal. I suppose they expected an electoral reward for doing so, yet their own constituency simply collapsed.
(I am certainly no India expert, but I do follow the country’s electoral and party politics.)
Posted by: MSS | May 19, 2009 04:18 PM
I realize my reference to state elections and anti-incumbency above is a bit misleading.
There actually were two states, including Rajasthan, where Congress defeated the incumbent government.
The BJP also tried to play the “soft on terror” campaign, even before Mumbai. Apparently it does not work so well for them.
Posted by: MSS | May 19, 2009 04:25 PM