Modi has established the classic one-dominant-party model of competition
in Gujarat. It comes very close to what the CPM had done in West Bengal till
recently
How does one understand the outcome of the Gujarat assembly election? Is it
a vote for development? Is it a personal victory for a leader slated to make it
big in national politics? Or is it something more?
Narendra Modi’s third victory in a row appears exaggerated in the light of
the hype and drama surrounding it. To find out what distinguishes Modi and
Gujarat, we need to first state what is not so special about this victory. Is
this about the same leader winning elections in a row? Naveen Patnaik, Sheila
Dikshit and Tarun Gogoi have all scored similar electoral wins so far. So, that
is not something very special. Is it about bypassing anti-incumbency? In his
speech after his third victory, Modi claimed to have ducked anti-incumbency.
True enough, but that again is not something special to him or Gujarat. Between
2004 and 2012 (including Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat), a little over 50 per
cent of state governments have survived and post-2008, 70 per cent of state
governments have come back to power. So, Gujarat falls into a pattern rather
than becoming a special “achievement”.
Is it about voter satisfaction with governance? Surveys in Gujarat indicated
that voters were generally satisfied with the state government. However,
Lokniti-CSDS surveys earlier have shown that satisfaction levels for the Bihar,
Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh governments were higher than in Gujarat
recently. Is it about the huge gap between two contenders? A 9 per cent vote
gap between the BJP and the Congress, though impressive, is not something
exceptional: Orissa, Assam, Delhi (in 1998 and 2003), Andhra Pradesh, etc have
had similar impressive gaps between the winning party and the opposition. Even
a lacklustre government in Maharashtra managed to return in 2009 with a vote
gap of 7 per cent!
Continue reading at: http://www.indianexpress.com/
