Lok Shabha 2019 elections: What led to BJP’s success in West Bengal
The recently concluded lok-shabha elections saw BJP emerge as absolute winners across the country (barring Tamil Nadu & Kerala). The opposition has been reduced to shambles and would need to undergo immense levels of introspection & course-correction if they have any intent to even become a “challenger” in future years. However, the motive of this article is not to relay what political-pundits have been chiming on quite some time now. Rather , my goal is to dissect the election results & figure out whether the “numbers” point towards some overarching trends or directions (especially in the state of West Bengal).
In West Bengal , BJP won 18 out of 42 seats & bagged a Vote Share of 40.25%. If you compare this with their performance in 2014 (1 seat & 17.02% vote share) , you would note that some needles have seriously moved in West Bengal over the course of the last 5 years. Has Bengal finally joined the saffron bandwagon ? Is it a fierce anti-incumbency at play? Is it the NaMo wave ? Let’s see what the data has to say …
Methodology
- For input I have used the following details for each constituency: State, Constituency name , Winner , Winner Vote-Share, Runner Up , Runner Up Vote-Share, Other’s Vote-Share.
- To understand the type of battle in each constituency there were some fields that I derived:
- Majority Type : Absolute (where winner’s vote share is ≥50%), Convincing (where winner’s vote share is ≥ 40%), Borderline (Where winner’s vote share is <40%)
- Gap Type : High (Where the gap between vote-shares of winner’s & runner-up is ≥10%), Moderate (Where the gap between vote-shares of winner’s & runner-up is ≥5%), Close (Where the gap between vote-shares of winner’s & runner-up is <5%)
- “Other’s Type”: Insignificant (Where the Vote Share of ‘others’ is ≤5%), Significant (Where the Vote Share of ‘others’ is >5%)
3. Based on the derived fields it was possible to put together a full list of battle types:
The NaMo wave:
This time the mandate seems preconceived. In 57% of constituencies , the winning party enjoyed absolute domination. Or in other words, there was a single party that won over 50% of the votes & enjoyed a gap of over 10% with the nearest second.
In case of the constituencies where BJP was victorious, the proportion is even higher:
If this is not the NaMo wave : well what is ? BJP is not really the best when it comes to putting together the best list of MPs. Yet, these folks won. In many cases the voters were proud to admit that they cared little for the MP they were voting for, as long as their vote meant a victory for Narendra Modi.
There is another factoid worth looking at : This time round , the Exit Polls (well most of them) got the projections right! The disproportionate cases of “Absolute Domination” , definitely did make the job of the forecasters easy.
Did the Namo wave strike Bengal too ? Probably not.
In case of Bengal, the numbers reveal a different story & a more complex mesh of underlying factors than the straightforward strike of the NaMo wave.
Let’s take a look at how the battle’s panned out in Bengal:
In other words, Bengal went to vote without a clear-cut winner in mind. Even the much celebrated Exit polls failed to project Bengal results with accuracy. Take the case of Today’s Chanakya. They projected that BJP could win anywhere between 10–26 seats. That’s noway accurate when we are looking at a total of 42 seats. In % terms it translates to a range between 23% to 62%. In Bengal, the winner was determined by “Effective vote-split” in the case of 24% of the seats (10 out of 42).
If the case of BJP, it enjoyed Absolute domination in 28% of the seats that in won (which translates to 5 out of 18) , while in the case of 39% of the seats (7 out of 18) it benefited from an effective Vote split.
In the first look it seems like, BJP benefited from TMC & INC’s failure to stitch together an alliance. It seems like a classic case of Pro-hindutva vote consolidation vs. Secular vote split. However, a deeper look at the data reveals a different story.
Before we get into the story let’s take a look at INC’s performance in Bengal in the Lok-Shabha elections over the years:
The number says it all ! Whatever happens in Bengal, INC’s role will be limited to watching the show from the sidelines. Even during their hey-days (2004 & 2009) their vote share in Bengal was barely double digit. In 2009, when the tide shifted from Left to TMC, INC had nothing much to do. It’s really unlikely that a party of such significance would have much to do in determining the results in Bengal. Moreover, their influence is restricted within a pocket in Bengal that affect a minor 4 out of 42 seats ( Maldah -Uttar, Maldah -Dakshin, Murshidabad, Baharampore). They ended up winning one of them this time after a tough 3-way fight.
So the question remains : who is the “mystery vote-splitter” in Bengal ? The folks who managed to win Zero seats this time round — Left Front !
Let’s take a look at the 10 Seats which experienced a “Effective Vote Split” :
BJP eventually benefited in 7 of these 10 battles, while the TMC won the remaining 3.
How Bengal Votes
There are 2 factors intrinsic to elections in Bengal:
a. Bengalis don’t vote differently for state & center. The ruling party in Bengal ends up sending MPs to the parliament.
b. Political tides turn here for good. Bengal is usually patient with the incumbent ruling party. First the Congress survived from 30 years, then the Left for 34 years & now the TMC has been around for almost a decade. However, once the tides turn it doesn’t reverse. The current state of INC & Left in the state is the case in point. However, left still has a better standing in Bengal in comparison to the Congress.
Considering the above factors, it seems evident that there is a rising tide of anti-incumbency in the state. That tide has helped BJP’s ship to sail in Bengal.
Understanding the anti-incumbency:
The anti-incumbency against the ruling TMC is around 3 major themes :
BJP targeted all the 3 themes in their election campaign, while the Left limited itself to the themes of “Mis-governance” & “Lack of Development”. Left & TMC both attacked BJP on grounds of being anti-secular and anti-Bengali. TMC’s attack on left was limited to talking about how left rule for over three decades was actually responsible for the “Lack of Development”.
Such attack strategies led to the following:
- Split of secular votes
- Consolidation of anti-incumbency votes : Most of the historic “Left voters” ended up turning right.
Bengal clearly has lost faith in Left’s ability to be an able voice against TMC. Moreover, Left & TMC are kind of on the same page when it comes to minority policies.
The perceptions that go against BJP ( anti-Bengali & anti-Secular) , cumulatively led to 50%+ of the vote share. A unity of these votes would have led to 5 seats for BJP versus the 18 that they actually won. We could contribute these 5 seats to the NaMo wave (since the local BJP leadership is too weak to win seats on their own merit).
The unity wasn’t possible because about 20% of these voters still believe that a solution exists for Bengal that’s neither BJP nor TMC. These voters, while staying secular are fed-up of the level of mis-governance that the state has witnessed over the last 10 years & were ok to not let their votes count (same as voting for anyone apart from TMC or BJP in West Bengal).
The road ahead:
Will a left-TMC alliance stop BJP ? Probably not. In fact it could possibly lead to Left’s end in the state assembly as they would lose their status as one of the alternates to TMC.
The journey ahead for TMC is steep. They need to address the grievances immediately else their days of existence is numbered. Bengal doesn’t vote differently for state & center — thus the state may not be kind to them during the next state elections.
The question is what should they address on priority? Possibly it’s mis-governance. If TMC manages to solve the issues of misgovernance & ends up taking some positive strides towards development, the state will not mind much their Secular stance. In-fact when the battle will be just about “Secular” vs. “Hindutva” — a secular alliance may start making sense.
