COMMENTARY To understand the logic behind these The Left and the assertions we must begin by distinguish- ing between the mandate and the electoral 15th Lok Sabha Elections outcomes: the change in the number of seats won and lost (the electoral outcome) is only a partial, and often imperfect, Deepankar Basu reflection of the change in the actual level of support political parties enjoy among The electoral debacle faced by n the recently concluded 2009 general the people (the mandate); often the parti- the left parties in the 15th Lok elections to the lower house of the cular logic of electoral arithmetic draws a Sabha elections is due to the fact IParliament (Lok Sabha), what this wedge between the mandate of the people author terms the “Social Democratic Left” and the electoral outcome in terms of that the state governments led by (SDL henceforth) in India, composed of seats won or lost. For instance, it is possi- the left followed the very same the Communist Party of India-Marxist – ble for a party to increase its share of neoliberal policies that the parties CPI(M), the Communist Party of India votes polled without this leading to any opposed and were able to halt at (CPI) and a bunch of smaller left wing par- addition to the number of seats won; ties, has witnessed the severest electoral conversely, it is possible for a party to the central level. drubbing in a long time. This year, the decrease its share of votes polled without CPI(M) won a total of only 16 parliamen- losing in terms of seats. An example of tary seats; compared to its performance the former is Bahujan Samaj Party’s per- in the last general elections in 2004 this formance at the national level in 2009: it is a whopping decline of 27 seats. The has emerged as the third largest national CPI, on the other hand, won four seats in party, increasing its share of votes polled 2009, suffering a net decline of six par- from 5.33% in 2004 to 6.17% in 2009, but liamentary seats from its position in this has not translated into any appreci- 2004. Does this mean that the Indian able increase in terms of seats. Hence, to population has rejected even the mildly understand the structure of the “popular progressive and social democratic poli- will”, it is necessary to go beyond an anal- cies that the SDL tried to argue for at the ysis of the relative position of political central level? Is this a mandate for the parties in terms of seats won and lost; one ruling Congress Party and by extension a needs to study the changes in the shares mandate for neoliberalism, its pet project of votes polled. since the early 1990s? I think not. Focusing on the share of votes polled is A careful analysis of the results shows also enough, among other things, to dispel that this is a mandate against the SDL but certain misinterpretations of the mandate not against social democratic policies; of the 2009 general elections that seem to further, just like in 2004 when the have gained wide currency. The first mis- Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) “shining interpretation that is gaining ground is India” slogan was decisively rejected by the alleged existence of a “wave” in favour the populace, this is a mandate against of the Congress Party which swept it to neoliberalism and for welfare-oriented power, overcoming the “ubiquitous” current policies. To the extent that the Congress of anti-incumbency observed in Indian was pushed by the SDL to partially imple- politics. Nothing could be farther from the ment such pro-people policies, it can pos- truth as is obvious from a cursory glance sibly be interpreted as an indirect en- at Table 1. Despite having won 206 parlia- dorsement of Congress’ late-in-the day mentary seats, the Congress merely won populism. After making a few comments A slightly shorter version of this article Table 1: Share of Votes Polled in India by Major Parties (%) on the national mandate, in this article, I was published online at http://mrzine. Party 2004 2009 monthlyreview.org/basu220509.html and at focus my attention on West Bengal, the BJP 22.16 18.80 http://sanhati.com/excerpted/1540/ bastion of the SDL in India and try to BSP 5.33 6.17 Deepankar Basu ([email protected]) understand why the parties led by the CPI 1.41 1.43 is with the Department of Economics, CPI(M) got such an electoral drubbing CPI(M) 5.66 5.33 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, while paradoxically creating grounds for INC 26.53 28.55 Colorado, US. a Congress victory. NCP 1.80 2.04 10 may 30, 2009 vol xliv no 22 EPW Economic & Political Weekly COMMENTARY 28.55% of the votes polled in 2009, increas- the share of votes going to the two main round as many pro-establishment analysts ing it by a little less than 2 percentage national parties has declined and not in- are making it out to be. points from 2004. An overall share of 29% creased; so much for the ascendancy – But the national level figures hide many of the total votes polled at the national what historian Ramachandra Guha called interesting state-level variations; hence Table 2: Share of Votes Polled Going to Congress (%) the “course correction” – of the tendency we must also look at state-level data to get 2004 2009 Decrease for centralisation in the Indian polity.1 a complete picture. There is another rea- Andhra Pradesh 41.56 38.95 2.61 son why we need to supplement national Arunachal Pradesh 9.96 51.11 -41.15 SDL Performance: National Level level with state-level analysis: since the Assam 35.07 34.89 0.18 How did the SDL perform in terms of the SDL is prominent only in the three states Bihar 4.49 10.26 -5.77 share of votes polled? At the national of Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal, the Goa 29.76 22.6 7.16 level, the CPI(M) lost only marginally in national figures are not very relevant to Gujarat 43.86 43.38 0.48 terms of the share of votes polled that assessing the electoral prospects of the Haryana 42.13 41.77 0.36 Himachal Pradesh 51.89 45.61 6.28 it was able to garner for itself, which SDL. Thus, we must look at state-level data Jammu and Kashmir 27.83 24.67 3.16 declined from 5.66% in 2004 to 5.33% for Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal to Karnataka 36.82 37.65 -0.83 this year; the CPI, on the other hand, understand the sharp change in the elec- Kerala 32.13 40.13 -8 gained marginally at the national level, toral performance of the SDL in India and Madhya Pradesh 34.07 40.14 -6.07 increasing its share of votes from 1.41 to draw conclusions about its continued rele- Maharashtra 23.77 19.61 4.16 1.43%. Thus, going by these national fig- vance, or otherwise, in the Indian polity. Manipur 14.88 42.96 -28.08 ures, there is no evidence of any nation- Meghalaya 45.55 44.84 0.71 wide trend against the “social democrats”; State Level Performance Nagaland 25.78 29.36 -3.58 there is no evidence of any trend against How did the SDL perform in the different Orissa 40.43 32.75 7.68 their opposition, however feeble, to the states? Three tendencies can be observed in Punjab 34.17 45.23 -11.06 neoliberal policies of the UPA-led central the data summarised in Table 3.2 First, the Rajasthan 41.42 47.19 -5.77 Sikkim 27.43 29.59 -2.16 government. SDL managed to increase its vote share in Tamil Nadu 14.4 15.03 -0.63 Those who want to interpret the current a few states: Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Tripura 14.28 30.75 -16.47 debacle of the “social democrats” as a Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh 12.04 18.25 -6.21 national mandate for “economic reforms” Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand West Bengal 35.32 44.62 -9.3 and against progressive economic and social and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Apart Chhattisgarh 40.16 37.31 2.85 policies need to rethink their arguments; from Manipur, of course, the total vote Jharkhand 21.44 15.02 6.42 the evidence does not support such an share of the SDL in these states remains Uttarakhand 38.31 43.13 -4.82 argument. In fact, as I will argue below, if insignificant; hence, the increase in the level can hardly be interpreted as a “massive there can at all be discerned any “wave” vote share did not even remotely translate wave”; besides, this overall increase also in favour of the Congress in the mandate into changes in seats. Second, the SDL lost hides substantial decreases in vote share it is largely a “wave” against neoliberal its share of votes polled in a large number of (and seats) in several important states economic policies and not the other way states: Assam, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, like Orissa, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Table 3: Share of Votes Polled in Various States Going to the Left Front Andhra Pradesh as shown in Table 2. 2004 2009 Vote Share in 2009 CPI(M) CPI Total (LF) CPI(M) CPI Total (LF) as a Ratio of 2004 The second misinterpretation that is Andhra Pradesh 1.04 1.34 2.38 1.27 1.58 2.85 1.2 doing the rounds pertains to the perception Assam 0.66 1.66 2.32 0.7 0.92 1.62 0.7 that this general election saw the definite Bihar 0.77 1.17 1.94 0.51 1.42 1.93 0.99 demise of regional parties and all federalist Goa 2.17 2.17 2.34 2.34 1.08 tendencies of the Indian populace; the Gujarat 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.09 0.28 2.55 people voted overwhelmingly for national Jammu and Kashmir 0.82 0.82 0.64 0.64 0.78 parties, the argument goes, because they Kerala 31.52 7.89 39.41 30.48 7.44 37.92 0.96 want stability.