POWER OF VOTING FOR DEVELOPMENT: Karnataka’s recent experience Gopal K Kadekodi and S V Hanagodimath1 PREAMBLE: Beauty of democracy is its voting power by the people, for the people and in ruling by themselves. Apart from ‘Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’ are standing as the institutional pillars resolved to be guaranteed to every citizen of the country, the driving motto behind a democratic process of seeking votes from the citizen is to deliver welfare through ‘development’ to all of them2. Where do we stand with this democratic power of voting today? Keeping this question in mind, in an earlier monograph of CMDR (Number 73, 2014), the same authors had analyzed the state election paradigms in Karnataka during the period 1999 to 2013 with some specific questions. The major questions addressed and analyzed were: First, a question was posed: ‘whether the race between the political parties at the constituency levels resonate the voices of people on their socio-economic development needs, either stated or delivered’. Considering all the elections since 1999, this question was then analyzed with the spatial or geographical spread of development status (measured using a Comprehensive Composite Development Index, CCDI) and votes earned by the contesting and/or wining political parties (or elected candidates). The major findings from four assembly elections then arrived in the 2014 Monograph are summarized in two tables, reproduced below, as Tables 1 and 2. It was clear from the analysis then, that Janata Dal Secular (JD(S)) had concentrated mainly in poorly and middle level developed regions of the state, over time; the Indian National Congress (INC) had spread its pitch evenly all over the state, specifically concentrated in poor and middle level developed regions. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the other hand, has always concentrated in middle and well developed regions of the state. 1 Honorary Professor and Assistant Professor respectively, at Centre for Multi-disciplinary Development Research (CMDR), Dharwad, Karnataka 2 The word ‘development’ appears 26 times in the Indian Constitution (in the context of ensuring justice, liberty, equality and fraternity). 1 Table1: Geographical or Spatial Spread3 of Winning Political Parties in the Constituencies against Development Status (CCDI): 1999 to 2013 Karnataka Elections Election Year INC BJP JD(S) Concentrated in most 1999 Spread evenly In poor and middle level developed region Mostly among the poor Concentrated in most 2004 Spread evenly and below average developed region development regions Concentrated among Mostly concentrated in the poor and middle Concentrated in most 2008 middle level developed level development developed region region regions Concentration in more Mostly concentrating on 2013 Spread evenly and most developed midlevel developed region regions Notes: INC=Indian National Congress; BJP=BharatiyaJanata Party; JD(S)=Janata Dal, secular; CCDI= Comprehensive Composite Development Index Source: Kadekodi and Hanagodimath (2014) It is a different matter to say that JD(S) had concentrated in the strong southern Vokkaliga belt, and BJP in the northern Lingayat belt, with INC scooping with a mixed bag of castes and communities (Rodrigues, 2018). The statistical analyses more or less matched with this caste realignments (Assadi, 20184). Several additional observations were then made based on the four assembly elections. At the state level as a whole, the link between ‘Percentage of total votes actually voted in the state’ for all the political parties taken together and the ‘level of development’ (as viewed from the CCDIs) of the constituencies is negative in all the four election outcomes (see negative correlations in col.7, Table 2). Table 2: Correlation between ‘Party wise Share of Votes’ and the ‘Level of Development (CCDI)’ in the Constituencies Election Major political Parties Year INC BJP JD(S) JD(U) Others All Votes (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1999 0.05 0.41 -0.22 -0.21 -0.11 -0.26 2004 0.18 0.35 -0.28 -* -0.18 -0.23 2008 0.08 0.24 -0.17 -* -0.16 -0.13 2013 0.10 0.30 -0.11 -* -0.24 -0.28 *: JD(U) having won only few seats in these years, their voting patterns are not analysed further. INC=Indian National Congress, BJP=Bharatiya Janata Party, JD(S) Janata Dal (secular), JD(U)= Janata Dal (United), CCDI=Comprehensive Composite Development Index (see Kadekodi and Hanagodimath, 2015) 3 This was done with both a mapping technique and applying several statistical causality tests. 4 He identifies the INC’s alignment with various caste groups as an ‘Ahinda’ approach. 2 By implication this has a message: All through the last four elections, lesser and lesser number of people from ‘more and more developed constituencies’ have ‘actually voted’. Development by itself did not enthuse people to vote or to participate in democratic processes. But there is a puzzle. That refers to the voting patterns for individual political parties and development status of the constituencies. As far as JD(S) is concerned (col.4), over the last four elections, more and more developed constituencies/regions voted less and less for them (indicated by the negative and declining correlation between share of votes of the candidates and CCDI). This is in line with the overall state level total voting pattern. On the other hand, BJP (as can be seen from col.3) has in all the past four assembly elections consistently maintained voting rates positively linked with the level of development (share of BJP votes positively correlated with the CCDIs). These were noted by Vasavi (2008) as attributed to BJP’s ‘planned assault’ and by Assadi (2013) as ‘caste realignments’. On the other hand, INC has always maintained evenly spread voting rates of about 25% in all the four elections, but positively linked (very marginally) to the rate of development. More recent development ventures by INC in the state are various Bhagya schemes, social security schemes, Indira canteen and implementation of MGNREGS and many others. Some of these findings were also noted by Breeding (2011, p.76), in saying that ‘Increased party competition in Karnataka politics; changes in the structure of caste and identity politics; and economic growth…. have led to changes in the existing social structure of day-to-day life in Karnataka and have enhanced electoral competition, as well as changes in vote bank politics’5. The question now is: How is the link between voting pattern in 2018 assembly elections with development status of the constituencies? Second, by using NOTA (None of the Above) criterion do the people express their discontent on either a political party or the candidates standing for elections? Since 2014, NOTA was a new choice option given to the voters by the Elections Commission. The evidence (then studied econometrically, with the 2014 Lok Sabha Karnataka elections) revealed that NOTA votings did not reflect either the poor status of development or discontent with the list of candidates standing for elections representing different constituencies (as revealed by 5 Lee (2013) argues that both self-interest and market forces (in contrast to political forces) have been driving the voters to vote. See also Brennan and Lomasky (1993) for some more theoretical arguments on these lines. 3 statistically insignificant but negative correlations). Secondly, NOTA votings do not necessarily reflect for ‘Not voting at all’, as a choice for some other reason. Therefore, it perhaps did stand for only a marginal degree of discontent with either the candidates or the political parties. The same question has surfaced now with 2018 state assembly elections. Third, a peculiarity about Karnataka state elections was also noted (in the 2014 Monograph), namely about the major shifts in the political parties returned over the election years since 1951. At the national scene it may be noted that a single partly namely, INC returned as the majority party to form the government continuously since the elections from 1951 to 1977, again later in the years 1980, 1984, 2004 and 2009. Karnataka showed a different pattern. Several political parties took turn over the years since 1978, as can be seen from the Table 3. During the last 40 years, INC ruled the state four times, Janata Party twice, Janata Dal (United) once, Bharatiya Janata Party once, and INC in alliance with Janata Dal (secular) twice. With the coalition government after 2018 elections between JD(S) and INC, once again a major switch from INC has been noted. A high degree of ‘discontinuity’ as a model (a phrase coined by Assadi, 2018) seems to have making rounds in Karnataka. Therefore, understanding the logic of forming the present coalition after 2018 elections is called for, to test for continuity of ‘discontinuity’ model. Finally, two additional views about the link between state of socio-economic development and electoral preferences can be aired about Karnataka electoral politics. One, there has been a general continuity of socio-economic policies, independent of the political parties returned or their development ideologies. Invariably, the development paradigms in Karnataka are thought to be continuous, following a path of ‘incremental changes’ (Manor, 2008a, Assadi, 2018). Second, wherever coalition occurred, it was on a notion of ‘Rainbow’ coalition (Manor, 2008a), with some compromises on developmental goals. Do these hypotheses do hold water anymore? 4 Table 3: Turnover of Political Parties Ruling in Karnataka Majority Party that formed Sl. No. Year Chief Minister(s)