The real question, however, is whether the BJP will draw the right lessons from the results at the end of 2018 for next year's general elections and return to aspirational politics.
Whatever
the final position of various parties turns out to be, it is evident
that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has suffered severe body blows
in the three Hindi heartland states it rules with substantial
majorities – Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
It is too
far behind in Chhattisgarh and will most likely not form the next
government. The trends as of noon on the counting day show the
Congress in the lead in the other two states as well, although these
races are quite tight. Rajasthan would likely see a Congress
government, though with a smaller majority than it expected. If at
all the BJP
wins Madhya Pradesh, it would do so by the proverbial skin of its
teeth. That should come as no surprise (except to diehard BJP
supporters) as all opinion surveys and most exit polls had predicted
this outcome.
It
would be tempting to attribute this result to the anti-incumbency
factor said to be prevalent in these states, perhaps twice over,
because the BJP rules the Centre as well. Analysts may also cite the
case of Mizoram, where the governing Congress
is staring at a major loss to the Mizo National Front.
That
would be lazy thinking. The Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) will
retain power in what appears to be a landslide, not anticipated even
by its most optimistic champions. And not to forget, both Madhya
Pradesh and Chhattisgarh had not displayed any aversion to their
ruling dispensations in the two previous elections. We need a better
understanding of how elections are won or lost.
There
are two ways of managing a contest, including elections. The first is
to show the best side of the contesting entity, what good it has done
or is capable of and promising to do. The other is to count the
faults of the opponent, by implication claiming oneself to be the
less bad one. History not just in India but the world over provides
us numerous examples of the positive approach being rewarded with
success and hardly anywhere the fear of the other has an overwhelming
appeal. This is because there could be consensus on what constitutes
good – prosperity, stability, peace and a comforting sense of
well-being.
But the negatives are somewhat relative: A scion
succeeding the parent is not always considered a bad thing because
that is the natural order of things. Similarly, in a country mired in
influence peddling, corruption is a fact of life and bothersome only
if affects the voter’s immediate existence.
Indira
Gandhi had her greatest electoral triumph in 1971 because she was
able to highlight the good she had done. Popular perception was that
both bank nationalisation and ending privy purses were actions
contributing to the common good. Her opponents were seen as a band of
ragtag leaders desperately in search of issues. Even in these
elections, the TRS government successfully projected its record, be
it in making Hyderabad an exciting metro, or addressing the farm
distress with loan waivers and the rythu bandhu schemes, or providing
access to affordable housing, to gain handsomely at the hustings.
