The recent announcement of the 18th Lok Sabha election results has sent shockwaves through the political arena. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured 240 seats, falling short of a majority. Although this didn’t lead to an immediate shift in power, it once again re-emphasised the role of Indian voters in sustaining democratic values. It would be a mistake to overlook the prospects of substantial changes by not recognising the ‘critical’ role played by the Indian electorate and their responsiveness, which found its expression in their discernment to change the balance and concentration of power, but not without a paradox, reflected by their lack of readiness for any immediate change, both representing two different sides of a vibrant democracy.
An interplay of prudence and limited loyalty
The 2024 elections have vividly illustrated the interplay of ‘prudence’ and ‘limited loyalty’ among Indian voters, who are highly responsive to shifting political narratives and alliances, where the former influences and shapes the latter. Rahul Gandhi’s tactical decision to not contest from Amethi and the subsequent victory of Kishori Lal Sharma, the first-ever non-Gandhi candidate since 1998, over Smriti Irani, illustrate how the prudence of Indian voters translates into the absence of ‘strict loyalty’ to any candidate or party. Despite her high-profile role as a cabinet minister, Irani could not transcend the boundaries of development expectations set for her. Even if development happened, it had failed to resonate with local needs – a reality the electorates found increasingly untenable, prompting their call for change.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
In certain constituencies, Indian voters further demonstrate that they do not exhibit ‘strict loyalty’ to a particular party or candidate and their narratives, as evident in Kairana and Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh and Banswara in Rajasthan. Over the last two parliamentary terms, Kairana, which was notably in the headlines for the issue of alleged Hindu exodus – wherein numerous Hindu families reportedly fled due to alleged threats and extortion – has experienced significant political shifts. Initially represented by the BJP’s Hukum Singh, it shifted to the RLD’s Tabassum Hasan, supported by the Samajwadi Party (SP), in the 2018 by-elections. In 2019, Pradeep Choudhary of the BJP regained the seat, but SP’s Iqra Choudhary reclaimed it this year. Faizabad, where the BJP had already capitalised on the issue of Ram Mandir, did not yield any electoral returns this time. Similarly, in Banswara, where communal rhetoric was employed during a rally, the BJP suffered a significant defeat, losing by over 2.4 lakh votes.
These developments highlight that while religious polarisation can provide short-term electoral gains, it often fails to sustain long-term political loyalty due to the complex and multifaceted nature of Indian society. Scholars like Christophe Jaffrelot have also highlighted that the appeal of identity politics, including religious polarisation, may wane as voters become more concerned with issues like economic performance and social welfare, as evidenced in Faizabad and Banswara, where the process of making choices saw voters’ grievances and concerns, influenced by time and space, supersede ideological narratives.
A similar pattern of discerning voter behaviour can be seen in the Bahujan Samaj Party’s (BSP) performance. Despite Mayawati’s claims that the Jatavs supported her, she not only failed to open her party’s account but also managed to secure only around 9% of the votes in Uttar Pradesh – a state where the Dalit population constitutes over 21% of the total. The high-pitched campaigns of the Samajwadi Party (SP) and Congress, which focused on safeguarding the constitution and preserving reservations, seem to have catalysed a substantial shift of Dalit voters towards these parties. This outcome underscores the prudence of Indian voters, who prioritised their immediate concerns and long-term aspirations for social justice and constitutional integrity over traditional caste affiliations.
In essence, all the examples discussed above exemplify how voters’ prudence ultimately overcomes their ‘strict loyalty’ to any political party or candidate, giving rise to ‘limited loyalty’, which is time-bound and can change and shift depending on the requirements of time. This shift prompts us to ask: Does this transition from ‘strict loyalty’ to ‘limited loyalty’ always occur? What triggers such changes among the Indian electorates, and when do they happen?
Paradox in prudence
Numerous instances in these elections could raise questions about whether voters are truly prudent and driven solely by their foresightedness to bring about transformative changes. One such example of paradox can be provided in the context of voting choices in West Bengal and Kerala. In West Bengal, voters elected 11 out of 12 female candidates in the fray, the highest number of female winners in any state, highlighting a progressive trend in gender representation. Conversely, Kerala recorded a higher female turnout of over 71%, compared to nearly 70% male turnout, but failed to elect a single female candidate out of the nine contenders.
The elections also resulted in the Janata Dal (Secular) losing the Hassan seat for the first time in 25 years due to the defeat of their candidate, Prajwal Revanna, who faces accusations of rape and sexual assault. In contrast, Brij Bhushan’s son credited his electoral victory to his father, who faces allegations of sexual harassment.
These contrasting outcomes indicate that the choices of Indian voters are constrained by a variety of considerations, including candidate appeal, local issues, and personal narratives, alongside party loyalty, suggesting that the prudence of Indian voters is limited. However, this argument should be taken with a pinch of salt, as their foresightedness is limited not in the sense of lacking vision but in their readiness to take transformative steps by exercising their right to vote.
The defeat of Rahul Gandhi from Amethi in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, a constituency synonymous with the Gandhi family, which has shared traditional and emotional bonds with them, underscores this phenomenon, demonstrating that winning based on past legacy and a disconnect with the electorate is not sustainable. Although voters initially gave power to Smriti Irani, her success was soon realised to be based on “Modi’s grandeur,” which seems to be on wane since then. This year, voters ultimately chose to give a new chance to the Congress candidate, showcasing their willingness to embrace change and discard ‘strict loyalty’.
This addresses all our questions, including whether strict loyalty to any party or candidate always transforms into ‘limited loyalty’, with the answer being a ‘qualified yes’ – as it may not happen immediately. Over time, voters’ grievances and concerns gain weight and evolve into a formidable force, shaping their voting choices, thereby substantiating that there is no such thing as ‘strict loyalty’ in Indian democratic ethos – change is the only constant.
Transition towards re-democratisation
The vox populi, reflected in election outcomes, not only showcases voter discernment but also their responsiveness to local issues, emphasising the electorate’s demand for genuine representation and social justice over mere identity politics. This transition could herald a reinvigoration of federalism, granting greater autonomy to state governments, and fostering a more robust civil society. The diverse and paradoxical choices of Indian voters exemplify a progressive democracy, poised to uphold democratic values and institutional integrity. This mirrors the multifaceted Indian state described by Sudipta Kaviraj, embodying both contradictions and discernment, crafting a nuanced narrative of democracy in action.
Abhishek Sharma (@Abhish1001) is a researcher with Lokniti-CSDS.
