Picking winners: What the trends say

Politics is also about picking out trends. For it is said that you can have data without information, but you cannot have information without data. A spanking new trendline that has emerged over recent years will be a factor in the ongoing Uttar Pradesh polls. Extended elections in multiple phases allow political parties and formations malleability and ductility. I will explain this axiom as we go along. Size is obviously the biggest determinant in such an exercise for Indian states are vast with different kinds of topography. Law and order equally plays a part for the security bandobust has to be out of the top drawer. Polling in phases are playing an important role in deciding the final outcome. Over time with the advent of technology, and the fact that even today India uses electronic voting machines while the US does not, means that we are conducting such large-scale voting with the best of technological tools and practices. But the lumpen proletariat and the mahabalis and the bahubalis or plain old-fashioned muscle also needs to be controlled and bottled. That is why one finds the Election Commission is using the gambit of multiple-phased elections in states where there is likely to have episodes of violence.

Moreover, there is the M factor, in certain parts of India like Assam (37 per cent), West Bengal 27 per cent and Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (between 17 to 19 per cent Muslim voters). The Naxal angle also cannot be ignored or undermined either, for several states are rife with this type of local militia waging war against the State. Communal incidents have to be avoided at all costs for political parties and partisan politicians use polarising themes. At the same time, it changes the complexion of the election outcome, giving X or Y an unfair advantage, many observers believe. Take the continuing election in UP, five phases are over, but messaging and communication stratagems play a pivotal role. On the day of the fourth phase, the civic poll results from Odisha (unofficially) and Maharashtra, which saw a bumper win for the BJP, subliminally might have influenced voters, one can argue, in urban agglomerates if not rural areas. The non-committed and the less committed may well have been swayed by these results. Anecdotal evidence from the state seems to suggest that. It gives parties an opportunity to reassess, regroup and revise their strategies for different phases. Throw in some word-of-mouth from on-ground cadres to galvanise both lazy and active voters, and you have a successful operation going.

Let me come to part two of my hypothesis. From anecdotal, I move to empirical evidence. The deep dive reveals that the multiple-phased election outcomes since Bihar 2010 shows the result as a one-sided contest. Ditto for UP in 2012, Lok Sabha polls in 2014 and West Bengal in 2016, where this theorem worked. Extending this argument further, the same thing transpired in the Bihar 2015 Assembly polls, where it rained votes for one formation only. The Bihar Legislative Assembly election in 2010 was held in six phases over a period of one month starting from October 21 until November 20 in all 243 constituencies. Guess what, it was a slam dunk in favour of the JD(U)/BJP alliance which routed Lalu Prasad Yadav’s RJD. The JD(U) contested 141 seats, winning 115, while the BJP fought 102 seats and won 91. Mr Yadav fought 168 seats, and ended up with a paltry 22. Two days before the second phase of voting, Naxals triggered a landmine in Sheohar district, killing six policemen. As a result, the district’s voting centres would close two hours earlier. The attack was seen as a resurgence in Naxal activity after a lull due to its timing during an election. Though the Naxals had called for a boycott of the polls, the second phase ended largely unscathed. During the fourth phase of voting, more bombs were set off. In the morning Naxals were responsible for a bomb blast near a bridge on the Chakai-Jamui road in the Batia jungle. On the eve of the fifth phase of voting, the Naxals called for a 24-hour bandh.

This experiment was followed in West Bengal, where the Assembly elections were held in six phases between April 18 and May 10, 2011 for all 294 seats. It went like clockwork for newbie Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamul Congress, which managed to dethrone the Communist hegemony over the state after 34 years. This was a breakthrough election in many respects, none more important than adoption of redrawn electoral constituencies based on the 2001 Census, following the 2002 Delimitation Commission of India recommendations were approved in February 2008. Two huge popular agitations preceded these elections — Nandigram and Tata Nano Singur — both flashpoints where she sided with Naxal-type elements. Ms Banerjee’s TMC swept to power in conjunction with the Congress, winning 154 seats (contesting 184) while the Congress got 21 out of the 42 it had fought. It was truly a landmark election where she demolished the Left and stormed the bastion of Writers’ Buildings. The next test for this theorem came in the UP polls of 2012 with the world’s largest population for a sub-national democracy. Elections were held in seven phases from February 8 to March 3, 2012. Mulayam Singh Yadav wasn’t too sure of victory, even the majority of the opinion and exit polls suggested a hung Assembly, but the SP came through admirably, winning 224 seats of the 401 that it had contested.

The 2014 general election, of course, remains seminal for it belonged to one man only — Narendra Modi — as the Hindu volte aggregated behind him in an unprecedented manner, cutting across all caste arithmetic. Enough has been said and written about the phenomena of Mr Modi and how he blew the Opposition out of the water. In order to test my theorem once again and provide precedents for my axiom to be ironclad, I give the examples of the Bihar 2015 and West Bengal 2016 elections. Before that I want to dwell on modern communication tools, which did not exist earlier, the widespread usage and prevalence of social media like WhatsApp, Facebook and YouTube in political electioneering. This is constant and continuous with political parties like the BJP mastering the art of feeding the electorate. Again, these tools play a big part in convincing people for they stay embedded in the subconscious threshold. In crunch situations before the voting in a particular phase, the type of messaging also plays a vital role, for it could be customised to that area’s trials, tribulations or fears. The party that maintains an initial lead as per people’s perception attracts all such non-committed voters or vice-versa. Midway, something fresh emerges which can change the way people are voting. The 2012 UP joust saw fierce campaigning by Rahul Gandhi, but he just got squeezed in the war between the SP and BSP. Anti-incumbency against Behenji and multiple voting phases saw the SP coming to power. Look at the recent history of multi-phased polls, and most of my theorising shows that it is very much in order:
Lok Sabha poll 2014 nine phases BJP 281/543
Lok Sabha poll 2009 five phases INC 206/262
Lok Sabha poll 2004 four phases BJP 138, INC 145
West Bengal 2016 seven phases 211/294 seats to Ms Banerjee
West Bengal 2011 six phases 227/294 seats to Ms Banerjee/Congress alliance
UP 2012 seven phases SP 224/403
UP 2007 seven phases BSP 206/403
UP 2002 three phases SP 143, BSP 98, BJP 88, INC 25
Bihar 2010 six phases 206/243 seats for NDA
Bihar 2015 five phases 179/243 seats for Mahagathbandhan
Bihar 2005 four phases 145/243 for NDA
Bihar 2005 February three phases 92/243 for NDA

After this forest of numbers, the question is whether the BJP, which was reportedly lagging behind in UP till the end of the third phase, has managed to turn it around from the fourth phase onwards only to see its rapid march culminate in a joyful celebration at the end as its traditional votebank in Purvanchal casts its ballots? Kabristan and shamshan seems have won them support. Or will Akhilesh Yadav ride his bicycle to the Vidhan Sabha on March 11? Or will both fall short, and prove that this theorem has no merit?