New Rules for Indian Politics?

June 17, 2015

INSTITUTE

facebook.com/idfcinstitute twitter.com/idfcinstitute We’re also on

Dr. Milan Vaishnav, Associate, South Asia Program,

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

www.idfcinstitute.org

New Rules for Indian Politics?

Milan Vaishnav | June 17, 2015

Was 2014 a game-changer?

Source: @bhuvanthaker

2014 elections by the numbers

8,251 candidates

464 political parties

554 million voters

Estimated $5 billion in campaign expenditures

First single-party majority since 1984

Source: Vaishnav and Smogard (2014)

“Tsu-NaMo”

Source: CSDS Post-Poll

Reversal of personal fortune

2009 2011 41456 41699 417600

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

25

19

3437

6

19

1215 15

ModiRahul

Pref

eren

ce fo

r PM

(%)

The Indian voter in 2015

Source: Indian Express

1. BJP as new “pole”

National-regional equilibrium

Source: Vaishnav and Smogard (2014)

A new central “pole”

Source: Press Information Bureau

Congress on the decline

(Suit)-boots on the ground

Who controls the states?

2. Moving towards “It’s the economy, stupid”

“It’s the economy, stupid!”

Triumph of parochialism

A cautionary tale?

“India has not reached a stage where the people would prefer a CEO to a politician to run the government.”

-- K.C. Suri (2004)

Good economics ≠ good politics

Source: Vaishnav and Swanson (2015)

Are things changing?

“Since independence, many Indian voters have reflexively ejected politicians from office even when they had compiled decent records in power…Recently, though, Indian voters have started to reward good performance, especially in state-level politics.”

- Arvind Subramanian (2009)

2009 Lok Sabha elections

Source: Gupta and Panagariya (2014)

Good economics ≠ good politics

Source: Vaishnav and Swanson (2013)

Source: Vaishnav and Swanson (2013)

Post-2000s shift

Most important issue in 2014?

Economic

Growth

Corruption

Inflation

Personal

Income

Law an

d Order

Access

Govt Ben

efits

Strong L

eaders

hip

Identity

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

rural urban

Shar

e or

resp

onde

nts

Source: Lok Foundation (2014)

2014 NES post-poll

Price r

ise

Corruption

Lack

of dev

elopmen

t

Employm

ent

Govt has

done dev

elopmen

t02468

101214161820 19

11.6 10.9

7.5

4.6

Sing

le m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t iss

ue (%

)

Source: CSDS (2014)

3. Messy realities of ethnic voting

Social biases: positive & negative

Co-ethnic affinity Ethnic bias0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%46%

36%

% o

f res

pond

ents

dem

onst

ratin

g “b

ias”

Source: Authors’ calculations based on Lok Foundation data

2014 BJP performance in north India

Upper Caste OBC SC ST Muslims Others0

10

20

30

40

50

60

7065

48

34

55

11

45

Social Group

BJP

vote

shar

e (%

)

Source: CSDS (2014)

“Rainbow coalitions” (Bihar 2010)

Social group % vote for NDA

Brahmin 64Bhumihar 48Rajput 68Other Upper Caste 89Yadav 18Kurmi-Koeri 70Other OBC 63Chamars 41Pasi 25Other SC 52Muslim 27Others 47

Source: CSDS (2010)

Upper Caste

OBC

SC

Minorities

Degree of co-ethnic voting

Coethnic Group co-ethnic0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

14.1%

39.2%

85.9%

60.8%

YesNo

Source: Vaishnav (2014)

Can voters ethnically identify candidates?

Misidentified Correctly Identified0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

29.2%

70.8%

Source: Vaishnav (2014)

4. More choices, same options

Surge in political competition19

52

1957

1962

1967

1971

1977

1980

1984

1989

1991

1996

1998

1999

2004

2009

2014

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Num

ber o

f pol

itica

l par

ties

Source: ECI

Dynasticism among MPs

Source: Chandra (2014)

20%

80%

2004

29%

71%

2009

Dynastic ties No dynastic ties

21%

79%

2014

“Princelings” in parliamentSP

NCP LJ

P

YSRC

P

TDP

INC

BJD

TRS

CPI(M

)

Shiv

Sen

a

AITC BJ

P

AIAD

MK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Parties with 5+ Lok Sabha seats

Perc

ent (

%)

Source: The Hindu (2014)

State-level dynasties

• Abdullahs(NC, Jammu& Kashmir)• Badals(SAD, Punjab)• Karunanidhis (DMK, Tamil Nadu)• Hoodas (INC, Haryana)• Paswans(LJP, Bihar)• Patnaiks (BJP, Odisha)• Pawars (NCP, Maharashtra)• Reddys (YSRCP, AP)• Scindias (INC/BJP, Rajasthan/MP)• Thackerays (ShivSena, Maharashtra)• Yadavs(RJD, Bihar)• Yadavs (SP, UP)

Hereditary MPs (by age)

Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 and up0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Age cohort

Perc

ent

Source: The Hindu (2014); French (2010)

Law-breakers & law-makers?

2004 2009 20140%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

24%

30%34%

12%15%

21%

MPs with criminal cases MPs with serious cases

Lok Sabha Election Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Lok

Sab

ha M

Ps

Source: Author’s calculations based on ADR data

Par for the course

Source: Author’s calculations based on ADR data

BJP INC AIADMK AITC BJD0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4035

1816

21

15

22

7 8

1210

% Cases % Serious cases

% L

ok S

abha

MPs

Male-female turnout convergence

Female representation is (slowly) growing19

57

1962

1967

1971

1977

1980

1984

1989

1991

1996

1998

1999

2004

2009

2014

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Candidates (%) Winners (%)

Conclusion

• Regionalization has stalled; BJP has become “central pole”

– Blessing and a curse

• Aspirations of voters have changed, yet quality of candidates on offer has not

• Social biases remain entrenched even though their expression might be changing

Our next discussion….

INSTITUTE

facebook.com/idfcinstitute twitter.com/idfcinstitute We’re also on

Fundamental reform in Indian financeDr. Ajay ShahHead of the Macro/Finance Group at the National Institute of Public Finance and PolicyJuly 6, 2015

www.idfcinstitute.org