Six lessons for Karnataka parties from the verdicts in Gujarat and Himachal

The vote gap between the Congress and BJP was less than one percentage point. Yet there was a clear pattern in voting when viewed from the lens of the economic status of the voter.

Much has been written about the preferences exercised by the voters in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh as also the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). In the complex jigsaw puzzle that is India, each state is truly unique and different. The electoral outcomes in the 28 states of India are determined by a unique set of distinct factors. Yet, are there any lessons that the political parties and electoral strategists in Karnataka can learn from the recent electoral outcomes? This month's column highlights six key lessons that can be drawn for Karnataka from the last set of elections held in 2022. This analysis is not merely based on aggregate data but also draws inferences from the Lokniti-CSDS post poll studies in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh.

The first factor that merits attention is the advantages and challenges of being the ruling party. Like Karnataka, in Gujarat, Himachal and MCD the BJP was the ruling party. It retained one state, lost another to the Congress and conceded the third to AAP. Retaining power in a state once is already in power, requires a specific focus on the performance of the state government. The BJP has been focusing what it terms as the advantage of a double-engine government. In Gujarat, the central engine was powerful enough to pull the state engine along. In Himachal, the central engine could not manage to help the state engine cross the finish line. In MCD, some would say it was the AAP double engine that clicked.

The second lesson that is vital for Karnataka is the implications of a similar trend that is seen in Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka. Both states have a revolving door policy of not electing a ruling party with a clear majority. This is the trend in Karnataka after 1985 and in Himachal Pradesh it is the trend since the state was formed (save once) in 1971. The BJP made a strong effort to reverse this trend in Himachal Pradesh but was unsuccessful. The factors that came in the way of the BJP in Himachal Pradesh (as reasoned in this column) could well provide pointers for a Karnataka strategy for both the ruling BJP as well a the lead opposition, the Congress and the third player the Janata Dal (S).

A third factor that assumes salience in the analysis of the electoral battles in Gujarat and Himachal are the focus on the party and the candidate. In Gujarat and in Himachal Pradesh, the focus of the BJP was clearly on the party and its central leadership through out the campaign. In Himachal, the party refrained from announcing a Chief Ministerial candidate and in Gujarat it did not seem to matter. In Gujarat the party was propelled to power on the strength of its central leadership. Every candidate sought support in the name of the Prime Minister. The Himachal Pradesh campaign shows that the Congress appears to have scored an upper hand because its supporters tended to give as much weight to the candidate as they did to the party. The Lokniti-CSDS survey indicates that nine of every ten respondents in Himachal underscored the importance of the candidate when deciding whom to vote for. The strategies that the parties would adopt in Karnataka remains crucial. Would there be an exclusive focus on the party or would they want to showcase the strength and merit of their individual candidates? This has implications for the next factor under discussion.

Factor four is clearly the pitch of the campaign. Both in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh it was clear from the Lokniti-CSDS poll, that the committed voters of the party decided well before the start of the campaign as to who they would vote for. The undecided voters took a call a few days before the end of the campaign. In both states this had an impact. In Gujarat, it contributed to the massive mandate that the BJP received. In Himachal Pradesh the one percent tilt in favour of the Congress was on account of the swing voter who decided at the last minute. Thus the campaign is crucial. In Himachal Pradesh the Congress focused on local issues which gave it a slight advantage. The BJP campaign was exclusively on the performance record of its Central government and on national issues. In Karnataka, how would parties pitch their campaign would be a key factor.

Factor five is an important lesson from Himachal Pradesh. The vote gap between the Congress and BJP was less than one percentage point. Yet there was a clear pattern in voting when viewed from the lens of the economic status of the voter. The BJP did extremely well among the rich and its vote declines when one moves to the poor. The exact reverse was true in the case of the Congress. While across the state, there was less than a one percent difference in the vote share, in the case of the poor, the vote share difference was a massive thirteen percentage points. This clearly made the difference in defining the final contours of the verdict. There are important lessons in this for the party strategists in Karnataka.

The final factor - the woman vote. Did the women vote too tip the scales in favour of the Congress in Karnataka? In a tight fight every factor has the potential of contributing to a defeat or propelling one towards victory. In Himachal Pradesh, the last time around (in 2017) the post poll survey of Lokniti-CSDS indicated that both the BJP and the Congress had a marginally better record in garnering the vote of men as compared to women. This time around there was an interesting two percentage point difference - the Congress doing better among women and the BJP being ahead among men voters. While the BJP saw a five percentage point decline in votes among men it was a six percentage point decline among women. In the case of the Congress there was a one percentage point increase in the share of men's vote but a decisive four percentage point rise in its share of the women's vote. Man analysts believed this too made a difference. This again could be an important lesson for parties in Karnataka.

As parties and leaders gear up for an interesting and intense campaign in Karnataka, all these lessons from the last poll of 2022 could well provide useful insights.

(Dr. Sandeep Shastri is the Vice Chancellor of Jagran Lakecity University and a keen observer of Karnataka politics for four decades)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of OneIndia and OneIndia does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.