In 2014, BJP won 282 seats and reduced Congress to 44 seats. It was only the second time that a party other than Congress had won a majority. And it was the first time in 30 years that any party had won a majority. How did this happen? Economists gave 4 reasons:
1. 12% inflation
2. Low job-creation
3. Massive corruption scams
4. Modi's 12-year track record as Gujarat CM – and promising the same for India.
This looked like a logical explanation. Then the 2019 election should have been a return to the 'normal' state of elections in the coalition era (1989 onwards). That is – BJP should have got around 200 seats and Congress should have got around 100 seats. Instead, BJP got 303 seats and Congress got 52 seats. What does this mean?
It means the above explanation for the 2014 election was wrong. BJP's majority (and Congress's decimation) was not just due to the above 4 factors – which were temporary in nature. Instead it was also due to something far more fundamental and long-term in nature. And this was the transformation of BJP from a semi-national party into a real national party (what Congress was till 1989) – under the leadership of the Modi-Shah duo. The process started in 2014 (with Shah focussing on Uttar Pradesh) and continued in 2014-19 (with Shah focussing on the whole country). That is – during 2014-19, Amit Shah extended his 2014 Uttar Pradesh model to the whole country.
There is another story here, of course. In 1998-99, BJP first formed the government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In 1991, P V Narasimha Rao had started India's journey towards a free-market capitalist (FMC) economy. During 1999-2004, Vajpayee continued this journey by carrying out FMC reforms. Now FMC reforms lift poor people out of poverty – but the process takes longer than 5 years. And poor/illiterate people are the majority in India. As a result, BJP/NDA lost the 2004 election (much to the shock of economists).
Cut to 2014. Narendra Modi had run Gujarat for 12 years as an FMC reformer. So economists expected him to continue the same as Prime Minister. But Modi had learnt from 2004 that India is not Gujarat and so a purely FMC approach would not win the 2019 election. So he pursued a two-track approach. On the one hand, he carried out economic reforms – Goods & Services Tax (GST), Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), Ease of Doing Business (EoDB), etc. These reforms strengthened the Indian economy – and will lift poor people out of poverty (after some time). On the other hand, he also carried out pro-poor welfare schemes – giving houses, toilets, gas-cylinders, etc to the poor. These schemes made poor people happy – by immediately improving their quality of life.
A nationalist party must make the country strong. But it must also win elections. It can make the country strong only if it is in power – not if it is sitting in the opposition. So Modi's two-track approach aimed to achieve both these objectives.
But this governance approach alone would not win the election – even with its pro-poor welfare schemes. Because having a good product is not enough; you also need a good distribution network – to take your product to your customers. Good business = good product + good distribution. Similarly, good politics = good governance + good organisation*. So a complimentary organisational approach was also needed. And Amit Shah did this by aggressively expanding BJP's organisation machinery. He took BJP into the East. He made BJP reach out to poor people – who had benefited from Modi's welfare schemes. He made BJP reach out to lower castes, Dalits and Adivasis. Thus he expanded BJP both vertically (socially + economically) and horizontally (geographically):
Therefore the 2014 election gave us a glimpse of BJP's long-term strategy under the Modi-Shah duo. And the 2019 election has shown us its culmination.
*The complete equations are:
1. Good business = good product + good distribution + good marketing
2. Good politics = good governance + good organisation + good campaigning
1. 12% inflation
2. Low job-creation
3. Massive corruption scams
4. Modi's 12-year track record as Gujarat CM – and promising the same for India.
This looked like a logical explanation. Then the 2019 election should have been a return to the 'normal' state of elections in the coalition era (1989 onwards). That is – BJP should have got around 200 seats and Congress should have got around 100 seats. Instead, BJP got 303 seats and Congress got 52 seats. What does this mean?
It means the above explanation for the 2014 election was wrong. BJP's majority (and Congress's decimation) was not just due to the above 4 factors – which were temporary in nature. Instead it was also due to something far more fundamental and long-term in nature. And this was the transformation of BJP from a semi-national party into a real national party (what Congress was till 1989) – under the leadership of the Modi-Shah duo. The process started in 2014 (with Shah focussing on Uttar Pradesh) and continued in 2014-19 (with Shah focussing on the whole country). That is – during 2014-19, Amit Shah extended his 2014 Uttar Pradesh model to the whole country.
There is another story here, of course. In 1998-99, BJP first formed the government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In 1991, P V Narasimha Rao had started India's journey towards a free-market capitalist (FMC) economy. During 1999-2004, Vajpayee continued this journey by carrying out FMC reforms. Now FMC reforms lift poor people out of poverty – but the process takes longer than 5 years. And poor/illiterate people are the majority in India. As a result, BJP/NDA lost the 2004 election (much to the shock of economists).
Cut to 2014. Narendra Modi had run Gujarat for 12 years as an FMC reformer. So economists expected him to continue the same as Prime Minister. But Modi had learnt from 2004 that India is not Gujarat and so a purely FMC approach would not win the 2019 election. So he pursued a two-track approach. On the one hand, he carried out economic reforms – Goods & Services Tax (GST), Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), Ease of Doing Business (EoDB), etc. These reforms strengthened the Indian economy – and will lift poor people out of poverty (after some time). On the other hand, he also carried out pro-poor welfare schemes – giving houses, toilets, gas-cylinders, etc to the poor. These schemes made poor people happy – by immediately improving their quality of life.
A nationalist party must make the country strong. But it must also win elections. It can make the country strong only if it is in power – not if it is sitting in the opposition. So Modi's two-track approach aimed to achieve both these objectives.
But this governance approach alone would not win the election – even with its pro-poor welfare schemes. Because having a good product is not enough; you also need a good distribution network – to take your product to your customers. Good business = good product + good distribution. Similarly, good politics = good governance + good organisation*. So a complimentary organisational approach was also needed. And Amit Shah did this by aggressively expanding BJP's organisation machinery. He took BJP into the East. He made BJP reach out to poor people – who had benefited from Modi's welfare schemes. He made BJP reach out to lower castes, Dalits and Adivasis. Thus he expanded BJP both vertically (socially + economically) and horizontally (geographically):
| 1. Geographic | ||
| 2. Economic | ||
| 3. Social |
Therefore the 2014 election gave us a glimpse of BJP's long-term strategy under the Modi-Shah duo. And the 2019 election has shown us its culmination.
*The complete equations are:
1. Good business = good product + good distribution + good marketing
2. Good politics = good governance + good organisation + good campaigning
2 comments:
Well written analysis. Additionally, I also think there were two other items that contributed to the win
1) A weak opposition led by a dynast who has no alternative vision for India. If we had a strong opposition leader the fight would have been even.
2) Hope, aspiration and imagination- India has the youngest population in the world. I have there always argued that even if govt does nothing economy will flourish unless there is external shock to economy like war or global meltdown.But all this is complex economics that most dont understand. Therefore the young population is looking for a icon who can set their imagination on fire and give hope of fulfilling their aspirations. Therefore they voted in hope a muscular leader like Modi can fulfill their hope. India's young will remain hopeful and young only for another 30 yrs before it has the biggest oldest population in world. Indian leaders have 20 yrs to make into big league on international stage before its population gets old. If we loose this time window India is looking for another century of poverty because we will not have such a young population again for a while.Modi has been given that mantle to make aspirational and hope real. Marketing alone will not help. Solid fundamentals changes are needed. Look forward to critical 5 yrs of the 20 yrs left for India to regain its lost glory on world stage
.
Yes, the demographic dividend - good point :-)
Post a Comment