“Will the desertion (and subsequent joining the SP) of OBC leaders from the BJP just before the election impact its poll prospect in the UP assembly election?” a friend asked me. And many like my friend have this question. Experts during TV debates are predicting a huge loss for the BJP as the contest is apparently heading to a two-way contest between the BJP and SP; the BSP and Congress aren’t visible on the ground.
However, I don’t think such desertion of leaders (ministers and MLAs) right before the election has any relevance to the winning prospect of the BJP. Rather, I would think it would be damaging to the prospects of the SP. Why do I say so?
Let me explain what is anti-incumbency. Generally, CMs or party leaders don’t have anti-incumbency. Thus, neither Mayawati in 2012 nor Akhilesh Yadav in 2017 nor Yogi Adityanath in 2022 had any anti-incumbency. In fact, if you go through opinion polls during the 2012 and 2017 Assembly elections in UP, you would find Mayawati and Akhilesh Yadav polled as better CM respectively and stayed in power.
Yogi Adityanath is the most preferred CM candidate at this moment, according to the current opinion polls. Thus, anti-incumbency is, most of the time, not for CMs but for MLAs and MPs. In 2004, Atal Vajpayee was the most preferred choice for PM, yet, his party lost the election because the then MPs of the BJP thought that they would win in the name of Vajpayee. As a matter of fact, that doesn’t happen in the Indian polity.
Many a time, MPs and MLAs neglect their constituency despite their party-led government performing better and their PM/CM candidates remaining popular. This negligence creates dissent among the people of that constituency against that particular MLA or MP. Thus, when the same MLA or MP contests repeatedly in that constituency in the next election, people wish for his party’s government but vote against that particular MP or MLA.
In 2004, that is what happened; in spite of wishing a Vajpayee government, people punished the BJP MPs who neglected their constituency, resulting in the BJP’s loss of the 2004 Parliamentary election.
The same is also applicable to caste politics. A leader can command votes from the community or caste. But the community or caste also observes their relationship with the politician to whom they voted to power. For example, Mayawati, in the 2007 assembly election, won a majority as the Dalit community as the whole community voted for her. In the UP election, it requires three equations to win a majority.
Mayawati got the votes of Dalits, Muslims and upper-castes. However, during her tenure, Jatav Dalits became dominant as Mayawati belonged to the Jatav community. As a result, the non-Jatavs distanced themselves from Mayawati and allied with either the Congress or BJP because, for the SC community, Samajwadi Party (SP) was a strict no-no for obvious historical reasons.
Similarly, the SP won in 2012 with the equation of OBC, Muslim and upper castes. However, during Akhilesh Yadav’s tenure, the Yadav community became dominant while the non-Yadav OBC communities were discriminated against. That’s why the non-Yadav communities distanced themselves from SP. They couldn’t go to the BSP for historical obvious reasons. Thus, the choice was either the Congress or BJP, and the latter appeared to be a better option in terms of their winning potential.
That’s why in 2017, the non-Jatav SC and non-Yadav OBC sided with the BJP, in addition to the support of the upper class. Thus, this equation became a tool for bumper wins for the BJP in 2017. The above is an example of community dissent. There’s also another kind of dissent against a politician who represents one caste or homogenous group of population.
In an election, the total caste population vote for the MLA. But after winning the election, many politicians, instead of looking after their caste people, favour their family and friends. This creates discontent among the remaining population of that caste and starts shifting their trust in an alternative potential candidate of the same group.
That’s why political parties usually do a survey before selecting their candidates. The BJP’s frequent electoral success in recent years is based upon this tactic, in which they change the incumbent candidates gauging public discontent against them. In the recent UP election, the so-called ‘deserting’ leaders quit the party just before the elections.
This speaks that they are sure that they won’t get the ticket because of the huge anti-incumbency against them from their constituencies or the caste community they represent. A new leader from their caste or community is chosen so as to douse the discontent. Thus, I don’t think the leaders quitting the party just before the election has anything to do with the party’s prospect. You stay there for five years, become a minister, and now you say that your community is betraying you? Only fools will believe such logic.
The parties (SP, in this case) receiving such last moment rebels will definitely be at loss for two reasons. Firstly, because of the induction and tickets to these parachutes dropped by politicians, there will be discontent among the party leaders/workers of that particular constituency who had worked hard for the party for five years when the party was not in power.
Either they will switch sides or go for non-cooperation. In both cases, the party will be at loss. A second important reason is that when you are giving tickets to politicians who come from the ruling party, you also own their anti-incumbencies. Thus, the anti-incumbency of the ruling party (in this case, the BJP) became the anti-incumbency for the challenging party (in this case, the SP).
Mindless accommodation of quitters from the ruling party always impacts the challenging party’s poll impact. Just analyse the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly election. It’s a fact that Mamata Banerjee’s government was facing huge anti-incumbency. As a leader, Mamata was popular but her MLAs are mostly unpopular.
The BJP made a cardinal mistake of accepting all TMC leaders who were facing anti-incumbency. By doing so, the BJP lost the support of its hardcore worker and leaders who had worked for the last five years and also had to bear the brunt of the anti-incumbency feelings of the imported MLA candidates. The result was that the BJP gave a huge mandate to TMC on a platter.
That’s why my suggestion to Akhilesh Yadav is to trust its original loyal workers and leaders. Strategically, it can accommodate very few leaders of other parties. But mindless accommodation of other party leaders would have an adverse impact on its poll prospect. Just take a cue from the BJP’s loss in West Bengal!
At last, I would use a caveat to my above analysis. In India, politics is always a game of perception. The SP rightly started the game of perception that communities are deserting the BJP. If it can win this perception game, then it can perhaps win the Assembly election. It’s up to the BJP how to defeat SP’s perceptional tactic. If it succeeds in changing SP’s perceptional narrative, then it will retain the power, else they might lose.