Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 22, 2014, 08:28:14 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  International General Discussion (Moderators: Peter, afleitch)
| | |-+  Indian Politics and Political Parties - General Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Indian Politics and Political Parties - General Discussion  (Read 2186 times)
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1786
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

P
View Profile
« Reply #50 on: July 05, 2014, 02:34:53 pm »
Ignore

1984

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA     126,599,922           50.72%            541             431
NDA      17,597,326             7.05%             233                1
LF         21,791,496             8.73%             133              31
NF         45,610,809           18.27%            368              59
LDF       15,375,787             6.16%            185                4
RF           7,380,467             2.96%                                15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          93.90%                               541  out of 541 seats

After the election of 1980, Sanjay Gandhi passed away in an airplane accident which in turn led Rajiv Gandhi to enter politics to take his place in the INC.  The BJP which is just the new version of BJS also split from JNP taking some SWA supporters as well as INC(J) which is really just CFD did so as well.  This left JNP with the original INC(O) plus various INC regional splinters plus some SOC supporters.  BJP became the pivot party of NDA on the right and the rump JNP became pivot party of NF.  JNP(S) became LKD and went off on its own to form its own front (LDF which is Lok Dal Front) and retained some OBC support in Northern India.  In the period between 1980 and 1984, the JNP which was crushed in Northern India actually started to pick up strength in INC stronghold of Karnataka where the JNP was dominated by the original INC(O) faction.  In AP the TDP emerged as a regional party which was aligned with NF and was able to defeat INC is one of the old INC strongholds.  The INC reverses in Karnataka and AP gave opposition hope that if NDA NF and LDF could cooperate in Northern India and then perhaps UPA could be checked in the 1985 elections.  The crisis in Punjab and assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984 changed that.  UPA called early elections to cash in on the sympathy  wave in 1984 and lead to a massive UPA win.

1) The UPA swapped partners in TN and went with AIADMK as opposed to DMK in 1980.  If the UPA shifted right in 1980 from 1971 and 1977, the UPA of 1984 wen even further to the right to cash in on the national unity vote in the aftermath of anti-Sikh riots in Delhi.  UPA was so successful in picking up the NDA vote that even RSS which is the parent organization of BJP, seeing that NDA could not win, supported UPA in many states.  In many ways the 1984 election from the INC point of view was a bizzaro version of 1977.  The UPA completely swept in Northern India both on a swing toward UPA from 1980 as well as splintered opposition between NDA NF and LDF which was the reverse of 1977 when an united anti-UPA alliance crushed UPA in Northern India.  On the other hand, UPA lost ground in Karnataka and was crushed to an all opposition NF dominated opposition in AP whereas in 1977 UPA won a massive victory in these two states.  In 1977 the UPA also did well in Assam and J&K which were one of the few places it did well in Northern India.  In 1980 the UPA was crushed by proto-AGP and lost significant ground in J&K to JKN.  In both states, INC rebels played its part in the defeat of UPA in these two states.   The only part of the 1977 and 1984 elections which were consistent were the UPA victories of TN and Kerela.  

2) The NDA which was reduced to BJP managed only to win one seat as it only ran in Northern India.  The BJP won a second seat in AP but that was won with BJP joining NF in AP.  The NDA vote share is not disastrous as it showed that the basic BJS vote was still mostly intact and any loses to UPA were temporary due to the sympathy factor and national unity consolidation behind UPA in light of the riots.  The UPA victory showed that the trend of the electorate it toward the right and on the long run NDA can benefit from this.  This is the low point of NDA as their fortunes will rise from here.

3) The LF maintained their vote share and lost some seats in the LF bastions of WB and Kerela
due to sympathy factor.  NF parties did not join LF in places like Kerela and WB helped UPA. The fact that LF was able to survive this UPA wave shows the resiliency of the LF in their heartland.  There were various places where LF parties just joined NF like in AP Karnataka Maharashtra Orissa and TN or had tactical understanding with NF where some seats were saved from the UPA wave.  

4) The NF of 1984 is really the NDA of 1980 without BJP.  The NF also roped in TDP which was a strong regional rival of INC in AP.  Regional parties like DMK and SAD are also on board.  The TDP did well as part of the anti-INC trend toward TDP during this period and SAD did well due to the Sikh factor.  JNP did gain some ground in Karnataka.  But other than that NF was wiped out due to the surge of UPA as well as the split of NDA NF and LDF vote in Northern India.  INC(U) which became ICS was much reduced but still had some pockets of strength and was able to win 3 seats.   In a ray of hope of the future NF did improve in Karnataka and was able to sweep AP most based on BJP joining NF in these two states as well as LKD being non-entities in Southern India ergo did not split the UPA vote.  

5) LDF which was just LKD and some pro-LKD independents in Bihar and UP was mostly a OBC party in Northern India only won 4 seats despite a pretty good vote share in place where they were strong.  INC(J) which split from JNP and was the successor party of CFD from 1997 joined LDF in Haryana and Bihar but it was to no avail as far as eating into the UPA seat share.  The split factor between anti-UPA fronts was a factor but sometimes the raw votes of the UPA was so high even a united effort could not stop UPA in Northern India.

6) RF in terms of vote and seats was dominated by proto-AGP which won 7 out of 14 seats in Assam and beating UPA for the first time in history.  JKN did well and won 3 seats in J&K beating back INC there.   INC(J) had some strength in UP and Rajasthan but did not join LDF and only reached limited understanding there with LDF.  INC has significant rebellion, especially in Assam and was a factor in the victory of proto-AGP, and INC rebels won 2 seats.  

Overall this election was called the greatest Indian election landslide mostly by looking at the vote share of INC which was close to 50% in 1984.  If you look at it from a front point of view, the UPA won less vote share in 1984 when compared to 1971.  From a seat share point of view the UPA of 1984 was slightly more but that is more of a function of an even more splintered opposition.  IN 1971 UPA had a tactical understanding with CF and as a result did not contest everywhere which makes the vote and seat share in 1971 that much more impressive relative to 1984.  Also UPA had the weight of a sympathy wave in 1984.  From my point of view what UPA accomplished in 1971 is still more impressive than 1984.  One thing that is interesting is that the greatest UPA victories to this date are still 1971 and 1984 when UPA either swung to the left (1971) or right (1984) and gobbled up the vote share of another front (LF in 1971 and NDA in 1984) while retaining its core vote.  The true independents and minor parties won about 6% of the vote which makes it more polarized than the 1952-1967 period but is consistent with 1980. We are well into a period of solidified party and front system and little is left for anyone outside that system.  
« Last Edit: July 20, 2014, 08:50:15 am by jaichind »Logged

Chinese from Taiwan Province.  Now in New York City suburb of Scarsdale.  Ex-GOP now Libertarian.
The important thing is not how they vote but how we count.             - Stalin
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1786
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

P
View Profile
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2014, 03:19:58 pm »
Ignore

1989

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA     125,154,417           41.61%            529             215
NDA      36,503,888            12.14%            251              91
LF         29,292,986             9.74%             131              49
NF        77,494,110            25.76%            357             154
BF          6,213,390              2.07%            245                3
JF           3,029,743              1.01%            155                0
RF          9,357,591              3.11%                                17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          95.44%                               529  out of 529 seats

After the 1984 UPA landslide, like all things, good times came to an end for UPA.  Regional blowups in Assam and Punjab continued leading to the rise of radical regional elements and undermining the national unity plank of the UPA in 1984.  Rajiv Gandhi's regime had several corruption scandals and trying to hold on to the huge UPA coalition from 1984 was not feasible which merely led to everyone in the camp being unhappy and in turn leading to defections.  First Jan Morcha (JM) was formed by V. P. Singh and other anti-Rajiv Gandhi INC rebels.  Then JNP, LKD, and JM merged into Janata Dal (JD).  A faction of JNP refused this merger can continued as JNP which only had some influence in Karnataka Bihar and UP.  In an equally troubling development for UPA, BSP was formed as a Dalit Party with All India ambitions and had the potential of taking away a significant part of the UPA voting bloc.  When the 1989 elections came JD was the leader of the NF. Remembering the debacles of 1980 and 1984, especially in Northern India, the JD-led NF sought to minimize the diffusion of anti-UPA vote by creating tactically alliances with both BJP-led NDA and LF.  Other than AP where BJP and LF parties joined NF led by TDP, NDA and LF due to ideological disagreements did not have tactical alliances but with NF playing the pivot front the UPA faced stiff challenges, especially in Northern India.

1) If 1984 was bizzaro 1977 for UPA, then 1989 is bizzaro 1984 for UPA.  In other words, 1989 was a mini-1977 for UPA.   UPA was crushed by the NDA NF LF tactical alliances across the board in Northern India, especially in UP and Bihar.  It was not as bad as 1977 but the defeats were significant.  In places like Gujarat, MP, Orissa, and Rajasthan the UPA also faced significant setbacks.  In Maharashtra the NDA and NF failed to go into tactical alliances and UPA did reasonably well.   In WB, UPA lost ground from 1984 as NF and LF was able to have tactical alliances to defeat UPA. As NF regional governments in AP and Karnataka runs into problems, UPA was able to do over well in these two Southern States and also did well in TN and Kerela.  JKN rejoined UPA and as a result UPA had a clean sweep in J&K.  Overall the vote share for UPA of 41.61% is quite respectable and usually is enough for a significant victory. The UPA victory was spoiled by the NF NDA LF tactically alliances in Northern India.

2) NDA lost some of its voting based to UPA in 1984 but as the UPA stumbles the rightist votes came back.  Due to tactical alliances with NF, the NDA was able to claim a large number of seats in Northern India.  Shiv Sena(SHS) emerged as a national force in Maharashtra as a member of NDA along with a significant number of SHS supported independents.  NDA emerged as the main opposition to UPA in Maharashtra.  In Punjab after the splintering of the SAD, the rump SAD went with NDA but was a very minor force and came up with nothing.  

3) LF regained lost ground in WB due to good coordination with NF although it still did poorly in Kerela.  All in all, LF vote share increased slightly from 1984 but was able to win more seats.  As the UPA declined it seems that it is NDA and NF that is gaining ground while LF is standing still.  In that sense the election of 1989 is a warning signal to LF that it is not able to expand beyond its traditional bastions.  Even as CPI and CPM was able to win some votes in places like AP TN  Orissa, and Rajasthan, they only occurred as they joined NF in those states.

4) NF made the greatest gains in this election and was able to win a large number of seats given the number of votes it got.  It was defeated in Karnataka and AP by UPA despite the fact that TDP was able to reassemble the anti-UPA grand alliance of 1984.  In Karnataka the faction of JNP that refused to merged into JD did not help matters by running on its own.  In Northern India NF did make good gains and took a large number of seats as they benefited from the NF NDA LF tactical alliances.  In many states LF parties just joined NF which also helped.  In Punjab the impact of what took place in 1984 and the rise of radical insurgency splintered the SAD into many factions.  The moderate SAD(B) was part of NF but was completely crushed by the radical SAD(M).

5) BF which is the front led by BSP is a dalit based party.  It only took a bit more than 2% of the vote but did make a good showing in UP, Punjab and MP where there are significant number of dalits.  BF pretty much took its vote share from UPA which used to dominate the dalit vote in every election other than 1977.

6) JF or JNP Front is pretty much the rump JNP which did not win any seats but took a good chunk of votes.  It did manage to eat into the vote share of NF in places like Karnataka as well as places like UP and Bihar.

7) RF in 1989 is first of all the SAD(M) which is an extremist splinter of SAD which advocates for the independence of Punjab and SAD(M) backed independents sweep Punjab and took 9 seats.  In Punjab, UPA, NDA, LF, NF, and BSP all put up candidates and split the anti-extremist vote and allowed the SAD(M) plus allies to sweep Punjab.  So here is a case where the splinter of the vote actually helped SAD(M) and not UPA.  JMM also emerged as a more radical version of the old Jharkhand Party and took 3 seats.  Various small regional parties took the rest of the seats for RF.  Assam did not hold elections in 1989 as the AGP regime was still sorting out the voter lists.  All in all there are a lot less rebels running in 1989, especially for INC.  For the first time, IPF, which is a front for the Maoist Naxalites and should be seen as a proto-CPI(ML), won a seat.  The IPF has its based in the Jkharhand part of Bihar.  PMK also ran for the first time as another regional party in TN.  It is mostly based on the Vanniyar caste and advocates the bifurcation of TN where Northern TN would be dominated by Vanniyars.  PMK gained a significant bloc of votes but no seats.

The 1989 election ended in a minority government led by NF which support of LF and NDA from the outside.  Going by the vote shares of the various fronts, the UPA should have won this election with margin to spare.  Good coordination between NF NDA and LF prevented this but the large UPA vote share also meant that deep down Rajiv Gandhi did not accept defeat and was working in the background to come back to power ASAP.  It is interesting that the sum of the 3 fronts (NDA LF and NF) added up to around 47.6% of the vote which is not that much bigger than UPA at 41.6%, yet with the vote share splintered 3 ways the UPA should have won especially with LF and NDA not having any coordination outside AP.  In retrospect this makes sense in the sense that places that LF has strength (WB, Kerela) or pockets of strength (Orissa, TN, Karnataka) the NDA is very weak and could do no damage and in places where NDA is strong (MP, Rajasthan, Delhi, Gujarat) the LF is very weak and could do no damage leaving the NDA and NF to work out tactical alliances.  Gujarat was a place where the NF NDA tactically understanding was especially efficient.  The real opportunity for UPA that was missed was in places like Bihar and UP where NDA and NF did manage good tactical understandings.  AP, like I said, did have pockets of NDA and LF strength but NF did a good job of bring them together.  The place where UPA was able to take advantage of the splintered vote was Maharashtra where NDA, LF and NF all put up candidates and as a result UPA was able to do very well.  The polarized nature of the election mean a somewhat smaller world for the minor parties and truly independent which took a bit less than 5% of the vote.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2014, 02:12:26 pm by jaichind »Logged

Chinese from Taiwan Province.  Now in New York City suburb of Scarsdale.  Ex-GOP now Libertarian.
The important thing is not how they vote but how we count.             - Stalin
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1786
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

P
View Profile
« Reply #52 on: July 08, 2014, 09:53:39 am »
Ignore

1991

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA     109,448,946           39.34%            532             259
NDA      58,053,031            20.87%            495             124
TF         78,105,783            28.07%            528             138
BF           5,015,347             1.80%             243                3
SF           9,295,062             3.34%             350                5
RF           8,305,717             2.99%                                   5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          96.41%                               534  out of 534 seats

The NF government which had to balance the interests of its elements as well as the NDA and LF which supported it from the outside became too difficult as time went on.   Seeing that this arrangement could not last the various elements of this grand coalition acted in a way which made the fall of the NF government even sooner.  JD pushed the Mandal report recommendation which gave quotas for OBCs in order to consolidate the OBC vote for NF while the BJP pushed the Ram Temple movement to consolidate the Hindu vote for NDA.  A year into the NF government it fell due to NDA withdrawing support over the Ram temple issue.  Chandra Shekhar, who was the president of Janata Party before it merged into JNP in 1988, now split from JD to from Samajwadi Janata Party (SJP) and formed a government with outside support of UPA.  This arrangement did not last long as the long term goal of of UPA is to come back to power on its own.  As a result the 1991 elections was provoked.  NF and LF ran as a common front which I call Third Front (TF).  TF was not really named that way until 1996 but as I mentioned before I name fronts in a retroactive manner.  Part of the reason LF and NF merged is mostly a belief in LF parties that LF could never come to power on its own and that a merger with NF could produce such an front.  The fall of the Eastern Bloc was a factor in this thinking as well as the stagnation of LF since 1971.  SJP which also then merged with JNP which was the JNP faction that refused to merge with JD in 1988 ran a separate SJP front which I label as SF.  This is ironic as in 1988 it was Chandra Shekhar that led JNP to merge with JD which led to the split in the JNP with JNP becoming the faction that refused to merge.  Now Chandra Shekhar and SJP is merging with that same JNP which opposed Chandra Shekhar's move in 1988.   As the election started it seems that the momentum was with NDA as the UPA was shown up as power hungry by backing SF to from a government and then pulling the plug.  The TF as well as SF were shown to be not effective in holding together a government.  If the election when on without other factors NDA would have gained a slight advantage over UPA and a 1996 situation would have taken place.  But in the middle of the election Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by Tamil extremists and the resulting sympathy wave pulled UPA to a mark close to majority and was able to form a government under Rao, himself a compromise candidate between the various INC factions.

1) Like 1989 UPA went with AIADMK in TN.  This was a chance for DMK which was part of TF due to a new leader in AIADMK, Jayalalitha, which is untested and led a divided AIADMK as the widow of AIADMK leader MGR led the other faction.  But this opening was lost due to the Rajiv Gandhi assassination factor and UPA was able to sweep TN.  UPA continued to lose ground in UP and Bihar as the OBC vote consolidated around TF, Dalits around BF, and upper caste vote consolidated around NDA.  Worse, since TF fell out with NDA over the Ram temple issue, even Muslims in places like UP and Bihar are looking to TF as its new home and away from UPA.  In old UPA strongholds of AP, Karnataka, and Maharashtra the UPA was able to translate the sympathy factor to UPA victories.  Likewise the UPA was able to do fairly well in places where NDA is usually strong and was expected to sweep like MP and Rajasthan.  In Gujarat JD splinter JD(G) joined UPA to stop NDA, but the upper caste OBC Hindu consolidation there in favor of NDA sweep UPA.  UPA was able to do well in Punjab mostly because SAD mostly boycotted the polls as the insurgency continued leaving UPA to sweep the Sikh districts.  J&K had an insurgency of its own and there were no polls in 1991 in J&K.  In Assam UPA did not win many votes but won the majority of seats due to the split between NDA, TF, AGP and AGP splinter NAGP.  Overall, despite continued decline in UP and Bihar the UPA was able to well enough in other places to come close to a majority.

2) NDA grew by leaps and bounds in this election in two different ways.  First, it was able to grab the upper caste vote from UPA in Northern India, especially in UP and Bihar.  This gave it credibility as an real alternative to UPA which in turn attracted other anti-UPA votes.  NDA would have won 1991 if it was not for the Rajiv Gandhi assassination.  The main problem with NDA was its inability to expand into Southern and Western India and as part of that, its inability to attract allies other than the Hindu radical SHS.  SAD historically as allied with BJS in regional Punjab elections but SAD was a non factor this year.

3) TF was able to hold its own in old LF strongholds like WB but was defeated by UPA in Kerela.  TF regained some ground in AP but was still beaten by UPA.  In Northern India, the split of SJP cost TF dearly in Upper caste heavy UP where NDA dominated although in Bihar where OBC are more dominate the TF did well to beat back NDA.  NDA has some strength in the Jharkhand part of Bihar but that was blunted by JMM joining TF and beating back NDA there.  In Haryana INC splinter HVP joined TF but could not stop the UPA as the NDA, TF, and SF split the anti-UPA vote.   Overall the TF clearly was hurt by the defection of SJP but was able to consolidate itself as the center-left alternative to UPA and NDA.

4) BF lost some ground as some of its Dalit base went over the NDA in the Hindu consolidation as part of the Ram temp movement in UP.   But in terms of seats it was able to hold the same 3 seats and in a worrying trend for UPA, the Dalit base overall is staying with BF and not going back to UPA.

5) SF won a good chuck of votes but not enough to translate into many seats as SJP took 5 seats.  SJP had some strength based on the the personalities that were in the party. Deve Gowda which would later become PM and then form JD(S) gave SJP a foothold in Karnataka.   Chandra Shekhar gave SJP some support in pockets of UP, and Devi Lal, and old anti-UPA politician gave SJP a good base in Haryana although it was only enough to split the anti-UPA vote and hand the state to UPA.

6)  For RF the biggest vote bloc is AGP in Assam now that Assam is part of the 1991 elections.  AGP suffered a split and NAGP also ran and handed UPA a victory in Assam with AGP winning only 1 seat and NAGP none.  PMK again took a good bloc of votes but no seats and the same for the Maoist IPF where it lost its only seat from 1989.  Various Northeast regional forces took the rest of the seats for RF.

In terms of vote share the UPA actually won a smaller vote share in 1991 when compared to 1989.  This shows the erosion of the UPA especially in places like UP and Bihar that even a sympathy wave lead to a smaller vote share.  The erosion is mainly due to the rise of NDA as a front for upper caste and Hindu identity politics, TF for OBCs and Muslims, and BF for Dalits.   Of course note that the UPA seat count improved from 1989 despite a smaller vote share due to the falling out of NDA, TF, and SF where there was no longer tactically alliances to stop UPA in 1989.  Only about 3.5% of the vote share are for the truly independent and minor parties and is  a further polarization from 1989 as the salient issue of Mandir (Temple) and Mandal become areas of political cleavage.   To some extent, all elections 1991 and after will follow the same pattern of UPA vs NDA vs TF and with the roughly the same social composition for these blocs.  1991 is the first election of the new party system in India.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 07:48:04 pm by jaichind »Logged

Chinese from Taiwan Province.  Now in New York City suburb of Scarsdale.  Ex-GOP now Libertarian.
The important thing is not how they vote but how we count.             - Stalin
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1786
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

P
View Profile
« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2014, 11:01:04 pm »
Ignore

1996

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA      99,823,125            29.81%            543             144
NDA      80,015,892            23.89%            526             186
TF         85,549,518            25.55%            486             138
BF         19,472,299             5.81%             262              19
CRF         6,184,009             1.85%             349                5
TNRF     15,124,176              4.52%             40               39
RF           9,645,377              2.88%                                12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          94.31%                               543  out of 543 seats

The UPA government lasted a lot longer than most had expected as Rao was merely a compromise candidate between the various INC factions who now has no one from the Nehru-Gandhi family to control them.  But somehow it lasted the destruction of the Barbi Masque in 1992 and other corruption scandals as time wore on an lasted the full term.  The economic record of the Rao government after economic reforms was mostly positive which kept UPA in the game.  But Rao lack of self-confidence actually drove a style of governance which was destructive for unity and as the election started it was clear 1996 was the year of INC rebels.  First an entire coalition of anti-Rao INC leaders split and from the AIIC(T) and created the CRF rebel front.  In Karnataka KCP split as a INC regional splinter.  MPVC in MP split from INC and INC had huge number of rebels running against official INC candidates.  It was very bad in Maharastra where many INC leaders raised the banner of revolt and fought as independents.  In Arunchal Pradesh, INC rebels had occupied the entire political space.   Then when Rao insisted on forming an alliance with the unpopular AIADMK in TN,  a TN INC splinter broke rank and split from INC and formed an alliance with DMK as separate front which I call Tamil Nadu Regional Front (TNRF.)  On the Third Front side Samata Party which was for lower OBCs split from JD in Bihar claiming that JD in Bihar was dominated by higher OBCs in 1994.  SP also split from SJP and became the dominate party in UP in the center-left space.  The much truncated SJP which still had some strength in Bihar, Harayana and UP then merged into Samata.  Samata, UPA, and NDA all ran separately in the 1995 Bihar Assembly and was defeated by JD.  Samata was so desperate to defeat JD in Bihar that it joined NDA even though until very recently Samata was one of the harshest critics of BJP.   TDP itself also split where NTRTDP was formed by TDP NTR Rao after he was overthrown by his son-in-law Naidu.  Rao son died and his widow carried on leading NTRTDP.  Overall, as the election started it seems like a three way tie between UPA NDA and TF but as the INC rebellions continued UPA's fortunes began to sink.

1) UPA lost ground across the board due to a whole range of rebels and splinters impacting is vote bank.  UPA lost ground to NDA in Maharastra due to a large number of INC rebels.  UPA failed to regain ground in UP and Bihar, lost ground to the reunited AGP which is now in TF in Assam.  UPA did avoid major losses in AP as TDP split and made gains in Orissa as TF faltered there.  UPA was totally wiped out in TN and lost ground to LF in Kerela.  UPA was also defeated by NDA in Haryana and Delhi as well as SAD led BF in Punjab.  Overall the UPA vote share and seat share was seen as a significant defeat relative to what was expected before the election campaign started.

2) NDA's big breakthrough in 1991 paid dividends in 1996 in terms of attracting allies as NDA as seems as a long term viable force.  SAP's  Bihar, UP and AP wings allied with NDA to stop JD in Bihar.  Although the SAP Party in Haryana ran separately from NDA and later would split and become proto-INLD.   Instead NDA got HVP to join it from TF.  The BJP-HVP is especially cynical because HVP leader Bansi Lal was part of INC back in the 1970s and was the CM of Haryana during the 1975-1977 Emergency.  During that period he was a vanguard against BJS had a harsh crackdown on the RSS/BJS activists.  He was considered a top enemy by BJS.  Now they are in an alliance.  These alliances worked as NDA was able to sweep Bihar and Haryana.  NDA also did well in Maharastra with the BJP-SHS alliance and took advantage of the UPA rebellions there.  NDA also continued to do well in UP as the vote there is split between NDA, TF and BF even though its vote share in UP was not that large.  As a result NDA was the largest front in terms of seats but under-performed UPA and TF in terms of vote share.  This is because NDA won most of its seats in various multi-corned battle states.

3) TF which had signs of falling apart after 1991 managed to stabilize itself.  This is mostly due to getting SP to join TF as to avoid the split of the old JD vote base in UP which SP has now mostly inherited.  As a result TF was able to hold its 1991 ground in UP.  AGP joining TF also help it gain ground in Assam from UPA.  Going by the results of thte 1994 AP Assembly landslide for TF, TF had expected to make gains in AP. But TF failed to gain ground in AP due to the TDP split.  TF also made a wrong bet when JD refused to join forces with TMC and DMK in TN which led to the TMC and DMK running separately as TNRF in TN away from TF.  Instead TF consisted of JD, DMK splinter MDMK, and CPM in TN.  This split of the TF votes as DMK was in TF had the risk of handing victory to UPA.  It turns out that the anti-AIADMK was so bad in TN that this split did not prevent the TNRF from making a complete sweep in TN.  LF parties continue to dominate in WB and give TF a good slice of seats from WB.  Overall the TF results plus those of TNRF exceeded expectations and formed the basis to make a claim on power.

4) BF managed to rope in SAD in Punjab and the combined Dalit-Jat combination was able to sweep Punjab.  BSP managed to improve its seat count in UP but was clearly running third behind NDA and TF despite a sizable vote base.  BSP also had a breakthrough in MP and got a couple of seats there.  BF got JD and NTRTDP to join it in AP but ended up with zero seats contrary to the expectations of a sympathy wave for the recently deceased NTR Rao.  BF did managed to eat in TF votes in AP to hand a victory to UPA.

5) CRF is really mostly AIIC(T) which is a all India anti-Rao INC splinter.  It managed to rope in PMK in TN and KCP in Karnataka. Overall CRF did not win much seats (5) but managed to damage the UPA in many places like MP, TN, UP and several other states.  

6) TNRF consisted of INC splinter TMC, DMK and CPI which choose to join TNRF in TN.  It managed to sweep TN in a 5 corned contest between UPA, NDA, TF, CRF and TNRF.  The swing against UPA was massive from 1991.  Whereas UPA got around 60% of the vote in TN due to the Rajiv Gandhi assassination factor, in 1991 UPA only got 25% of the vote.  Since he tradition in TN elections is that the INC runs a greater share of candidates in national elections relative to its regional partner and the reverse in assembly elections, this tradition continued in CRF (relative to AIIC(T) and PMK) as well as TNRF (relative to TMC and DMK).  This meant in many seats there were 3 INC candidates (one from INC, one from AIIC(T) and one from TMC) facing off against each other.  We should really see TNRF as an associated front of TF since DMK has close ties to TF and in the post-election scenario TNRF and TF will join hands.

7) RF is firstly consisted of INC rebels running as independents who won a large chunch of the vote and won 3 seats.  In Arunchal Pradesh INC rebels which was really proto-AC won another 2 seats.  SAP in Haryana which is really proto-INLD did not join NDA but did win a seat as did KCP which is the Karnataka INC splinter.  Rest of seats are won by small regional players.

After the election which produce no front even close to majority (which is a first), the NDA was invited to form a government but lasted 13 days as UPA and TF parities refused to break ranks and support NDA.  One benefit of this 13 day government at least was that SAD broke from SF to join NDA by supporting the NDA government.  Atlas, it was not enough for a majority.  Then a TF-TNRF government was then formed with outside support from UPA.  1996 was really the story of how Rao made so many enemies within UPA that he lost an election he perhaps could have won given the economic record.  Rao's rule in INC was so negative that INC leaders were determined to get Sonia Gandhi into political life so a Nehru-Gandhi family member can bring order to UPA.  The vote share for the truly independent and minor players was almost 6% which means there is lower polarization from 1991.  It seems the electorate was ambivalent the UPA government and did not have strong feelings about any of the alternatives.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2014, 02:14:04 pm by jaichind »Logged

Chinese from Taiwan Province.  Now in New York City suburb of Scarsdale.  Ex-GOP now Libertarian.
The important thing is not how they vote but how we count.             - Stalin
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1786
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

P
View Profile
« Reply #54 on: July 13, 2014, 04:25:12 pm »
Ignore

1998

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA     101,103,769           27.45%            501             149
NDA     137,733,067           37.39%            540             257
TF          80,056,496           21.73%            477              98
BF         17,989,880             4.88%             254                9
JM         15,389,606             4.18%             184              19
BRF         1,572,884             0.43%              35                 0
RF           6,521,161             1.77%                                 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          97.83%                               543  out of 543 seats

The TF government that took over after the 1996 election was crisis ridden. Internal contradictions were a source of crisis as well as internal battles within UPA after Rao was forced out of INC leadership after the 1996 defeat.  The INC internal contradictions caused the UPA to threaten to pull support for TF government twice and the second time it lead to the fall of the TF government and early elections in 1998.  All this pretty much meant that both UPA and TF had lost credibility and was in complete meltdown as the elections started.  The NDA was on strong shape although BJP did suffer a split where RJP which is mainly based in Gujarat and Bihar split off.  SAP also suffered a split as SJP which had merged into SAP for the 1996 elections split back out again.  But this is nothing compared the splits in UPA and TF.  Angry at the UPA support for TF government which included the hated LF, the WB wing of INC split off to form AITC which then joined NDA.  INC in Bihar also split with BJC split being a regional splinter.   MSCP in Manipur and AC in Arunchal Pradesh also split off from INC.  A large number of INC politicians were also defected over to BJP.  BKKP which was led by Aijt Singh split from INC in UP.  BKKP is really proto-RLD and the successor party to Charan Singh's BLD.  Ajit Singh merged his supporters into INC back in the early 1990s and now split back out again dealing a blow to UPA in Western UP.  Also in the UP assembly INC tried to join forces with BSP and SP to topple the BJP government but that merely provoked the upper caste faction of INC to split off and form ABLTC in 1997 which in turn joined NDA.  Overall the UPA looked like it was headed for a complete meltdown.  This was halted by the reactivation of Sonia Gandhi into national politics since 1991 when her husband Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated.  Her joining INC and then campaigning for UPA turned the fortunes of UPA around.  Large number of rebels from 1996, especially in Maharashtra and those from AIIC(T) came back to rejoin INC.  On the TF side, Lalu Yadav in Bihar JD split off and formed RJD.  Then Lalu Yadav created the Jan Morcha (JM) front which pulled in RJD, RJP, JMM, SJP, BKKP, and JTP.  JM had the goal of forming an alliance with both UPA and BF to stop NDA, mostly in UP and Bihar.  In reality BSP in UP refused to cooperate with JM and parities like JMM and INC in UPA only had partial cooperation in UP and Bihar.  What was left of TF in Bihar tried to pull together an alliance including JD, CPI, CPM, SP and the Maoist CPI(ML)(L).  Even this limited alliance could not hold together as SP and CPI(ML)(L) split off to create their own Leftist Bihar Regional Front (BRF) in Bihar.  In Orissa, BJD split off from JD and joined NDA.  In Karnataka, LS split from JD and joined NDA.  Overall UPA and TF are in bad shape and NDA looking strong.

1) UPA was going to get completely crushed without Sonia Gandhi but with her arrival morale soared and as a result UPA got a respectable result relative to the complete meltdown scenario at the beginning of the 1998 elections.  UPA still was nowhere in UP and Bihar despite some tactical understanding with JM and BF which only benefited JM in Bihar and was ineffective in UP.  In Maharashtra the UPA soundly defeated NDA due to the return of INC rebels, unity of all INC factions and SP joining UPA in Maharashtra along with RPI.   A similar grand alliance in Punjab with CPI and BSP joining UPA there was soundly defeated by NDA which had a SAD-BJP alliance.   In the Hindu heartland outside UP and Bihar, the Sonia Gandhi factor did play out and UPA held its ground.  But Sonia Gandhi could not stop other routs for UPA.  In WB, the UPA was wiped out as AITC went over to NDA.  In TN a similar disaster where BJP lured AIADMK, PMK, MDMK, and JNP into NDA and a pro-AIADMK faction of INC joined AIADMK to protest the loss of the AIADMK as an ally.   The result was a complete wipe out for UPA as its pro-DMK faction formed TMC back in 1996 and went with TF along with DMK in 1998 and the pro-AIADMK faction is also lost as well.  In Assam, the AGP government was losing steam and UPA was able to sweep the state despite AGP joining TF.  Overall the UPA did not contest all seats due to tactical adjustments with JM even though it only yield a couple of seats in Bihar and none in UP.  Had UPA contested in all seats its vote share might have been around 29% which meant it kept its 1996 base intact once we took into account the desertion of AIADMK and AITC as well as the homecoming of various other INC rebels from 1996.

2) NDA went from strength to strength in 1998 and looked to get a majority on its own until Sonia Gandhi got into the act.  NDA did rope in parties like AITC in WB as well as AIADMK, PMK, MDMK, and JNP in TN.  In TN the massive victory of DMK-TMC provoked parties like MDMK and PMK to join forces with AIADMK and BJP in the NDA to beat back TF.   In WB NDA did well and ate into the LF vote and seat share.  In TN the NDA unexpectedly defeated TF led by DMK-TMC.  BJD in Orissa also joined NDA which was an area of NDA weakness and was able to sweep the state over UPA and TF.  LS in Karnataka joined NDA and was able to defeat both UPA and TF.  In Punjab, SAD went with NDA this time and was able to defeat the UPA alliance there.  In AP, NTRTDP joined NDA but was not to break into the voting blocs of UPA and TF who shared honors.  In Maharashtra the SHS-BJP government was becoming unpopular and as a result a grand UPA alliance defeated NDA.  The NDA continued is traditional of UP and Bihar and won the largest bloc of seats there. Overall the NDA came close to a majority on its own.

3) TF was hit by a series of splits and hurt it badly as an electoral force.  It was saved somewhat by SP gaining some ground in UP and LF parties still holding WB overall.  In AP and TN the TF parties lost ground but still won some seats.  Given the fact that from 1996 the TNRF merged into TF, the swing against TF is quite large.  Part of it of course are defections from TF like the creation of JM front, as well as defection of LS in Karnataka and BJD in Orissa.   Overall the TF government was seen as a fiasco and the election results reflected that.

4) BF started the election with a goal of creating intra-front alliances to gain ground.  Mayawati in UP was opposed to this so this was implemented only in a nominal way.  In Haryana, HLD which was the SJP in Haryana which split from SJP joined BF and was able to sweep the state.  In UP BF was defeated and lost ground in a state dominated by BJP and SP.  In Bihar, a tactical understanding in JM and UPA did not really help BF in any way.  Overall, BF suffered a setback in 1998.

5) JM which was meant by Lalu Yadav as a secular-left alliance that will work with like minded UPA and BF to defeat NDA.  It also was meant to squeeze the political space of TF which RJD split from.  It never really accomplished the first goal but did damage the TF.  It did hold its own in Bihar.  But overall JM failed in its goal of displacing the TF as the center-left force in India.

6) BRF should be seen separate TF alliance in Bihar and like the TF faced a complete wipe-out.  BRF and TF should have hanged together or it will hang separately like it did.

7) RF is firstly the return of JKN which managed to win the most J&K seats of 3.  Rest are a series of regional parties or INC rebels or INC splinters which all won a seat here or there.

NDA formed the government with outside support of TDP which bolted from TF.  TDP did not want to back a UPA government given that its main rival in AP is the UPA.  1998 was a very polarizing election as only around 2% of vote are for small parities or true independents.  This is understandable given the large number of fronts with national ambitions in the running.  The political conflict associated with the mid-term elections also served to polarize the electorate.  1998 could have been an election like 2014 where UPA completely melted down.  But Sonia Gandhi factor saved UPA.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 07:57:00 pm by jaichind »Logged

Chinese from Taiwan Province.  Now in New York City suburb of Scarsdale.  Ex-GOP now Libertarian.
The important thing is not how they vote but how we count.             - Stalin
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1786
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

P
View Profile
« Reply #55 on: July 20, 2014, 04:28:13 pm »
Ignore

1999

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                 
UPA     126,645,027           34.75%            539             140
NDA     149,587,446           41.05%            544             302
TF          49,079,052           13.47%            461              69
BF          15,770,997            4.33%             234              14
NF           9,593,808             2.63%             146              11
RF           5,298,931             1.45%                                   7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          97.68%                               543  out of 543 seats

The NDA government fell within a year due to the the falling out of the AIADMK and the NDA.  The NDA failed the vote of confidence by one vote.   Sonia Gandhi tried to form an alternative government and failed which did hurt her credibility although SP also lost the trust of minorities when it refused to back her.  As a result new elections came.  There was a gap between the fall of NDA and the new elections which meant a prolonged period of political realignments.   First, NCP split out from INC when Sharad Pawar refused to support Sonia Gandhi for PM.  This split UPA down the middle in Maharashtra and created the NF (NCP led front).   JM mostly dissolved itself into UPA with RJD and RLD (new name of BKKP) joining UPA and RJP merging with INC.  SJP and JMM did go their own separate ways.  With the battle lines between UPA and NDA drawn and along with it polarization, the JD was split down the middle.  JD split between JD(U) and JD(S). JD(U) was formed and merged with LS in Karnataka and SAP in Bihar.  JD(S) which was anti-NDA but did not align with UPA had some strength in Karnataka where it remained in TF and in Maharashtra where it joined NF.  TF was gravely weakned by the loss of one of its pivot party.  The TDP which supported the 1998 NDA government from outside continued its support for NDA in AP.  AIADMK went over to UPA while other TN parties like PMK and MDMK stayed in NDA and was joined by the DMK. This was a landmark as DMK was always the bulwark against the Brahman and Hindu nationalist order.  Now it was able to become an ally of BJP and join the NDA just to counter the DMK rival AIADMK.  In Haryana there was a swapping of partners as HVP left NDA to join BF and was replaced by INLD after a falling out between HVP and BJP.  In HP a new INC splinter HVC split from INC and joined NDA.  Other INC splinters like ABLTC in UP, TRC in TN, and AC in Arunchal Pradesh all joined NDA as part of the polarization at the front level.  The NDA threat did stir some anti-NDA TF parties into action.  In Punjab and TN, CPI and CPM both joined UPA to stop NDA.

1)  UPA did poorly when compared to what their expectations were when the election campaign started and before the various pro-NDA political realignments took place.  While it lost some seats when compared to 1998 it did actually gained a good bloc of votes in terms of vote share.  This is mostly because of the revival of UPA in UP which was not enough to gain a lot of seats but enough to make UPA relevant again after various disastrous outings starting in 1991 in UP.  In Bihar, UPA also gained ground in terms of vote share if not in seats due to the RJD joining UPA.  In Maharashtra the formation of NF hurt badly and UPA lost a bunch of seats.  It was not as bad as it could have been due to the poor record of the NDA state government of Maharashtra.  UPA was trounced in AP by the NDA due to the joining of NDA by TDP.  In Karnataka UPA did make gains as the JD was now split between JD(U) and JD(S).  JD(U)-BJP which formed the NDA in Karnataka on paper was stronger but the JD(U) brought with it negativity of the JD state government.  As a result UPA made gains in Karnataka.  People also point of 1999 as a disastrous election for INC and as the low point of INC.  If one looks at it from a front point of view, UPA lost some seats but gain a lot from 1998 from a vote share point of view which is a healthy indicator of the future.  The only reason this vote share increase did not lead to more seats is mostly because NDA gained even more vote share due to a surge of allies in NDA as well as polarization of the vote toward UPA and NDA.  On the whole, the seeds of UPA resurgence was planted in 1999.

2) NDA got a majority on its own unlike 1998.  The surge of allies that NDA managed to rope in was the main reason for this victory.  This was evident in places like Bihar where JD(U) joining NDA help beat back the NDA which now has RJD in it.  In AP it was a landslide for NDA as TDP joined NDA.  In TN, the swapping of DMK for AIADMK enlarged the NDA advantage there.  Only place NDA lost ground was in Punjab where the UPA which now includes CPI and CPM managed to sweep the polls there as a SAD splinter split the NDA vote there and UP where infighting between Upper Caste and OBC factions in the BJP plus the INC resurgence served to reduce the NDA strength.   Overall the nationwide mood was for the NDA to have a chance to implement its program from 1998 ergo NDA was reelected with a majority on its own.

3) TF lost ground due to the polarization of the vote between UPA and NDA.  JD(U) took what was left of TF strength in Bihar with it when it joined NDA.  Same for TDP in AP where TF was joined by ATDP which was a TDP splinter but was not able to capture any significant share of the vote.  It is almost as bad in Karnataka where a reduced JD(S) became the face of TF and was pushed to third place by UPA and NDA.   In WB, the LF parities lost ground to AITC-BJP as UPA was marginalized.  UP was a somewhat bright spot for TF.  In UP, despite losing some Muslim votes to INC, SP gained some OBC votes from BJP due to the infighting there and managed to make gains.  Overall the decline of TF continues.  It is clear that in the future TF will have to pick sides between UPA and NDA or else member parities will pick on its own and leave TF for dead.

4) BF continued its policy of limited alliances but not doing so for critical states like UP.  BF gained ground in UP as NDA weakens.  HVP joined BF in Haryana and SHSAD which is a SAD splinter joined BF in Punjab.  In neither case did these limited alliances lead to any seats. 

5) NF which is mostly NCP clearly took a lot of votes from UPA and to some extent TF, especially in Maharashtra.  NF did have some tactical alliances with TF in some states but overall did more harm than good to TF.  NF did not manage to win that many seats but did hurt UPA in the order of 20-30 seats by its formation.

6) RF is mostly JKN which won 4 seats and JMM which took a bunch of votes in the Jkharhand part of Bihar but did not win any seats.  Rest are various rebels of small regional parties.   In terms of seat and vote share the RF decline continues as the vote gets polarized toward UPA and NDA. 

The NDA form the government with a comfortable majority.  The alliance building of the NDA in 1999 is unrivaled in Indian election history with the NDA begin able to hold together so many regional and ideological differences in one alliance and got the vote share to add up to victory in such a FPTP system.  The stature of Vajpayee of the BJP was a critical element for this achievement.  Someone who is seen as more radical or controversial would not been able to hold NDA together.  The vote share of minor parities and true independents is, just like 1998, barely over 2% as the polarization between the UPA and NDA pulled in votes from all other sources.  While 1999 was seen as a significant defeat for UPA and victory for NDA, the seeds of the UPA revival was clearly established.   The revival of UPA and relative decline of NDA in UP bode well for UPA in the future.  Also since on the long run the anti-BJP vote is still larger than the pro-BJP vote, polarization of the vote could only help the UPA.  It was a matter of merging those anti-BJP votes together.   
Logged

Chinese from Taiwan Province.  Now in New York City suburb of Scarsdale.  Ex-GOP now Libertarian.
The important thing is not how they vote but how we count.             - Stalin
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines