Cong-JD(S) political chemistry key to how K'taka votes

Karnataka has not had a more fascinating and keenly contested Lok Sabha elections for quite some time. As the first round of the two-phase poll in the state begins on April 18, attention is clearly focussed on the straight electoral contest between the Congress-Janata Dal (Secular) JD (S) alliance on the one hand and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the other.

Never in the recent past, has the state witnessed a straight fight between the two contending political formulations. The results from the state would not only have critical national ramifications but could well decide the future of the coalition government in the state.

The backdrop for the polls in Karnataka would verily be the Assembly elections held a year ago. The voter in the state elected an Assembly in which no party emerged with a clear majority. While the BJP was ahead as the single largest party, it could not garner the required numbers even though provided an opportunity by the Governor.
This paved the way for the formation of a Congress-JD(S) coalition government, with the smaller partner in the alliance bagging the Chief Minister’s chair. It was clearly an alliance to keep the BJP out of power. It also cemented unity among the non-BJP forces in the state and was heralded as an experiment in uniting the ‘non-BJP Opposition’. The Lok Sabha elections from the state would be a critical test for the public response to this unity.

For all the three key players, this election is critical. For the BJP, doing well in Karnataka is vital as this state is its only gateway to the South. In 2014, riding on a pro-Modi wave in Karnataka, the BJP won 17 seats. The Congress had to remain content with just 9 seats, though this was its highest tally in any of the states of the country in 2014. The JD(S) won two seats from is traditional strongholds.

This time around, the Congress and the JD(S) were able to strike an alliance on seat sharing after protracted negotiations and heartburn in both camps. Both the parties concede that the alliance is a temporary arrangement for mutual survival and to challenge the BJP. It is clear that the ‘glue’ that holds them together is to keep the BJP from winning.

Many analysts have attempted to add up the vote share of the Congress and the JDS in the previous Assembly and Lok Sabha elections and have asserted that the ‘electoral arithmetic’ could well be in their favour. It is today conceded by most commentators that this election in Karnataka is not merely about the ‘math’ but about the ‘ground level chemistry’ that this election campaign is able to produce. It would be useful to assess the strengths and challenges faced by each of the political players in the electoral arena.

Factors in BJP’s campaign

The BJP clearly sees Karnataka as a critical contributor to its ‘272+’ game-plan. The frequent visits by the Prime Minister and other senior leaders of the party clearly underscore this point. The last time around (in 2014), all the BJP contestants from the state made it clear as part of their respective campaigns that electing them was ensuring one more seat for Narendra Modi in his prime ministerial bid.

The CSDS-Lokniti Post Poll data of 2014 categorically indicates that while there was a strong anti-United Progressive Alliance (UPA) sentiment in the state, the Modi factor was crucial in propelling the party to victory. Six of every ten of those who voted for the BJP in the state stated that Modi was the factor that led them to vote for the party. This time around too, the party is banking on this factor. Yet unlike 2014, the BJP needs to defend its track record in governance rather than challenge the incumbent.

The BJP has also played it safe by not replacing any of its sitting MPs, save one. Many of them are completing more than two terms and there could well be a ‘mild breeze of anti-incumbency’. Further, its claim to being a ‘party with a difference’, stands questioned with its giving tickets to several leaders who switched sides and joined them in the last minute.

They have also thought it politically prudent to back the independent candidate in Mandya, as they see a vital opportunity to embarrass the JD(S). Questions have also been raised on whether the state unit of the party is working in unity. One saw an open rebellion in what was considered a largely ‘cadre-based party’, in the choice of many candidates. Will infighting which cost them victory in the 2013 Assembly elections be their undoing. What seems to work in favour of the party is the possible ‘last mile’ advantage during the election campaign and its dedicated cadres on the ground.

Challenges for Congress-JD(S)

For the Congress party, succeeding in Karnataka is a significant factor in its attempts at a return to ‘winning ways’. The delay in the finalisation of the alliance and distribution of seats gave many of its candidates a ‘late start’. It also found it difficult to finalise candidates in several seats and did not risk changing sitting MPs.

The biggest challenge that the party has faced is convincing its cadres and supporters of the need for an alliance with the JD(S). Especially in the Old Mysore region where the traditional competition has been between the Congress and the JD(S), the party cadres fear that the alliance may well lead to the BJP gaining ground in this region.
Further, the factionalism within the party is patently visible, with leaders focussing on seats critical to their political future. As a result, one does not notice a well-planned strategy that cuts across constituencies, but more of constituency-specific plans keeping the local context in mind.

The challenges that the party faces in Mysore and its inability to convince its cadres to work for the JD(S) candidate in Mandya is symptomatic of both the fissures within the alliance and the factionalism within the party. Many would also believe that the Congress conceded to the JD(S) much more seats than what was warranted. The fact that in the last minute the JD(S) returned back to the Congress the Bangalore North seat is an indication of the same. Further, with close to one-third of the seats (three of eight) being contested by the grandfather and his grandsons, the unhappiness within the JD(S) on the ‘family control’ appears evident.

The spirited defence of role of the family by the Chief Minister was indeed an honest reflection of ground reality but raised a host of questions on the internal democracy in political parties in India. For many of the seats it secured for itself, the JD(S) has fielded candidates who came to its fold merely to contest the elections.

The election campaign has been quite shrill and negative with each party preferring to attack its opponents without really highlighting its own positive contribution. At the end of the day, the voter in Karnataka would assess the capacity of the competing political forces to present their agenda more effectively.

While the BJP seeks votes for its leadership and a particular idea of India, the Congress-JD(S) have sought to shift the narrative to what they would term as the inability of the Modi government to deliver on its promises and sustain an ‘inclusive agenda’. Each of these narratives would play out in the constituency specific context. This is clearly an election too close to call.

(Sandeep Shastri is a political/election analyst. He is Pro Vice Chancellor, Jain University and National Coordinator, Lokniti Network)