The myth of the development vote

Prashant Kishor’s experiment in Bihar has reopened a basic but uncomfortable question many political observers avoid. Do Indians actually vote on development? After walking across the state for about two years and promising a politics built around jobs, education, public services and dignity rather than caste alliances, Kishor positioned Jan Suraaj as an aspirational alternative. He urged voters to think about the future of their children instead of falling back on identity loyalties. He asked people to imagine a Bihar rebuilt from the ground up.

The election results told a different story. Jan Suraaj barely registered. Bihar returned to the same caste coalitions, established parties, and familiar leaderships. The party did manage to come third in over a hundred constituencies and, on several seats, its vote share exceeded the winning margin, but it did not win a single seat. The lesson was not that people dislike development. It was that development, offered on its own, is not enough to shape electoral behaviour.

Narendra Modi’s 2014 victory is often cited as the moment India decisively chose development, with the Gujarat model held up as evidence that voters now reward performance. It is fashionable to claim that the Indian voter has matured and now prioritises development. That is not incorrect, but it is incomplete.

Development matters only when it is tangible, personal, and attributable. Abstract claims about GDP growth, large industrial projects or reforms rarely convince voters. People vote on what they can feel in their daily lives. Modi’s 2014 campaign shows this. Vikas, on its own, did not deliver that mandate. It came packaged with strong anti-incumbency sentiment, anger over corruption, the promise of national pride, Hindu identity mobilisation, and a disciplined party machinery capable of reaching every booth. It was a coalition of emotions and interests in which development was one important piece, but not the entire structure.

Comparative research on voting behaviour suggests this is not an exception. Across democracies, group loyalties and identity cues usually anchor voters, and issue-based or performance voting is layered on top, not the other way round.

If development alone decided elections, the BJP would have been punished more sharply for unemployment, rising prices, and rural distress. Instead, it continues to dominate because it champions multiple narratives at once and ensures that every voter segment finds something to hold on to. Welfare delivery for the poorest, nationalism for the middle class, Hindu identity for cultural consolidation, charismatic leadership for emotional connection, and an unmatched organisation that ensures nothing is left to chance.

In Bihar, this bundle sat on top of two decades of Nitish Kumar’s image-building on law and order and women’s empowerment, but it was the NDA alliance structure, targeted women-focused schemes and the Modi brand that ultimately converted that record into a landslide victory.

A layered interplay

The Bihar outcome shows what happens when development is presented without this scaffolding. Kishor appealed to rational reasoning while ignoring that political choice is also shaped by social insecurities. For many communities in Bihar, caste remains a source of protection, solidarity and voice. Asking them to abandon it in favour of a new and untested movement demanded a level of trust that did not yet exist.

That said, a constituency that votes directly on development certainly exists. It includes young people seeking mobility, women entering the workforce, migrants working outside their home regions, and families attempting to move upward. The Bihar campaign demonstrated this clearly. The JD(U)’s promise of direct financial support to women resonated because it spoke to everyday security, household budgeting, and dignity, especially for women with limited economic independence. It was not an abstract promise of development. It touched personal, lived experience, and attempted to reshape the daily economics of survival.

The real debate is therefore not whether development matters, but for whom it matters and in what form. Electoral behaviour in India is shaped by multiple incentives. Political projects succeed when they weave development into trust, belonging, and a credible organisational presence. They fail when they assume that being right is enough. Bihar has told Prashant Kishor what Indian politics has told many reformers before him. Development must be felt to be believed, and it must walk alongside identity, narrative and emotional connection.

Bihar has not rejected development. It rejected the idea that development alone can rearrange political loyalties. Until that reality is understood, the myth of the development vote will continue to break on the hard ground of electoral experience.

(Jehosh is a lawyer and former political consultant. Ritu is a development practitioner from Bihar)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.