Bihar Prime Minister Nitish Kumar, who had once refused to share the stage with Modi, was forced to ask for votes on Modi’s behalf this time as he battled a growing wave of anti-incumbency. Kumar’s main opponent and the opposition chief ministerial candidate, Tejashwi Yadav, stayed away from any direct attack on Modi, apparently feeling his appeal. The man who gave wings to anti-incumbent sentiments against Kumar, Chirag Paswan, also made it clear that his opposition was to Kumar, not to Modi or his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). “Open my heart and you will find … Modi,” Paswan said in an interview.
What has happened in Bihar only reinforces the message from multiple polls over the years: Modi attracts a large cross-section of Indians. More importantly, fluctuations in the economic fortunes of voters do not appear to have diminished this appeal. Most political analysts accept this today, but are divided on what is behind this phenomenon.
Some argue that Modi represents the yearning for a strong Hindu leader who can safeguard majority interests. Others take this argument further to postulate that Modi’s followers have a somewhat blind faith in him as a savior and therefore ignore the actual performance of his government. Others believe his popularity is the result of a well-oiled propaganda machine that exaggerates his achievements and denigrates the opposition.
These arguments have some truth in them, but they miss important elements that have created the Modi phenomenon.
Our analysis of a wide range of survey data suggests three key factors driving Modi’s monster. First, the yearning for strong leadership transcends religious divisions, our analysis shows, indicating a secular component in the demand for strong national leadership. Second, Modi and his party may have been able to perceive and respond to the changing expectations of voters better than their rivals. Decades of rapid economic growth created a new aspiring class in the country that wants the state to help them prosper, but not necessarily through patronage. Modi and his party have been able to convince those voters that their “empowerment” welfare model is superior to the earlier “rights” model. Finally, improvements in last mile delivery have ensured that more people today believe that government programs are reaching their intended beneficiaries. With “Prime Minister” in the names of almost every central scheme now, support for such programs translates into direct support for Modi.
Our analysis is based on three different data sources, large nationally representative surveys conducted by Lokniti-CSDS; an online urban survey by YouGov, Mint, and Center for Policy Research (CPR) conducted earlier this year; and historical data for India from one of the world’s most tracked opinion polls, the World Values Survey (WVS).
The WVS data shows that a sizeable portion of Hindu and Muslim voters want a strong leader who does not care much about parliamentary rules or elections. The data correspond to four rounds conducted during 1996-2012, when India was ruled by coalitions. A series of corruption scandals, a growing perception of policy paralysis, and looming internal security challenges may have contributed to the longing for a decisive ruler. Modi was able to use those frustrations to her advantage.
Additionally, Modi has been able to take advantage of the changing expectations of the Indian state and craft a new narrative on the relations between citizens and the state. In this worldview, the state is perceived more as a facilitator than a provider, with people seeking empowerment rather than patronage. This takes advantage of the demographic shift that took place just as Modi reached the center of the national stage. In the decade before 2015-16, 271 million people were lifted out of poverty in India, the largest number in the world, according to a UN report on multidimensional poverty. The fall through the ranks of the poor and the rise through the ranks of the aspirational neo-middle class created a captive audience for the new empowerment narrative.
The post-poll 2014 survey conducted by Lokniti-CSDS showed that respondents were more likely to support large infrastructure projects than direct donations to the poor. The 2012 WVS data suggests that those who believed that people should take responsibility for themselves rather than the government and support private companies were slightly more likely to support the BJP.
Data from the YouGov-Mint-CPR Millennial Survey conducted earlier this year shows that respondents from higher income groups are more likely to feel that people remain poor because of their own shortcomings, such as lack of personal effort. However, there is little difference of opinion between the classes when it comes to the claim that government inaction or lack of adequate opportunities causes poverty.
See full image
By promising a reformed state that would unleash new entrepreneurial energies without the cronyism of the past, Modi has sought to win over a broad cross-section of society. The fact that the previous regime was tainted by corruption scandals helped their cause. He found it easy to describe his welfare plans as leaky buckets, which helped the party brokers and intermediaries more than the poor. His attacks on entrenched Delhi lobbyists served as a reminder to upward voters of the forces standing in the way of his aspirations and progress.
Economic progress during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime may have fueled the new wave of aspirations in the country. However, the stench of crony capitalism tipped the balance toward Modi and his party in 2014. The perception that the UPA favored religious minorities added wings to Modi’s campaign in 2014. Since then, Modi has not missed the opportunity. to remind voters of the “bad government” of the UPA and to affirm its commitment to the development of all indigenous people, not specifically minorities.
A considerable part of the Indians also have a positive view of the welfare interventions of the Modi government. Polls in recent months have shown that despite going through great hardships during the pandemic, voters continue to trust the Modi government and the steps it has taken to help the poor.
A large-scale rural survey conducted by the Lokniti-Gaon Connection between May 30 and July 16 highlights some of the government’s outreach successes. Only 56% of households reported having a ration card; 63% received rations during the confinement. More than four out of 10 households reported receiving government credit transfers during this period. Of these, 58% considered that the amount was adequate. 68% of the migrants who returned to their native villages felt that the Modi government’s attitude towards them was good.
See full image
How do these findings compare to reports of flight from cities caused by distress in the first weeks of the shutdown? The answer may lie in how people in rural India perceived the pandemic and its threats. Fear of infection was the biggest reason migrants cited for leaving cities, the Lokniti-Gaon Connection survey shows. About 40% of migrants perceived this as a greater threat than possible hunger or economic hardship. Most of those surveyed were satisfied with the harshness of the national shutdown.
These findings suggest that people, in general, feared the pandemic and supported government measures to control it. A high level of satisfaction with the central government’s response to the pandemic (74%) reinforces this reading.
See full image
Thus, for a large majority, dissatisfaction with their economic condition and satisfaction with Modi’s performance coexist without apparent conflict. Our analysis suggests that Modi’s success goes beyond his ability to consolidate voters from different caste groups under the Hindutva banner. Modi’s ability to accurately measure voters’ needs and aspirations and respond to them effectively is an equally important factor driving his popularity. However, this also suggests that voters’ faith in him is neither unconditional nor infinite. Such “faith” is strong enough to compensate for temporary setbacks and political mistakes, but not strong enough to offer lasting immunity in the long run.
If the promise of a better future eludes the majority of voters, Modi will find things difficult too.
The authors are from the Center for Policy Research (CPR), New Delhi.
.
