The voter turnout in Phase 1 of the 18th Lok Sabha Election was at 65.5 per cent, 4 per cent lower than that of 2019. In 2019, around 60 per cent of the constituencies had more than 65 per cent voter turnout. It ranged from 14.44 per cent in Srinagar to 90.78 per cent in Assam’s Dhubri. The soaring summer temperatures may have deterred people from going out to vote. But it may also be that the general electorate’s incentives to vote were not high.
Are people unwilling to vote? And if they are, is it due to an inevitable electoral outcome or the toothlessness of electoral instruments to usher in a better life and livelihood? The latter is serious as it raises questions on the effectiveness of electoral democracy for development by delivering public goods and services.
Accountability, welfare and voting
A relationship between voter turnout and human development would help us reflect on voters’ urge to vote. The Subnational Human Development Index (SHDI) prepared by Global Data Lab represents UNDP’s official Human Development Index (HDI) at the sub-national level. It is an index comprising life expectancy at birth, schooling (average and expected years) and standard of living (per capita Gross National Income). The latest available SHDI of 2021 illustrates that while India’s average value is 0.633, it ranges from 0.571 in Bihar to 0.752 in Kerala.
A comparison of the SHDI in 2021 with the percentage of constituencies having high voter turnout (more than 65 per cent) in the 2019 Lok Sabha election across states shows no relationship. The relationship between the percentage of votes polled in 2014 and the SHDI of 2021 was also very low, showing no long-term impact. It raises a serious question on the effectiveness of electoral democracy in improving people’s welfare in the country.
Political fragmentation and State Human Development Index (SHDI)
Political competition in an electoral democracy is meant to make politicians accountable for the improvement of the lives and livelihoods of people. Unworthy politicians can be voted out if people find them ineffective. Hence, a positive relationship between political competition and SHDI is expected. Winning the election at a lower percentage of votes represents higher political competition.
In 2019, 37 per cent of the candidates won a highly competitive election with less than 50 per cent vote. Only around 5 per cent of the winners had less than 40 per cent vote share. However, in the 2014 Lok Sabha Election, around 63 per cent of candidates won under high political competition (50 per cent vote). This implies a marked decline in political competition in 2019 as compared to 2014.
Moreover, there is no relation between the percentage of candidates in a state winning a highly competitive election in 2019 as well as in 2014 (with less than 50 per cent vote) and SHDI of 2021. It implies that political competition at the national level does not have any impact on people’s lives and livelihoods.
Relationship between political fragmentation and SHDI
If we turn towards another indicator of political competition — the number of candidates per electorate or political fragmentation — a more hopeful scenario emerges. Political fragmentation has a much better relationship with SHDI. Considering eight contestants per 10 lakh electorate as high political fragmentation, 48 per cent of constituencies in 2019 and 68 per cent in 2014 had high political fragmentation across India.
While in Haryana, all constituencies were marked by high political fragmentation in 2014 and 2019, it also had a high SHDI of 0.691. A similar positive relationship between high political fragmentation and SHDI can also be observed in Punjab. In Kerala, the state with the highest SHDI, 95 per cent of constituencies had high political fragmentation in 2014. On the contrary, Bihar, the state with the lowest SHDI, had 70 per cent constituencies with high political fragmentation in 2014 and only 53 per cent in 2019. Different socio-economic groups raise their voices through political outfits, demonstrating a positive relationship between political fragmentation and SHDI.
Why we must vote
The relationship between political competition and economic progress is hardly settled in political economy debates. Empirical investigation at national and sub-national levels provides different results. At best, an inverted-U shaped relationship is observed between political competition and economic growth. With increasing political competition, economic growth rises, reaches an optimum and then starts falling. The balance of welfare benefits and costs of political competition decides whether the relationship is positive or negative.
Reduced political competition may dampen economic growth, as in a few African countries where political and bureaucratic elites have acquired personal wealth, denying public service to the general populace. On the other hand, popular redistribution policies have brought Latin American democracies into economic instability. The relationship between high political competition and SHDI is also non-linear across Indian states, although the linear relationship is insignificant. Fall in political competition below the optimal level would reduce SHDI, as does a great increase. Studies show that the provision of basic services by municipalities in India may be affected if political competition and fragmentation are high. This is because politicians serve a group of citizens only to secure maximum votes and support and block services to others.
Political competition may appear to be a toothless instrument for improving the lives and livelihoods of people in India due to the lack of a direct relationship. It may result in low turnout. However, it needs to be understood that lower competition would lower accountability and increase the chances of political elites grabbing resources and opportunities to fulfil their own interests. Hence, it is important to vote even if the chances of one’s favourite candidate winning are low. Along with the political representation of groups, political competition is necessary. The declining political competition between 2014 and 2019 must be reversed this time.
The writer is professor, Institute of Rural Management Anand. Views are personal
