Politics and Society between Elections

Public Opinion in India's States

Siddharth Swaminathan,Suhas Palshikar

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000285529
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Campañas políticas y elecciones

Elections are episodic; governance is routine.

This book studies patterns in public opinion on politics and society between elections in India. By using the survey data covering 24 Indian states including the National Capital Region of Delhi (NCR), it will serve as State barometers of public opinion.

The surveys seek to understand how politics and governance processes are nested in the social and political relationships between citizens inter se and with government functionaries. The book explores citizen perceptions about the social and political universes they inhabit in periods between elections. It examines social attitudes of citizens, friendship ties across social groups, gender roles and relationships; opinions on governance, ease of public service access, the citizen-state interface, and trust in political institutions; and, political attitudes and identity, nationalism, freedom of expression, and populism. This book explores public perceptions of everyday development and governance outcomes that are shaped by how the government functions between elections: how it relates to citizens on a regular basis; how it provides routine public services to them; and how public order is maintained.

An incisive study on public opinion on politics, society, and governance in India, this book will be of great interest to scholars and researchers of political science, governance, public policy, and South Asian studies. It will also be of immense interest to bureaucrats, policymakers, think tanks, and organisations working in the areas of development studies, politics, society, and governance.

Section 3.3 of this book is freely available as a downloadable Open Access PDF at http://www.taylorfrancis.com under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

1
Introduction

The puzzles of India’s development and governance are routinely linked to the logic of India’s electoral democracy. As a result, a great deal is known about elections, but paradoxically our knowledge of politics and society between elections is relatively underdeveloped. As much as anything else, development and governance outcomes are shaped by how the government and other State institutions function between elections; including how they relate to citizens on a regular basis, how the government provides routine public services to them, and how public order is maintained. Governance processes are ultimately nested in the social and political relationships between citizens inter se and with government functionaries and state institutions. But what happens to State–citizen interaction once elections are over? How do interactions between the State and the citizen unfold in periods between elections? What characterizes interactions between citizens across class, caste, and community? And what sorts of perceptions, attitudes, and opinions do everyday forms of governance engender? These questions are of immense importance in a democracy undergoing significant political, economic, and social transformation.

This report presents an analysis of a public opinion study based on a survey titled “Politics and Society between Elections (2016–2019)” – the product of a research collaboration between Azim Premji University and Lokniti (CSDS). We surveyed a large number of respondents in times between elections across 23 states and the National Capital Region of Delhi focusing on public opinion about the social and the political universes Indian citizens inhabit.¹ The survey questions cover a range of topics of interest to social scientists studying India, such as: friendship ties across social groups, perceptions of social community, citizens’ trust in political institutions, political networks, awareness of public services and ease of access, citizen-State interfaces and land governance, gender roles and relationships, nationalism and political identity, freedom of expression, and populism.²

The report is organized into five parts with sections. Following the introduction (Part 1), Part 2 focuses on the social universe and explores how inter-caste and inter-community networks shape perceptions of social and political relations. Part 2 is divided into four sections that look at friendship ties across caste and community identity, citizen preferences over the caste–community identity of the leaders they approach, citizen perceptions of social communities, and opinion about gender roles. Part 3 considers the political universe and is divided into four sections that explore opinions on freedom of expression, national and regional identities, nationalist, and populist attitudes. Part 4 explores political institutions and is divided into three sections that consider opinions on citizen-State interfaces and welfare schemes, land governance and public trust in elected and non-elected institutions. Part 5 concludes the study.

We rely on a distinction between electoral and non-electoral politics. Elections are episodic; governance is routine. Electoral politics is focused on getting the vote, and intensifies during a defined election period. These are periods of heightened popular mobilization. Political parties intensify their engagement with voters, thread together themes of governance, security, and development, as part of their campaign message, and employ a variety of campaign strategies during elections. While it may be argued that contemporary democracies like India are engaged in a permanent electoral campaign, this is a rhetorical rather than an empirical claim. If one looks at the states separately, they do ordinarily follow a five-year electoral cycle though national elections to Lok Sabha intervene in this cycle in case of majority of states.

Between elections, governments consolidate their political mandate, outline new directions in policy, mould institutions, and routinize governance. New ideas emerge or older ideologies resurface in public discourse. Spaces for engagement between State and citizens either expand or contract, and extant forms of vertical and horizontal citizenship strengthen or fray in times between elections. And equally important are the perceptions, attitudes, and opinions citizens hold about others across caste, community and geography, as well as those relating to their relationship with State institutions and officials that both shape and in turn are shaped by politics and society between elections.

Our point is not that electoral politics ceases to exert influence beyond the ballot box nor is it that politics in times of elections and between elections is unconnected. Nor is it that one does not influence the other. We realize that political leaders are driven by an electoral (or re-election) calculus and the actions of the political elite reflect an unwavering focus on (potential) electoral gains. In addition, many of the campaign promises made by leaders during elections find place in policy during governance between elections – and a lot happens between elections that often feeds into the context of the next election. Our point is that choices individuals make during elections are electoral choices circumscribed by the menu – both in terms of issues and personnel. Periods between elections are periods during which patterns of public opinion take root and consolidate to become enduring ones, potentially shaping or affecting the political culture of the society. While this distinction does not entirely eliminate the blurred line between the electoral and the non-electoral, it is a useful one, allowing us to focus on individuals as citizens and not only as voters.

Since the mid-1990s, Lokniti’s National Election Studies (NES) have systematically researched electoral behaviour in India, covering parliamentary elections since 1996 as well as well as state assembly elections (Shastri, Suri, and Yadav, 2009; Palshikar, Suri, and Yadav, 2014; Palshikar, Kumar, and Lodha, 2017; Jaffrelot and Kumar, 2009; Chhibber and Verma, 2014; Chhibber and Verma, 2018, among others; special issues of Asian Survey, 2012 [volume 52, issue 2], Economic and Political Weekly, 2004 [51], 2009 [39] and 2014 [39], and Studies in Indian Politics, 2015 [volume 3, issue 1], and 2019 [volume 7, issue 2]). Commentaries have also regularly appeared in leading newspapers such as The Hindu and The Indian Express among others. These and other studies show that even marginal citizens of India are wooed at the time of elections (Banerjee, 2014; Ahuja and Chhibber, 2012). We now know that since the late 1980s and early 1990s, the economically poorer, the lower castes, and the less-educated citizens of India have voted as much as, or more than, the economically richer, the upper castes and the more educated (Yadav, 2000). Democratic theory, developed and tested in the West, has always said the opposite: the more educated and the richer citizens vote more than the less educated and the poorer (Verba and Nie, 1972). This Indian defiance of a basic canon of democratic theory is grounded in robust empirical evidence. The NES data conclusively demonstrate that in voting, if nothing else, India’s democracy has developed an unmistakable plebeian bent. These and other insights from an analysis of NES data have contributed tremendously to our understanding of Indian elections, electoral behaviour, and party system.

However, not many systematic nationwide studies have been undertaken about politics and society between elections. Large-scale surveys, for example the National Sample Surveys and National Family Health Surveys, deal with economic matters and demographic information such as consumption, employment, maternal and child health, and reproductive behaviour. Since the mid-1990s, when both the framework of competitive politics and the paradigm of politics began changing, Lokniti conducted investigations into citizens’ attitudes and opinions about a range of issues from economic reform to State–citizen relations starting with National Election Study of 1996 (and the findings based on this survey analyzed in Mitra and Singh (1999) as well as in a special issue of India Today), but that study coincided with the general election of 1996. Subsequently, Lokniti has conducted national surveys that have not coincided with the electoral cycle, for example, the State of Democracy in South Asia (round one in 2006 and round two in 2013) and the State of the Nation Surveys. In addition, other surveys have also examined similar topics (Chhibber, Shastri, and Sisson 2004). However, these are nationally representative surveys and do not allow cross-state comparisons. Besides, we still do not know enough about which social groups (castes, tribes, religious communities, classes, gender) get better public services (water, sanitation, roads, electricity, irrigation, education, medical care); which groups do the police protect and which ones it do they not in times of need; in which states do marginal groups face less discrimination from government agencies and fellow citizens; and which states do a better job of providing public services. Many have indeed studied the successes and failures of policies across a swath of domains, the regional differences in identity, the changing political discourse(s), citizen-state interactions, the role(s) of political actors, and so on. It has also been hypothesized that “a distinctive culture of democracy has given a regional flavour to political practice…as emancipatory ideas confront majoritarianism and the populist tendency faces pragmatism” (Yadav and Palshikar, 2008, Seminar, November, 591). However, our basic point remains: our knowledge of such matters – for India as a whole, and especially at the state-level – is meagre. To generate such knowledge we need data that allows a subnational (and nationwide) understanding of everyday development and governance.

In this report we undertake three kinds of mapping: a mapping of the ideas that have characterized social and political universes in India, a geographic mapping that examines variation in attitudes, perceptions, and opinions across states, and a socio-demographic mapping that considers the same across identities, and other factors typically considered the drivers of modernization such as urbanization and education. While we examine public opinion across categories of interest to social scientists such as caste-community (religious) identity, gender, location (whether rural or urban), economic class, and levels of education, our primary focus is on the findings on subnational variations. Our approach follows in the tradition of studies that have advocated a greater focus on a subnational comparative politics of India (Yadav and Palshikar, 2003; Tillin, 2013; Jacob, 2015; Sinha, 2015).

We set out a list of enquiries that guide our data analysis of public opinion directly addressing the social and political universes Indian citizens inhabit and the institutions with which they interact:

1. (a) Identity and consciousness: What are the primary identities – national, sub-national, religious, caste, urban-rural – in different parts of the country? Are urban identities different from rural identities? Is the South different from the North in the way caste and religious identities are experienced and expressed? How do religious, caste, and linguistic identities interact? Which one becomes dominant in which part of the country and how? Which communities are seen as lazy and which ones as hardworking? Similarly, who is seen as unpatriotic and who is seen as violent?
2. (b) Discrimination and violence: Which communities face discrimination from the state and/or fellow citizens? Which ones face violence from the state and/or fellow citizens? Is there a state-level difference? Is there an urban-rural difference? For instance, Ambedkar had famously argued that the village is a cesspool for Dalits in particular (and for lower castes in general) and the city would offer them a better life. Is that true? Which states provide evidence for Ambedkar’s claim, and which ones do not? Similarly, in which states do minorities face acute deprivation? Is there a relationship between discrimination by state authorities and discrimination by fellow citizens?
3. (c) Majoritarian nationalism and populism: What are public perceptions toward key tenets of the right to the freedom of expression as written in the Constitution of India. To what extent are citizens open to ideas of regime change or allowing a public criticism of elected leaders? Do current public ideas about what the “freedom to express” entails align with constitutional values? Has India become populist? How do Indian citizens perceive symbols of nationalism? And to what extent is a majoritarian nationalism prevalent in India today? How do populist ideas fare in India? In what states? And what other sorts of variation can we observe?
4. (d) Delivery of public services and public order: What communities receive what sorts of public services (for example, education, health and sanitation, power, water)? What are the mechanisms that promote or hinder service delivery? How aware are citizens of central and state schemes for agriculture, health, housing, and employment guarantee? Who benefits from welfare schemes? And how easily are citizens able to access services? In what ways are services distributed across states? What roles do political agents and/or community engagement play in service delivery? What strategies do citizens deploy to engage with the State? What are the subnational differences?
5. (e) Economic process and governance: How is economic governance specifically with respect to land experienced by citizens? How do citizens perceive the validity of land acquisition undertaken by the state for development? Are there significant differences between urban and rural populations? And among rural populations do big farmers view things differently compared to small farmers or agricultural labour? What do they think are legitimate forms of popular resistance toward State action that involves land appropriation? And what are acceptable State responses to such opposition?
6. (f) Citizen perception of State institutions: How do citizens perceive State institutions and their capacity to govern? Does this vary by social group? To what extent do citizens trust the (a) legislature, (b) executive, (c) judiciary, (d) bureaucracy, (e) police, and (f) army? Do citizens relate to parts of the State machinery – different departments and across hierarchies – differently? Is there a state-level or urban–rural variation in perceptions? Do citizens see institutions as procedurally and distributively fair? These questions are centrally related to the legitimacy of the state and the citizens’ sense of belonging.

This report undertakes a modest task. The patterns in public opinion that we present are primarily descriptive in nature. We describe the broad similarities and differences that emerge across states and other categories of interest using cross-tabulations.³ We do not specify hypotheses, nor do we undertake statistical hypothesis testing. However, the sample being large and representative at the state-level allows for cross-state (as well as within-state) comparisons using statistical techniques. Studies that statistically test specific relationships across the many variables of interest using the “Politics and Society between Elections” dataset appear in issue of the journal Studies in Indian Politics (December, 2020). We also hope that colleagues will further delve into more nuanced analyses spurred by the preliminary findings reported here. At the same time, this report will serve a critical purpose of bringing forward for public discussion an outline of how Indians approach many of the issues listed above, and what implications this has for both competitive politics and governance in the times to come. We also expect that everyone interested in India’s social and political processes will keenly watch the durability and intensity of the opinions and views that are reported here.

Notes

1 The states covered include 23 states (at the time of data collection) and the National Capital Region of Delhi. They are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Note that Jammu and Kashmir was a state at the time of survey and for the sake of convenience we continue to refer to it as so in this report. Our sample size consists of 48542 respondents. Note that we refer to a subnational unit using small letters (state) except in the figures and section headings.

2 Details regarding the survey rounds, sampling, and questionnaire are provided in the Appendix. For additional details visit: The Centre for Regional Political Economy (crpe.azimpremjiun...