AAP's sweep in Delhi polls reflects voter sentiment to punish inaction

After the comprehensive sweep of the Delhi elections by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) - where it picked up 67 of the 70 assembly seats and over 50 per cent of the popular vote - it would be easy to frame the results as the victory of the underdog against the big brother. Certainly, Kejriwal and AAP play the role of the underdog pretty well - and they did everything in the run-up to the elections to show they were fighting insurmountable odds and enormous resources of the BJP. Similarly, the BJP did itself no favours by looking like the 800-pound gorilla out to crush a puny opponent. But that alone would not explain the extent of the decimation of the BJP in Delhi, when it has been winning seats even in tougher states like Jammu & Kashmir. The BJP has been steamrolling its opposition in state after state, and it certainly could not have expected to do this badly in a state where it has a big support base among traders, and where it has held sway over the corporations for years. Why, it won all seven Parliament seats just nine months ago.

There were plenty of other reasons as well, and they have all been well analysed - from the BJP's mistake of para-dropping Kiran Bedi at the last moment to Kejriwal's willingness to say sorry, a rare thing for any politician in India. All those, and many other factors, including the en masse shifting of the erstwhile Congress vote bank to the AAP, played a role.

But I think the Delhi results carry a very strong message that has been there in all the election results of the past year and a half - a message that has invariably been misread. The message is that the patience of the Indian voter - at every level and at every social stratum and age group - is wearing thin. They are quick to punish inaction or perceived inaction by incumbent governments. But they are equally willing to punish a new favourite if they feel that it is not meeting their expectations.

The BJP (and the Congress and all other parties including the JDU in Bihar, Samajwadi Party in UP, and the TMC in West Bengal) should understand this from the voting trend in recent elections. The message is as much about economics as it is about politics.

As several analysts pointed out before the Delhi elections, the polarisation seemed to be between the haves and the have-nots. And the have-nots outnumber the haves by a vast margin.

While certainly there is some truth in that analysis, it does not fit all the facts either. In Delhi, and in many other states, even the haves, who should have supported the incumbent, have switched sides and voted for the challenger. The BJP has benefited from this in the last general elections and in many state elections that were held since, but the Samajwadi Party benefited from this in the last UP assembly elections and the TMC in West Bengal. In each case, the voter indicated that it was not enough to maintain status quo - and that a faster pace of improvement and growth and development was expected at every level. For the have-nots, it was fairly simple - they wanted to move up, to enjoy some of the fruits of the economic reforms that they have seen a small slice of the country enjoying. For the corporate class, it meant expectations of a better business environment and more opportunities. For the middle class, it simply meant better opportunities for high paying jobs and a better quality of life.

The point here is that while all political parties used to factor in anti-incumbency as a serious threat in any election, few have realised how quickly this sentiment is building up currently if expectations are not met. The Congress government was swept out because it was seen as doing nothing for any class - not the business class, not the middle class, and not even for the poor despite its many social schemes. In West Bengal, the Communists were voted out comprehensively because they had maintained status quo - and in fact regressed - over the years. In other states as well, this was perhaps the biggest factor.

The BJP gained because of this sentiment in the general elections and also many states. They have been seen as a party promising development. Unfortunately, in Delhi, the BJP is also seen as the party that has not done much despite being in power. Sure, the AAP was the last elected government in the state, but the last 10 months have seen Delhi governed by the LG, who was seen as a proxy for the Modi government at the centre. And perhaps the Delhi voter just didn't think that the Modi government had done enough for it, at the local level, in the nine months it has been in power.

In West Bengal, the popularity of the TMC is waning because it is long past its honeymoon period and not enough people find enough change in the state despite the enormous majority they gave Mamata. In UP, the BJP gained in the general elections because people perhaps felt that the SP had not changed enough on the ground. And in Bihar, the Nitish government faced a challenge because it stopped being seen as the government that was decisively improving things for the people.

For BJP, the lessons from this election would be to focus on the task at hand - improve the economy and make sure that the fruits of development are not going to a small slice of the population but are more evenly distributed. The BJP still has enough time to do this - but the impatience is rising. And the sooner people see action on the ground, the better it will be for the Modi government in future elections that it plans to fight.