2004 Indian general election analysis

Last updated

Indian Elections 2004 Map.png

The 2004 general elections defied the predictions made by pre-poll predictions and exit polls and allowed the newly formed UPA alliance led by Sonia Gandhi, to come to power. This election also saw the rise of marginalized parties like the left, to join forces with the opposition, which led to a major realignment in social and political power.
Though pre-poll predictions were for an overwhelming majority for the BJP, the exit polls (immediately after the elections and before the counting began) predicted a hung parliament. However, even the exit polls could only indicate the general trend and nowhere close to the final figures. There is also the general perception that as soon as the BJP started realising that events might not proceed entirely in its favour, it changed the focus of its campaign from India Shining to issues of stability. The Congress, who was regarded as "old-fashioned" by the ruling BJP, was largely backed by poor, rural, lower-caste and minority voters that did not participate in the economic boom of previous years that created a large wealthy middle class, and thus it achieved its overwhelming victory.
The reverses in the pre-poll predictions are ascribed to various reasons depending on the point of view.

Contents

State by State analysis

Andhra Pradesh

Voting Pattern in Andhra Pradesh
Social Background INC+ TDP+
Gender
Male47%42%
Female54%41%
Social Class
Poor49%43%
Very Poor50%41%
OBCs
Peasant OBCs 45%48%
Lower OBCs 47%45%
Rural Classes
Farmers 41%49%
Agricultural workers51%41%
Young voters57%38%

Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis [1]

Karnataka

Voting pattern in Karnataka
Category INC BJP+ JD(S) Others
Upper caste 23%65%7%5%
Vokkaliga 38%18%43%1%
Lingayat 30%60%5%5%
OBCs 35%36%23%6%
Dalit 45%32%8%16%
Adivasi 29%35%35%2%
Muslims 55%19%21%5%
Others39%37%15%9%
Considerable dissatisfaction with the government
CategoryDeterioratedSame as beforeImprovedNo opinion
Corruption49%26%11%13%
Drinking water44%26%24%5%
Uninterrupted power supply39%27%28%4%

Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis [2]

Kerala

Voting pattern in Kerala
Category LDF UDF BJP
Hindu upper castes 40%37%18%
Nairs 41%29%27%
Ezhavas 59%22%18%
OBCs 49%36%13%
Dalits 71%15%10%
Muslims 39%58%2%
Christians 28%64%2%
Considerable dissatisfaction with the Anthony government
CategoryDeterioratedSame as beforeImprovedNo opinion
Drinking water49%32%16%3%
PDS38%42%14%6%
Public health27%43%23%7%
Education23%31%38%7%
Electricity31%44%19%6%
Employment50%32%13%5%
Agriculture59%22%13%6%
Industries40%34%15%11%

Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis [3]

Tamil Nadu

Voting Pattern in Tamil Nadu
Category DMK+ AIADMK+ Others
Gender
Male 54%32%14%
Female 49%39%12%
Locality
Rural 50%35%15%
Urban 57%36%7%
Social class
Very poor44%37%17%
Poor55%31%14%
Lower middle57%37%6%
Middle51%39%10%
Caste
Upper caste 33%54%13%
Thevar 50%47%3%
Vanniyars 61%33%6%
Chettiyars 47%30%23%
Gounders 57%33%10%
Nadars 57%36%7%
Lower OBCs 55%33%12%
Chekkliyars, Pallars, etc.39%38%23%
other Dalits 40%37%23%
Muslims 78%11%11%
Tell me how good each of the leaders are for Tamil Nadu...
Karunanidhi rated better than Jayalalithaa
Rating M. Karunanidhi J. Jayalalithaa
Bad13%31%
Average31%33%
Good29%17%
Very good22%14%
Do not know5%5%

Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis [4]

References

  1. "Arithmetic and anti-incumbency knocked Naidu out". Chennai, India: The Hindu. May 20, 2004. Retrieved 2009-07-20.
  2. "A clear case of ticket-splitting in Karnataka". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 2004-05-20.
  3. "Kerala bucks the national trend, once again". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 2004-05-20.
  4. Thsks (2004-05-20). "The Hindu : State by State : Alliance effect, swing factor propelled DPA victory". Chennai, India. Archived from the original on 2011-09-22. Retrieved 2009-07-20.