How National Election Wins Can Backfire in State Elections: An Example of Kerala
It is not uncommon for political parties to take for granted the assumption that winning a national election necessarily guarantees future success at the state level. But experience proves time and again that this is far from true. This is because Kerala gives us a great case study on how voters participate in both national and state-level elections.
The latest Lok Sabha election held in Kerala was an important one for the BJP party, since they managed to get their first representation in the Lok Sabha, and did well in penetrating a state which has been controlled by the LDF and UDF parties. But the assembly election yielded very different results compared to what we thought about the BJP.
In any type of election, the concerns of the voters are different. In terms of parliamentary elections, voters consider issues such as the behaviour and performance of national leaders, foreign policy, general economic policies, and ideologies at the national level in determining which political party or candidate to support. For example, one's ideology and/or the ideology held by one's chosen leader is likely to affect how one votes. This dynamic is further complicated by impending demographic and political changes, such as the delimitation crisis affecting South Indian voting power, which reshapes how regional electorates perceive their influence on the national stage—especially when sensitive regional sentiments flare up, as seen during the recent nationwide controversy over remembrance tributes.
While the nation as a whole is concerned about issues like job creation, access to good healthcare facilities, better educational quality, and improved infrastructure, in the case of state elections, these issues take on greater significance in comparison. Furthermore, due to the fact that Kerala has a well-educated population, the citizens of the state tend to be more interested in issues that relate to the state level than they are to the national political discourse.
Another factor revealed by the Kerala example is community-based voting. As noted earlier, the presence of different communities within the state makes the electorate think about casting votes on a tactical basis, considering local alignments and constituencies. It could be possible for a political party to garner votes at a national level, but the ability to retain them might become difficult when assessing them from the perspective of a state-level election. Regional politics often hinges on localized governance hurdles, much like how neighbouring states grapple with fiscal strain when balancing state budgets with welfare guarantee scheme costs—proving that grassroots economic growth and financial management dictate regional mandates far more than national rhetoric.
The third significant element is organizational strength, which is very important in determining the outcome of an assembly election. A successful candidate in a parliamentary election can certainly create a favorable buzz among people, but the task of turning this buzz into organization depends greatly on the organizational capabilities of the party.
This lesson applies not only in Kerala but also in other parts of India. The national victory is no guarantee of regional triumphs. While the gains achieved through a nationwide victory are important, it should also involve engaging with the electorate in the region in order to address the state’s issues and gain legitimacy.
From the election scenario in Kerala, it becomes evident that it is possible for the electorate to distinguish their national agenda from their state agenda. This is an indication that while a national win is an achievement, it does not preclude gaining legitimacy in the regional sphere.