IBTimes.com

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: As widely expected, the United Democratic Front (UDF) won the Kerala legislative assembly election last week, but not in the manner it expected. After winning big in two back-to-back elections — the 2009 Lok Sabha poll and last October’s local-body elections — a confident UDF was hoping for a repeat performance against the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF).

However, the Indian National Congress-led front’s victory this time around is far from impressive: it won 72 seats against the LDF’s 68. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) — CPI(M) — which contested in 84 seats, won in 45, emerging as the single largest party.

Among the UDF parties, the Indian Union Muslim League and the Kerala Congress Mani Group performed well in their strongholds, while the Congress party lost more than half of the seats it contested, winning only 38 out of 82. It is fair to say that the UDF victory was made possible only by a commanding performance by the Muslim League, which won 20 seats out of 24.

Going by the past two years’ trend in Kerala politics, the UDF should have won at least 90 seats. A strong anti-incumbency wave was felt in the last major state-wide poll, the local body elections held six months ago. In that election, the LDF lost a majority of gram panchayats in Kerala for the first time. For the same reason, this assembly election verdict is being viewed more as a remarkable comeback for the LDF and a setback for the UDF.

A number of reasons are cited for the UDF’s below-par performance and the LDF’s better-than-expected show. They include quibbles over the selection of UDF candidates, infighting within the Congress and the UDF, and the success of the LDF in linking various UDF leaders to one corruption scandal or the other.

A close look at events that unfolded in Kerala over the past six months might help explain why the UDF fared below expectations.

A post-poll survey conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), based in Delhi, found that for the first time since 2009, the LDF was able to overcome the issue of anti-incumbency. The final outcome of the assembly election was rightly forecasted by the CSDS study.

The most important finding of the survey was the erosion of the anti-incumbency wave that existed until the local-body election of October 2010. The study tested the performance of the government in various areas such as conditions of the roads in the state, supply of electricity and drinking water, and the law and order situation. Surprisingly, a majority of people expressed satisfaction with the government’s performance in all these areas.

Similarly, the survey found that people were sufficiently aware of the corruption cases and allegations against leaders of both the political fronts. In the run-up to the election, there were six major corruption allegations that were widely discussed in the media. Of these, LDF leaders were linked to only two scandals: one involving the Canadian engineering firm SNC-Lavalin, which dates back to the mid-1990s, and the other, a lottery scam, in which the CPI(M) was accused of having ties to a lottery kingpin.

Leaders of the UDF and the Congress-led UPA government at the Centre were linked to four scandals. Two of them were national scams, involving billions of dollars, that touched a raw nerve across the country: allegations of corruption against officials involved in the hosting of last year’s $13 billion Commonwealth Games and the 2G spectrum licensing scandal, which may have cost the country as much as $39 billion. Several officials linked to these two scams are in jail now.

Just months before the assembly election two major scandals, in which two prominent UDF leaders and former ministers were accused of graft and wrong-doing, resurfaced. The first was the “ice cream parlour” sex scandal involving Muslim League leader P.K. Kunhalikkutty. Then, two months ago, the Supreme Court convicted Balakrishna Pillai, leader of the Kerala Congress (B) and former minister, in a three-decade-old corruption case related to the awarding of contract for the Idamalayar Dam project.

Throughout the campaign, the UDF could not distance itself from charges of corruption against its leaders, which damaged its prospects, given the highly literate Kerala electorate’s tendency to not support corruption-tainted politicians. In contrast, the image of outgoing Chief Minister Achuthanandan as an anti-corruption hero influenced many neutral voters.

A preliminary assessment of the CSDS study and the assembly election results pinpoint a shift in the popular image of UDF leaders. This was further accentuated by the popularity and support received by Achuthanadan. The CSDS survey found that while 38 percent of the people said Achuthanandan would make the best chief minister, the UDF’s Oommen Chandy received the support of only 25 per cent.

Another noteworthy factor is the role of independent voters in Kerala. The CSDS election studies of the last 10 years indicate that there has been a sharp rise in the number of neutral voters in Kerala. The final verdict of the elections was mostly decided by this group with a difference of 1 to 4 percent.

In this election, the UDF received only 0.9 percent votes more than the LDF, a figure that supported the CSDS study. Although there was plenty of criticism against the LDF government for the poor performance on matters related to the industrial development of the state, the poor and middle-class received more benefits from the LDF government than the previous UDF ministry.

One of the major reasons for the LDF setbacks in the 2009 and 2010 elections was the infighting within the coalition and the factional feuds within the CPI (M). On the other hand, the LDF was able to put up a united front during the last six months.

The storyline of this election, in which neither front can claim a victory, is that the LDF was able to overcome the ant-incumbency wave, while the UDF lost its plot because of a plethora of corruption charges. (Global India Newswire)

(The writer, a faculty member of the Department of Political Science, University of Kerala, was the state coordinator of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies’ election study.)