No party permanently rules in a State. It is the perception of the voters that brings the Opposition to power. Since Naveen Patnaik entered the Odisha politics in 1997, he was witnessing a constant increase in the demand for his party. He positioned the BJD as No.1 brand in the successive elections.
In 2000 Assembly polls, the BJD had got 68 seats which declined to 61 in 2004 Assembly poll and increased to 103 and 117 in 2009 and 2014 Assembly polls respectively. Only in 2004, the BJD had seen a marginal fall in its numbers though it has maintained the No.1 status.
In the recently concluded ZP elections, though the BJD has been able to occupy the first position in the overall tally, but it has lost nearly 200 seats than its 2012 ZP poll tally, the first of its kind of loss since 2000.
A ‘lotus corridor’ has emerged. The BJP has been voted as No.1 party in six western Odisha districts like Kalahandi, Balangir, Subarnapur, Bargarh, Sambalpur, Deogarh and in one southern district, Malkanagiri, and one northern district, Mayurbhanj. There is a visible loss for the BJD.
During the coalition days, the BJP used to win from Sundargarh, Mayurbhanj, Bargarh, Baleswar, Keonjhar, Balangir, Kalanhandi and Nabarangpur etc lok Sabha seats. In 2017 ZP Poll, the party has recovered its old base except in Baleswar and Keonjhar. In addition, the BJP took away the Sambalpur lok Sabha base which was a traditional fort of BJD since 2000. Of course, there is a wide difference between the Assembly/lok Sabha poll and the ZP poll dynamics and it is too early to predict the
2019 trends but the BJD has to admit that it has lost
many bases.
While BJD supremo Patnaik considers the mandate as people’s first preference for his party with a feedback for reform in the Government and senior colleague and Excise Minister Dama Rout attributes the cause of loss to intraparty dissidence. But four causes of BJD’s major loss in 2017 ZP poll such as anti-incumbency, intra-party dissidence, poor image building and poor mismanagement of poll could be attributed.
What is anti-incumbencyIJ It is a perception among the voters that the ruling party is not able to provide good governance. The Opposition party, the anti-Government media, the hostile opinion leaders, the social protest groups, the dissatisfied Government employees and the affected business groups propel the anti-incumbency wave. The Government programmers’ beneficiaries also react against non-delivery of schemes or corruption in the delivery system.
The BJD’s pan-Odisha anti-incumbency may be owing to the voters’ dissatisfaction relating to the mis-implementation of NFSA, wrong paddy-procurement policies, delay in payments of ex-gratia to the small chit fund investors or apathy to Block Grant teachers,, AWC workers, and a few other local issues like the JE deaths and Dan Majhi’s case.
Intra-party dissidence is considered as another cause of BJD’s loss of bases. There are four types of gaps in BJD organisation such as the conflict between the old versus the young leaders, the MPs versus the MPs at Delhi, MlAs versus MlAs at district level and conflict between the MlA and his dissident cadres.
The last three conflicts have contributed to the displacement of votes in Mayurbhanj, Sambalpur, Kalahandi, Kendrapada, Jagatsinghpur, Khurda and in a few other districts.
Image-building is one important aspect of a ruling party. For the BJD, it is more important as there is a Modi-wave. The BJD’s image was hit by chit fund irregularities, late payment of paddy insurance and many other day –to-day governance issues that the Opposition used to raise. The Hirakud water issue was rightly raised by the BJD but was countered by the BJP vehemently. The BJD failed to counter the attack of the Opposition successfully on many issues. Nor could it make aggressive propaganda on its achievements. There was lack of expert inputs. There is a debate if it was politically correct for the BJD to support the demonetisation issue which helped the BJP. More analysis is needed in this regard.
Another image damaging factor was senior Minister Dr Rout’s repeated attack on the functioning of the State Government. As a result, the BJP got an inroad in his constituency what he boasts of to be his forte.
The party’s image was also affected when the people came to know that the kin of MlAs are contesting in panchayat polls like the Kendrapada MlA case. Though the BJD followed one family -one post formula in Assembly and lok Sabha poll, it did not have any guideline for the PRI poll.
The performance of MlA Prabhat Tripathy in Banki shows that the chit fund was not a public poll issue. Similarly, the results of the BJD in Jajpur and Jagatsinghpur districts showed that the farmers’ protests did not click.
Finally, poll management is an important element of a ruling party. It starts with the study of the ground situation by the experts before any poll. It appears that the ruling BJD had weak intelligence and psephological inputs.