Yale Assistant Professor of Political Science, Tariq Thachil, Publishes Op-ed in The Indian Express

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the Indian political party that was formally launched in November of 2012, passed its first electoral test in 2013 when it performed spectacularly in Delhi Legislative Assembly Election, coming in as the second-largest party by winning 28 of the 70 seats. With no party obtaining an overall majority, the AAP formed a minority government with conditional support from the Indian National Congress. Recently, Yale Assistant Professor of Political Science Tariq Thachil published an op-ed in TheIndian Express comparing Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of AAP and the current Chief Minister of Delhi, and Narendra Modi.

Thachil argues that the year 2013 has been extremely successful for both Modi and Kejriwal. Modi transitioned from being one of many electorally successful BJP chief ministers to the pre-eminent face of the party. Kejriwal’s rise in 2013, although of less national significance, was even more unexpected and especially impressive given the high barriers to entry for new parties in India. While Modi’s ascent and Kejriwal’s arrival capture markedly different phenomena, Thachil finds their concurrence significant. They signal “the potential of distinctly urban brands of Indian politics”. Modi’s appeal among India’s growing urban middle classes, as captured by his popularity among urban Gujaratis, is a glaring case in point. However, Thachil argues, India’s urbanizing electorate is yet far from turning their electoral preferences into national mandates. While India is certainly urbanizing, the rate is comparatively gradual compared to say China. Furthermore, Modi and the BJP rely on urban voters to the greatest extent in Gujarat, and the support is not easily transferable to other urbanized states like Kerala.

Thachil holds that while Modi’s rise has focused attention on the electoral potential of the urban middle classes, the AAP’s performance in Delhi highlights the potential of urban constituencies as venues for new parties to debut innovative electoral tactics. The AAP performance shows how political outsiders can harness anti-incumbent sentiments in locally specific ways. The AAP’s promises to reduce political corruption stifling private-sector growth and its vow to fight bureaucratic corruption restricting public service delivery speak to problems facing distinct constituencies and are at the same time able to appeal to voters from various class backgrounds. AAP’s willingness to rely heavily on voter surveys and its extensive use of social media technology also made its campaign distinct.

Thachil argues that the AAP model is particularly effective in urban areas for numerous reasons. First, cities have a relative abundance of citizens who are financially comfortable enough to serve as volunteers. Second, dependence on survey research is also far less costly within an urban environment. Third, India’s electoral rules reward urban parties with spatially concentrated pools of support. Such concentration makes votes for these parties more likely to translate into seats. In short, for a new party like the AAP looking to establish a foothold in India’s political system, cities offer tantalizing possibilities. However, for a major party like the BJP looking to dominate a national election, an urban focus remains inadequate. Thachil concludes that it would be premature to argue that the locus of Indian politics has shifted away from its villages. However, 2013 certainly pointed out the increasing political significance of the urban voter.

See https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/counting-on-cities/ for the full op-ed.