ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Fourteenth Assembly Elections in Punjab

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS contestants, from 1,045 last time to 1,078 Fourteenth Assembly Elections candidates in this election (Table 1A). As always, the main contest in this in Punjab Aelection was between the Shiromani Akali Dal-Bharatiya Janata Party (SAD+/ SAD-BJP) alliance and the Indian National single day poll to elect the 14th women voters at 79% exceeded that of Congress (INC/Congress) which contested Assembly in Punjab was held on men voters by 1 percentage point. There the elections on its own fi elding candi30 January 2012. The election was also an increase in the number of dates in all 117 seats. The Bahujan Samaj witnessed high participation. A record Table 1B: Summary Results: Seats Contested, Won and Votes Secured by Major Parties and Alliances, 79% of a total of 1,76,82,363 registered Compared to the Assembly Election (2007) Seats Seats Won Gain/Loss Vote Share Vote % Per Vote Swing voters turned out to vote, the highest Contested of Seats (%) Seat Contested since 2007ever, and up by 3 percentage points since since 2007 (% Points) the last assembly election. Turnout of Shiromani Akali Dal + (SAD+) 117 68 0 41.91 41.91 -3.46 Table 1A: Summary Electoral Participation: Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) 94 56 +7 34.73 42.40 -2.36 Electorate, Turnout and Number of Candidates Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) 23 12 -7 7.18 39.73 -1.10 Compared to the Assembly Election (2007) Indian National Congress (INC) 117 46 +2 40.09 40.09 -0.81 Assembly Election Change from

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

contestants, from 1,045 last time to 1,078

Fourteenth Assembly Elections

candidates in this election (Table 1A). As always, the main contest in this

in Punjab

A
election was between the Shiromani Akali Dal-Bharatiya Janata Party (SAD+/ SAD-BJP) alliance and the Indian National single day poll to elect the 14th women voters at 79% exceeded that of Congress (INC/Congress) which contested Assembly in Punjab was held on men voters by 1 percentage point. There the elections on its own fi elding candi30 January 2012. The election was also an increase in the number of dates in all 117 seats. The Bahujan Samaj witnessed high participation. A record

Table 1B: Summary Results: Seats Contested, Won and Votes Secured by Major Parties and Alliances, 79% of a total of 1,76,82,363 registered Compared to the Assembly Election (2007)

Seats Seats Won Gain/Loss Vote Share Vote % Per Vote Swing

voters turned out to vote, the highest

Contested of Seats (%) Seat Contested since 2007ever, and up by 3 percentage points since since 2007 (% Points)

the last assembly election. Turnout of Shiromani Akali Dal + (SAD+) 117 68 0 41.91 41.91 -3.46
Table 1A: Summary Electoral Participation: Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) 94 56 +7 34.73 42.40 -2.36
Electorate, Turnout and Number of Candidates Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) 23 12 -7 7.18 39.73 -1.10
Compared to the Assembly Election (2007) Indian National Congress (INC) 117 46 +2 40.09 40.09 -0.81

Assembly Election Change from

Sanjha Morcha 115 0 0 6.14 6.27 +5.10

2012 2007 (%)

People’s Party of Punjab (PPP) 92 0 0 5.16 6.58 +5.16

Total electorate 1,76,82,363 +4.5 Communist Party of India (CPI) 14 0 0 0.82 6.94 +0.06

Male electorate 93,20,878 +6.3 Communist Party of India (Marxist) – CPI(M) 9 0 0 0.16 2.02 -0.12

Female electorate 83,61,485 +2.6 Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) 117 0 0 4.29 4.29 +0.16

Total voters 1,38,92,638 +9.0 Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) 13 0 0 0.03 0.33 -0.08

Total turnout 78.6% +3.2 Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar –

Male turnout 78.1% +2.7

Simranjit Singh Mann (SAD-M) 57 0 0 0.28 0.57 -0.24 Female turnout 79.1% +3.5

Others 124 0 0.51 – -0.60 Number of candidates 1,078 +3.2

Independents 418 3 -2 6.75 – -0.07

For electorate, voters and candidates the change is in %, with

Total 1,078 117 0 100 – 0

2007 as the base. Change in turnout is computed in percentage points, compared to turnout in 2007. “Others” in 2012 include Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation), Shiv Sena, Lok Janshakti Party, Rashtriya Source: Figures available from the official website of the Janata Dal and other parties. “Others” in 2007 included Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation), Shiv Sena, chief electoral officer, Punjab, http://ceopunjab.nic.in/, and Lok Janshakti Party, Janata Dal (Secular), Rashtriya Janata Dal, Republican Party of India, Forward Bloc, Revolutionary

Election Commission of India website http://eci.nic.in; Socialist Party and other parties. accessed on 9 March 2012; data aggregated and Source: Detailed constituency level results downloaded from Election Commission of India website http://eciresults.ap.nic. recomputed by CSDS data unit. in/; accessed on 9 March 2012. Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS data unit.

Table 2A: Region-wise and District-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties in the Assembly Election (2012)
Regions/Districts Total Seats Turnout (%) Congress SAD-BJP PPP BSP Independents Others
Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)
Majha 25 75.0 9 41.2 16 47.2 0 1.2 0 1.1 0 7.7 0 1.5
Gurdaspur 10 76.3 5 42.7 5 45.8 0 0.9 0 1.4 0 8.2 0 1.1
Amritsar 11 71.8 3 38.5 8 48.9 0 0.9 0 1.0 0 8.6 0 2.1
Tarn Taran 4 79.6 1 43.9 3 46.6 0 2.6 0 0.9 0 4.7 0 1.4
Doaba 23 76.4 6 37.1 16 41.3 0 4.0 0 12.1 1 4.5 0 1.1
Kapurthala 4 79.0 2 43.4 2 44.1 0 2.7 0 7.4 0 1.2 0 1.3
Jalandhar 9 75.6 0 37.9 9 43.2 0 3.0 0 12.7 0 2.4 0 0.9
Hoshiarpur 7 75.2 2 35.9 4 40.9 0 3.1 0 9.5 1 9.0 0 1.6
Nawan Shahr 3 79.3 2 29.6 1 32.9 0 11.0 0 21.9 0 4.1 0 0.4
Malwa 69 80.6 31 40.6 36 40.3 0 6.9 0 3.0 2 7.1 0 2.1
Rupnagar 3 77.5 1 37.9 2 41.4 0 10.3 0 5.0 0 3.8 0 1.6
SAS Nagar 3 75.8 2 30.7 1 38.3 0 4.6 0 7.7 0 18.3 0 0.4
Fatehgarh Sahib 3 81.9 2 33.7 1 35.5 0 20.9 0 4.1 0 3.7 0 2.0
Ludhiana 14 76.0 6 40.7 6 39.9 0 4.6 0 3.3 2 10.6 0 0.9
Moga 4 80.5 1 43.2 3 45.2 0 3.8 0 1.5 0 2.3 0 4.0
Ferozepur 8 83.4 3 37.4 5 39.4 0 2.8 0 1.9 0 17.9 0 0.7
Muktsar 4 85.2 2 40.2 2 41.0 0 12.7 0 2.6 0 3.0 0 0.6
Faridkot 3 84.1 1 38.8 2 43.2 0 7.1 0 2.3 0 6.9 0 1.6
Bathinda 6 82.6 2 40.9 4 42.0 0 9.7 0 1.6 0 1.8 0 4.0
Mansa 3 84.4 1 38.4 2 39.6 0 8.7 0 2.6 0 0.7 0 9.8
Sangrur 7 84.5 2 40.4 5 41.5 0 10.9 0 2.9 0 3.4 0 0.9
Barnala 3 81.8 3 45.9 0 40.1 0 4.1 0 4.0 0 1.8 0 4.1
Patiala 8 78.5 5 49.9 3 37.6 0 3.1 0 2.8 0 4.7 0 1.9
Total 117 78.6 46 40.1 68 41.9 0 5.2 0 4.3 3 6.8 0 1.8
“Others” in this table and in Tables 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E include other smaller parties.
Source: As in Table 1B.
Economic & Political Weekly april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14 71
EPW

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

Party (BSP) too contested all the seats on since 2007. However in terms of vote SAD+ retained its 2007 lead over the its own. A significant change this time share both the parties lost 2% and 1% Congress winning 16 seats each (performwas the entry of the People’s Party of votes, respectively, garnering a combined ing particularly well in Amritsar and Punjab (PPP) led by former SAD leader total of 42% votes. The Congress Party, Jalandhar districts). The Congress man-Manpreet Singh Badal. PPP contested which was widely expected to win the aged to win only nine and six seats in the elections in an alliance with the left election, could increase its 2007 seat tally Majha and Doaba, respectively. While parties, namely, the Communist Party of by a mere two seats, winning a total of the Congress improved its seat tally in India (CPI) and the Communist Party of 46 seats this time. In terms of vote share, both these regions compared to 2007, India-Marxist (CPI(M)). it dropped 1% of its 2007 votes, securing the gains for the party were not enough

The final outcome of the election did 40% of the total vote. The PPP did not to offset the losses it suffered in not follow the pattern of government win any seat but secured an impressive Malwa, the region with 13 of Punjab’s alteration. In a state where no ruling 5% of the vote. The BSP too gained in 20 districts and more importantly the party had ever been voted back to power terms of votes but failed to win any seat region with the highest number of assemsince reorganisation in 1966, the SAD+ (Table 1B, p 71). bly seats (69). It is in Malwa where the alliance created history by returning to If we look at the region-wise break-up, big turnaround of this election took power with a simple majority of 68 seats, SAD+ won more seats than the Congress place. The Congress which had won 37 the same as last time. While SAD won 56 across all the three regions of the state, seats from the region in 2007 saw its seats, a gain of 7 since 2007, the BJP, its namely Majha, Doaba and Malwa. In tally decline to 31 seats this time. SAD+ alliance partner, won 12 seats, down 7 both the Majha and Doaba regions, on the other hand won 36 seats here,

Table 2B: Category-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties by Reserved and General Constituencies in the Assembly Election (2012)

Category Total Seats Turnout (%) Congress SAD-BJP PPP BSP Independents Others Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)

Reserved (SC) 34 78.0 10 40.1 24 42.3 0 5.3 0 6.1 0 3.5 0 2.7
General 83 78.8 36 40.1 44 41.8 0 5.1 0 3.5 3 8.1 0 1.4
Total 117 78.6 46 40.1 68 41.9 0 5.2 0 4.3 3 6.8 0 1.8

Source: As in Table 1B.

Table 2C: Locality-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties by Rural-Urban Nature of Constituency in the Assembly Election (2012)

Locality Total Seats Turnout (%) Congress SAD-BJP PPP BSP Independents Others Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)

Rural 66 81.0 23 39.5 42 43.8 0 5.4 0 4.7 1 5.0 0 1.6
Semi-urban 34 78.6 17 40.8 17 39.0 0 6.2 0 4.1 0 7.8 0 2.1
Urban 17 68.9 6 41.2 9 39.8 0 1.6 0 3.0 2 12.7 0 1.8
Total 117 78.6 46 40.1 68 41.9 0 5.2 0 4.3 3 6.8 0 1.8

Rural constituencies are those constituencies where less than 25% electors live in urban areas. Semi-urban constituencies are those constituencies where 25% and more but less than 75% of electors live in urban areas. Urban constituencies are those constituencies where 75% or more electors live in urban areas. The classification of constituencies is based on Census 2001 and description of constituency boundary provided by the Delimitation Commission 2002 read with the urban/rural location indicated on the top sheet of electoral rolls for each Polling booth area. Computation and classification has been done by the CSDS data unit. Source: As in Table 1B.

Table 2D: Dominant Community-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties by Major Community in the Constituency in the Assembly Election (2012)

Dominant Community Total Seats Turnout (%) Congress SAD-BJP PPP BSP Independents Others
Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)
Hindu 19 74.4 4 34.8 13 38.2 0 3.5 0 6.0 2 16.5 0 1.1
Sikh 62 81.2 26 41.8 36 43.6 0 6.5 0 2.5 0 3.4 0 2.2
Mixed 36 76.2 16 39.7 19 40.6 0 3.6 0 6.7 1 8.1 0 1.4
Total 117 78.6 46 40.1 68 41.9 0 5.2 0 4.3 3 6.8 0 1.8

Hindu concentrated constituencies are those constituencies where 60% or more population are Hindus. Sikh constituencies are those constituencies where 60% or more population are Sikh. Mixed constituencies are those where both Hindu and Sikh constitute less than 60% of the population. The classification of constituencies by religious groups is based on Census 2001 and description of constituency boundary provided by the Delimitation Commission 2002. However, it may be noted that Ccensus does not provide information on religion below tehsil/ taluka/block level and that a constituency often cuts across these administrative units. So, in order to arrive at constituency level estimates of religious groups, the “principle of proportionality” was used to aggregate and disaggregate population below these administrative units. It may also be noted that these categories are not mutually exclusive, since the constituencies falling in each category defined by concentration of one community can and do overlap with concentration of another community as well. Source: As in Table 1B.

Table 2E: Turnout-wise Analysis: Performance of Major Alliances and Parties in Constituencies Where Female Turnout Was Greater Than Male Turnout in the Assembly Election (2012)

Turnout Category Total Seats Turnout Congress SAD-BJP PPP BSP Independents Others
(%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)
Female turnout greater
than male turnout 58 77.9 19 39.5 37 43.2 0 3.8 0 6.1 2 6.1 0 1.4
Male turnout greater
than female turnout 59 79.3 27 40.7 31 40.7 0 6.5 0 2.6 1 7.4 0 2.2
Total 117 78.6 46 40.1 68 41.9 0 5.2 0 4.3 3 6.8 0 1.8
Source: As in Table 1B.
72 april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14 Economic & Political Weekly
EPW

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

Table 3A: Social Basis of Voting: Survey Based Estimates of Vote for Major Alliances/Parties by Gender, Table 4A: Level of Satisfaction with the Age, Education, Locality, Class and Caste/Community in Assembly Elections (2007 and 2012) Incumbent Government (2012)

Congress SAD-BJP PPP BSP Others N in 2012 Citizens’ Satisfaction with SAD-BJP Government

2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012

Satisfied with performance 55

Age groups Up to 25 years 39 40 47 43 NA 6 5 3 9 8 399 Dissatisfied with performance 38

26-35 years 45 42 42 40 NA 5 4 4 9 9 758No opinion

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off.

36-45 years 40 42 45 43 NA 4 5 5 11 7 679

(2) Question asked in the survey – What is your assessment

46-55 years 42 39 47 41 NA 6 4 5 8 10 529

of the work done by the SAD-BJP coalition government in 56 years and above 37 38 48 43 NA 5 3 5 12 9 674 Punjab during the last five years? Would you say that you

Gender Men 41 41 44 40 NA 6 4 4 11 8 1,678

Women 41 40 48 44 NA 4 5 5 7 9 1,362

Level of education Non-literate 45 43 44 42 NA 4 4 4 8 8 777

Up to primary 43 35 40 42 NA 7 7 9 11 8 471

Up to matric 42 41 44 42 NA 4 5 5 9 8 986

College and above 38 39 50 42 NA 7 2 1 9 10 799

Locality Rural 41 40 45 44 NA 6 5 4 10 7 2,137

are satisfied or dissatisfied with it? (Probe further whether “fully” or “somewhat” satisfied or dissatisfied). Categories of “Fully satisfied” and “Somewhat satisfied” have been merged together as “Satisfied”; categories of “Fully dissatisfied” and “Somewhat dissatisfied” have been merged together as “Dissatisfied”. Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances. Total sample size: 3.250.

constituencies winning 42 of 66 such seats. It was in the urban and semi

Urban 42 42 46 36 NA 5 3 5 10 13 902 urban seats where the contest between

Class Upper NA 38NA 44 NA 7 NA 1 NA 9 1,187

Middle NA 37 NA 43 NA 5 NA 7NA 7 991

Lower NA 46 NA 37 NA 3 NA 6NA 9 767

Poor NA 46 NA 35 NA 3 NA 1NA 15 94*

Caste community Upper Caste Hindu 45 48 43 34 NA 4 1 2 11 12 411

SAD+ and the Congress was much tighter both in terms of seats and vote share (Table 2C, p 72).

SAD+ not only performed better than the Congress in seats where Sikhs constitute more than 60% of the popula

Hindu OBC 51 37 36 40 NA 8 2 0 12 15 112 tion, but also outdid the Congress in

Hindu dalit 53 37 29 33 NA 1 11 23 7 6 330 constituencies with a high concentration

Jat Sikh 31 31 60 52 NA 9 1 1 9 7 904
Khatri Sikh 37 35 49 50 NA 5 1 0 13 11 179
OBC Sikh 44 44 42 46 NA 3 9 0 5 8 253
Dalit Sikh 50 51 30 34 NA 4 13 5 8 7 553
Others 43 42 37 41 NA 5 4 3 16 10 295
  • (1) All figures except ‘N’ are in % and rounded off.
  • (2) ‘N’ stands for sample size for the relevant row. In some cases the sample size is too small and figures indicated with
  • * need to be read with caution.

  • (3) Educational categories are defined as follows. Non-literate: A person who can neither read nor write in any language. Up to primary: It includes the persons who received formal schooling; either completed the whole primary cycle (I-V) or completed one or other grades of it. Up to matric: It includes persons ranging from those who received schooling beyond the primary cycle to those who actually completed the 10th standard. College and above: It includes persons who went to college but could not receive a degree and those who completed five years of education in college and those who received education beyond graduation either in general education or in specialised streams/courses.
  • (4) The class scheme used here takes into account two elements of material wealth – durable household assets and monthly household income. Upper are those who had car/jeep/tractor or colour TV, scooter, telephone, fridge, air conditioner, pumping sets (rural) and LPG (rural), or whose monthly household income was above Rs 20,000. Middle class respondents are those who had any three out of four assets such as telephone, colour TV, scooter/motor cycle and fridge in their households or whose monthly household income was above Rs 5,000 and up to Rs 20,000. Lower class respondents are those who had any three out of four assets such as B/W TV, electric fan, bicycle and LPG in their households or whose monthly household income was above Rs 2,000 and up to Rs 5,000. Poor are those who had no more than two out of the household assets or whose monthly household income was Rs 2,000 and less.
  • (5) Since the analysis uses data-file weighted by actual vote shares, it holds on the assumption that any discrepancy between the reported vote in the post-poll survey and the actual vote share is evenly distributed across all the social groups.
  • (6) PPP is a new party and was not in the fray in 2007.
  • (7) NA refers to not available or not applicable.
  • (8) “Others” in this table (column) include other smaller parties and independents. Source: All figures are based on a post-poll/exit poll surveys carried out by CSDS in 2007 and 2012. Total sample size in 2007 was 4,935. Total sample size in 2012 was 3,250; In these surveys the respondents were asked to indicate who they voted for by using a ballot paper that carried the list of candidates their party names and symbols as on the EVM in their constituency. Figures reported here are for respondents who said they voted. The investigators checked if these respondents carried a mark on their finger. Those without a finger mark have been excluded from this analysis. The raw survey figures were weighted by actual vote share obtained by major alliances/parties in the final results.
  • 12 more than last time. Barring Barnala, SAD+ performed much better than the Patiala, Fatehgarh Sahib, SAS Nagar, Congress in both the reserved scheduled Ludhiana and Muktsar, the Congress caste seats (winning 24 of the 34 seats) trailed SAD+ in terms of seats in the rest and the general seats (44 out of 83) of the seven districts of the Malwa (Table 2B, p 72). It also outdid the region (Table 2A, p 71). Congress in the almost entirely rural

    Economic & Political Weekly

    EPW
    april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

    of Hindu population, winning 13 of the 19 such seats. In seats where no single community dominated (Sikh or Hindu), the Congress performed slightly better, but even here it trailed the SAD-BJP combine (Table 2D, p 72).

    Women voters also seem to have favoured the SAD-BJP combine this election, a point corroborated by survey evidence. Out of the 58 constituencies where the turnout of women voters had been higher than that of men voters, SAD-BJP won 37, while the Congress managed to win 19 such seats (Table 2E, p 72).

    Taking this further, if we analyse in terms of how men and women voted based on the CSDS post-poll survey data, then we find that while SAD+ lost votes among both men and women compared to 2007, it still maintained a comfortable and significant lead of 4 percentage points over Congress among the women. In other words it is not men but women who seem to have played a major role in the SAD+ victory this time. Among men voters the contest was much tighter with the Congress having a 1 percentage point edge. The biggest losses for the SAD-BJP alliance were in the urban areas and among upper caste Hindus, both of

    SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

    which are considered to be BJP’s core voters and had voted for the BJP in large numbers five years ago. While among urban voters, SAD-BJP lost up to 10% votes since last time, among upper caste Hindus the losses were up to 9%. However what is interesting is that these losses did not result in any signifi cant gains for the Congress among these two sections. SAD+ also dropped nearly 8% votes among Jat Sikhs, and all of it seems to have gone to the PPP and not the Congress. The losses suffered by SAD+ among Jat Sikhs, upper caste Hindus and urban voters, were offset by gains among other communities, namely, the Hindu Other Backward Classes (OBCs) (up by 4 percentage points since 2007), OBC Sikhs (up 4 percentage points), dalit Sikhs (up 4 percentage points) and Hindu dalits (up 4 percentage points). The Congress, on the other hand, lost votes among most of these sections compared to 2007, the highest losses being among Hindu dalits at 16 percentage points and Hindu OBCs at 14 percentage points. In fact, the lead of the Congress over SAD+ among Hindu dalits came down from 24 percentage points last time to just 4 percentage points this time (Table 3A, p 73).

    Table 4B: Citizen's Assessment of the Work Done by the Government during Its Tenure for Various Public Goods and Services

    Assessment of Governance Issues SAD-BJP Government 2012 Congress Government 2007
    Improved Deteriorated Improved Deteriorated
    Condition of farmers 54 29 51 41
    Supply of electricity 64 29 56 37
    Irrigation facilities 49 26 59 31
    Control of corruption 30 54 54 36
    Employment opportunities 46 40 47 45

    The CSDS post-poll survey found strong evidence of positive rating for the work done by the incumbent SAD-BJP government and Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal. A total of 55% of the respondents were satisfied with the Badal government’s performance (Table 4A, p 73). On key areas of governance, such as, condition of farmers, supply of electricity, the SAD-BJP government was rated higher and more positively than the Congress government was in 2007. Only on the issue of controlling corruption was it rated much worse (Table 4B).

    Parkash Singh Badal’s personal popularity has remained as high as it was fi ve years ago and he was yet again the most preferred choice for chief minister (38%) among respondents, particularly women and farmers (Tables 4C and 4D). Amarinder Singh of the Congress was a close second at 33%. However compared to 2007, his popularity is down by 5%,

    (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rows do not add up to 100 as those who said “Don’t know” have not been giving his main rival Parkash Singh reported here.

    Badal a clearer lead over him this time.

    (2) Question asked in the surveys- “Now I will ask you about the assessment of the work done by the government in the state in the last five years. Do you think the condition of the following has improved or deteriorated?” (Probe whether fully or Parkash Singh Badal was also rated somewhat improved or deteriorated) categories of “fully improved” and “somewhat improved” have been merged

    more positively by the voters on govern

    together as “improved”; categories of “fully deteriorated” and “somewhat deteriorated” have been merged together as “Deteriorated”. ance. While 35 to 37% of the voters Source: All figures are based on post-poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major

    opted for the 84-year-old Badal when

    parties/alliances. Sample size in 2007 was 501; Sample size in 2012 was 3,250.

    Table 4C: Trend in Popularity of Major Political Table 4E: Citizens’ Assessment of Leaders: Who Is Best for Running the Government and Leaders as Most Preferred CM (2002-12) for State’s Development?

    Chief Minister Choices 2002 2004 2007 2009 2012 Who Is Best for … Parkash Singh Badal Amarinder Singh Sukhbir Singh Badal Manpreet Badal Rajinder Bhattal

    Parkash Singh Badal 32 31 39 27 38
    Amarinder Singh 24 29 38 31 33
    Rajinder Kaur Bhattal 6 6 1 2 1
    Sukhbir Singh Badal 2 2 2 2 5
    Manpreet Singh Badal NA NA NC NC 5
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; respondents who said “don’t know” or gave other choices have been excluded; responses above are to an open-ended question.
  • (2) Question asked in the surveys: After this election, who would you prefer as the next chief minister of Punjab? (No names were offered to those being interviewed; all responses are spontaneous and were post-coded).
  • (3) NC: Names not coded in those years as the responses were insignificant; NA: Not applicable. Source: All figures are based on post-poll/exit poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances. Sample size in 2002 was 1,147; Sample size in 2004 was 815; Sample size in 2007 was 4,935; Sample size in 2009 was 1,107; Sample size in 2012 was 3,250.
  • Running the government 37 32 3 5 1

    Punjab’s development 35 32 4 7 1

  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had no opinion.
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: Now I will ask you to compare five prominent leaders of Punjab – Parkash Singh Badal, Amarinder Singh, Sukhbir Singh Badal, Manpreet Badal and Rajinder Kaur Bhattal. According to you who among them is best for running the government and best for the development of Punjab? Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.
  • Table 4F: Citizens’ Assessment of Leaders: Who Is More Corrupt and More Nepotistic?
    Who Is … Parkash Singh Badal Amarinder Singh Sukhbir Singh Badal Manpreet Badal Rajinder Bhattal
    More corrupt 18 20 7 1 1
    More nepotistic 23 19 4 0 1
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had no opinion.
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: Now I will ask you to compare five prominent leaders of Punjab – Parkash Singh Badal, Amarinder Singh, Sukhbir Singh Badal, Manpreet Badal and Rajinder Kaur Bhattal. According to you who among them is more corrupt and more nepotistic? Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.
  • Table 4G: Citizens’ Opinion on Sukhbir Singh Badal as Chief Minister

    Table 4D: Popularity of Parkash Singh Badal and Opinion on Sukhbir Singh Badal as Chief Minister All Among Traditional Among Traditional Amarinder Singh as Most Preferred CM among SAD Supporters BJP Supporters

    Women and Farmers (2012)
    Chief Minister Choices All Among Among
    Farmers Women
    Parkash Singh Badal 38 47 40
    Amarinder Singh 33 28 30

    All figures are in % and rounded off. Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.

    He is suitable to be CM now 17 32 20
    Not ready to be CM now, should wait 24 33 27
    Not suitable for post of CM 32 16 13
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had no opinion.
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: People have different opinions about Sukhbir Singh Badal becoming chief minister. Some say he is suitable to become chief minister now. Others say he is not ready to be chief minister now and should wait for some time, and some others say that he is not at all suitable for the post of chief minister. What is your opinion? Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.
  • april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

    EPW
    Economic & Political Weekly

    SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

    Table 4H: Awareness and Reach of SAD-BJP Government’s Populist Schemes

    Scheme Heard Benefited (from among Those Who Had Heard)

    Atta-dal scheme (responses of poor only) 80 70

    Free power to tube wells for

    farmers (responses of

    farmers only) 85 68

    Free power to dalit families (responses of dalits only) 78 55

  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had not heard or had not benefited/had no opinion.
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: Now I will ask you about a few schemes of the state government. Please tell me have you heard about them? (If heard) Have you or any member of your family benefited from them? Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.
  • Table 4I: Most Important Election Issue in Punjab

    Most Important Election Issue %
    Price rise 41
    Unemployment 22
    Development of State 12
    Corruption 9
    Issue of drug addiction 7
    Farmers’ problems 5
    Electricity, road, water 3
    Religion, Panth, Dera 2
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off.
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: Now I will read out certain issues. Please tell me how important were they to you while voting – very much, somewhat or not at all? Once the respondent had given an answer to each of the issues put before him/her, a follow-up question was asked to the respondent where only those answer categories where the respondent had said “very much” in the first question were read out again, and the respondent was asked to choose from among them the single-most important election issue. Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.
  • it came to running the government and Punjab’s development, 32% chose Amarinder Singh. The latter was also seen as more corrupt (20%). However on the question of who among them was more nepotistic, most respondents (23%) said Badal (Tables 4E and 4F, p 74).

    Parkash Singh Badal may be the most popular and best rated leader, his son and Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal does not enjoy similar goodwill. While 24% of the respondents said that Sukhbir is not ready to become chief minister and should wait, an ever higher 32% said he is not suitable for the post at all. Even among traditional SAD and BJP supporters, most were of the view that he should wait (Table 4G, p 74).

    Most people seem to have heard of the populist schemes launched by the SAD-BJP government during the last five years and among those who have heard of them, majority seems to have bene fited. For instance 80% of the poor have heard of the Atta-Dal scheme meant for poor families and among them 70% have benefited. Similarly, 85% of farmers have heard of the policy that gives free power for tube wells and 68% of them said that they had benefi ted (Table 4H).

    The post-poll survey confirms the widespread belief among political observers that after a long time an election in Punjab had gone beyond the old Panthic agenda of political parties. When asked which was the most important election issue for them, 41% of the respondents said price rise and 22% said unemployment. Panth was an issue for only 2% of the voters (Table 4I).

    Survey Methodology

    The findings presented here are based on a post-poll survey conducted by the CSDS, Delhi, in Punjab. A total of 3,250 persons, randomly selected from the latest electoral rolls, were interviewed in the first week of February 2012 (after polling but before counting of votes) in 178 locations in 45 constituencies spread across the state. The assembly constituencies and four polling booths within each sampled constituency were selected using the systematic random sampling technique. The respondents were sampled randomly (oversampling to allow for non-completion) from the updated electoral rolls of the selected polling booths. Of the 5,760 sampled respondents, 3,250 could be interviewed within the stipulated time.

    The social profile of the respondents interviewed largely matched the demographic profile of the state (Table 5). The interviews were conducted by specially trained fi eld investigators. The respondents were interviewed in the face-to-face interview situation using a structured interview schedule in Punjabi and Hindi. Respondents were mostly interviewed at their home, preferably alone. The voting question was asked using a dummy ballot paper and dummy ballot box.

    Table 5: Sample Profile

    Social Background Census 2001 Survey 2012
    Women 46.7 44.9
    Urban 33.9 30.8
    Dalit 28.9 33.2
    Hindu 36.9 30.6
    Sikh 60.0 67.4

    All figures are in %.

    The fieldwork of the survey in Punjab was coordinated by Ashutosh Kumar (Punjab University, Chandigarh) and Jagroop Singh Shekhon (Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar). The survey was designed and analysed by a team of researchers at the CSDS, Delhi which included Banasmita Bora, Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Himanshu Bhattacharya, Jyoti Mishra, K A Q A Hilal, Kanchan Malhotra, Kinjal Sampat, Rupali Warke, Shreyas Sardesai, Sohini Mookherjee, Vibha Attri, and Yogendra Yadav. Sanjay Kumar of the CSDS directed the survey.

    REVIEW OF WOMEN’S STUDIES
    October 22, 2011
    Subverting Policy, Surviving Poverty: Women and the SGSY in Rural Tamil Nadu – K Kalpana
    Small Loans, Big Dreams: Women and Microcredit in a Globalising Economy – Kumud Sharma
    Women and Pro-Poor Policies in Rural Tamil Nadu: An Examination of Practices and Responses – J Jeyaranjan

    Informed by Gender? Public Policy in Kerala – Seema Bhaskaran Addressing Paid Domestic Work: A Public Policy Concern – Nimushakavi Vasanthi Reproductive Rights and Exclusionary Wrongs:

    Maternity Benefits – Lakshmi Lingam, Vaidehi Yelamanchili Reinventing Reproduction, Re-conceiving Challenges:

    An Examination of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in India – Vrinda Marwah, Sarojini N

    For copies write to: Circulation Manager,

    Economic and Political Weekly,

    320-321, A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. email: circulation@epw.in

    Economic & Political Weekly

    EPW
    april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

    Dear Reader,

    To continue reading, become a subscriber.

    Explore our attractive subscription offers.

    Click here

    Back to Top