Lok Sabha Polls: Does a seven phase election schedule really benefit the BJP?

An argument states that since BJP has a stronger organisation, it is better positioned to take advantage of this lengthy schedule.

After election dates were announced for Lok Sabha 2024, opposition parties have alleged that such a lengthy schedule of seven phases will help the BJP. But it is this writer’s contention that the election schedule does not determine who wins or loses. It is the party and leadership which is able to establish a connection with the voter that emerges victorious.

Every party and leader gets the same number of days to campaign. Electoral bonds data shows that regional parties, at least those who are in power now or until recently, and contest on a far lesser number of seats have sufficient funds to compete with the ruling party, the BJP. Congress does lag in financial resources compared to BJP but that’s like saying money wins elections, which again is not true.

While the opposition has the right to criticise, their cribbing also indicates a sign of weakness ahead of the general elections. Perhaps, even a sign of giving up before the polling even starts?

The first phase starts on April 19 and polling concludes in the seventh phase on June 1, spread over 44 days. The longest election schedule was the first ever election spread over five months. The shortest election schedule was in 1980 of four days.

The duration has been consistently increasing since 2004, having doubled from 22 days in 2004 to 44 days in 2024.

These are some reactions:

1. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge remarked that the extended schedule implied that Prime Minister Narendra Modi "wants to tour everywhere."

The 44 day schedule allows star campaigners from both BJP (Narendra Modi) and Congress (Rahul Gandhi) to cover as many states and Lok Sabha seats as possible.

In 2019, PM Modi addressed 142 and Rahul 145 rallies. The results show the impact of Modi’s rallies was higher than Rahul's, reflecting the leadership/charisma advantage he enjoys, and is not dependent on schedule.

What, Where and How – what (message), where (focus states), how (delivery) – is the key, not how many rallies a leader conducts. Strategically, Modi addressed the highest number of rallies in UP, Bengal and Odisha as losses were expected in the North by the BJP.

Ironically, top four states for Rahul were UP, Kerala, Rajasthan and MP, where barring Kerala it could not win many seats elsewhere. That's a poor outcome, efforts could have been mapped to southern and other states where the party had some traction.

A related argument is that since BJP has a stronger organisation, it is better positioned to take advantage of this lengthy schedule. However, this factor, like leadership, is a structural advantage which BJP has over the opposition, even before polling starts, and can’t be conflated with the election schedule.

2. Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray highlighted that the lengthy election schedule was intended to allow the anti-ruling party sentiment among people to dissipate.

Even if one assumes that there is significant disillusionment, given opposition’s weaker organisational machinery it in fact needs a higher number of days between schedules to make its campaign reach a wider audience.

The ability to sustain the anti-incumbency environment rests on opposition leaders and party cadre. Both parties get equal time to disseminate their message to exploit pro-/anti- incumbency. As MCC is in place, BJP can’t now allure voters with legislative action like reduction in fuel prices, increase in financial support etc.

3. Bengal Finance Minister Chandrima Bhattacharya opined that a multi-phase election helps political parties with deeper pockets and gives them an advantage over others.

The electoral bonds data shows BJP has received 50 percent and other parties including Congress the balance 50 percent. None of BJP’s allies have received significant sums of money. Regional parties with political power have also received significant sums of money like TMC, BRS, DMK, YSRCP, BJD etc.

These parties contest on a much lesser number of seats than BJP on a pan-India level, hence they have adequate funds to compete.

However, parties out of power like RJD, SP in the Hindi heartland, have less resources and have to rely on public funding for a seven-phase poll. However, if they are able to exploit anti-incumbency and manage to create an anti-BJP environment then any amount of money cannot help the saffron party.

The Congress which fights on 400+ seats and takes on BJP directly in 200-odd seats does face funds crunch compared to the BJP, which is natural, as corporates/high net-worth individuals fund parties in power and those with better chance to win polls. In this scenario, Congress needs to strategically allocate resources leaving states/seats for allies to focus on.

4. Feedback, mid-course strategy changes, turnout fluctuations.

Another criticism is that the lengthy schedule in phases gives time to BJP to change strategy and incorporate feedback from earlier phases. The strong organisation adds to this advantage. In a single phase BJP would get no time to react, that’s true though.

However, this feedback option is also available to all parties, and their inability to match BJP in this aspect is largely a structural problem of the Congress party. Regional parties in power can match BJP on this front.

A lengthy schedule can also impact turnout as May will be peak summer time. Lower turnout generally favours the incumbent, it is widely believed.

To sum up, the advantages accruing to BJP because of a lengthy schedule is largely available to all opposition parties as well, as can be seen above. The reasons for opposition feeling disadvantaged accrues from factors which are largely structural like weak leadership and organisation, and not the length of the schedule.

Funding disparity is, perhaps, the only fair allegation and that works only for Congress and to a lesser extent for regional parties. But then, does money alone win elections?

Amitabh Tiwari is a former corporate and investment banker-turned political strategist and commentator. Twitter: @politicalbaaba. Views are personal, and do not represent the stance of this publication.