How Indian States are following a pro-incumbency trend

The electoral landscape in India has been witnessing a fascinating shift, moving away from the traditional narrative of 'anti-incumbency' towards a discernible 'pro-incumbency trend' at the state level. This phenomenon, where state governments are frequently re-elected, stands in contrast to global patterns often marked by public dissatisfaction stemming from economic strain or anti-elite sentiments. Understanding this unique Indian electoral logic is crucial for aspirants preparing for competitive exams, as it delves into the intricate interplay of governance, welfare, and voter behaviour.

Historically, Indian politics, especially from the 1970s through the 1990s, was largely characterized by a strong anti-incumbency sentiment. Voters often ousted ruling parties at the state and sometimes even the national level, seeking change due to perceived failures in governance, corruption, or unmet expectations. However, in the 21st century, particularly over the last decade, numerous states like Odisha, West Bengal, Delhi, and several others have seen incumbent governments return to power, often with increased majorities. This shift is not accidental but a result of evolving political strategies and improved welfare delivery mechanisms.

At the heart of this pro-incumbency trend lies 'welfare-driven incumbency'. State governments have increasingly focused on designing and implementing targeted welfare schemes that directly benefit a large segment of the population. These schemes span various sectors: direct cash transfers to women (e.g., Odisha's Mamata scheme, West Bengal's Lakshmi Bhandar), housing for the poor (e.g., Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana implemented by states), food security (e.g., public distribution system under the National Food Security Act, 2013), health insurance (e.g., Ayushman Bharat, state-specific health schemes), and farmer support (e.g., Telangana's Rythu Bandhu, Odisha's KALIA scheme). The success of these schemes is often attributed to better last-mile delivery, facilitated by technology like Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) and the Aadhaar system, ensuring that benefits reach the intended beneficiaries with minimal leakage.

Key stakeholders in this phenomenon include the **State Governments** and the **ruling parties** themselves, who strategically formulate and implement these welfare policies as a means to secure re-election. The **voters**, particularly the marginalized and economically vulnerable sections, are the direct beneficiaries and ultimately the decision-makers who reward governments for tangible benefits. **Opposition parties** often struggle to counter the narrative of welfare delivery, finding it challenging to convince voters to forgo immediate benefits for promises of future growth or alternative governance models. The **bureaucracy** plays a critical role in the efficient execution of these schemes, while the **Election Commission of India (ECI)** ensures a level playing field, though its role is not in shaping the trend but in overseeing the electoral process.

This trend holds significant implications for India. Politically, it can lead to greater stability at the state level, allowing governments to pursue long-term policy agendas without constant fear of being voted out. It also reinforces the principles of **federalism**, as states innovate with their own welfare models tailored to local needs, often funded through their own resources or shared central funds. Economically, while welfare schemes provide a safety net and boost consumption, they also place significant strain on state finances, raising questions about fiscal sustainability and the balance between welfare expenditure and capital investment. Socially, these schemes contribute to poverty alleviation and improved human development indicators, albeit with debates on their long-term impact on self-reliance and productivity.

Several constitutional provisions underpin the state's role in welfare. The **Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)**, enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 47), guide the state to establish a welfare state, promote social and economic justice, ensure adequate means of livelihood, public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement, and raise the standard of living. The **Seventh Schedule** of the Constitution, particularly the **State List**, grants states legislative powers over subjects like public health, sanitation, agriculture, public order, and land, enabling them to formulate and implement these welfare policies. The **73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts** (1992) further strengthened decentralization, empowering local self-governments to deliver services more effectively at the grassroots level, which is critical for welfare scheme implementation.

Looking ahead, the pro-incumbency trend driven by welfare politics presents both opportunities and challenges. It may compel parties to focus more on tangible governance outcomes rather than mere rhetoric. However, it also raises concerns about 'freebie culture' and its impact on fiscal health. Future elections might see a continued emphasis on 'guarantees' and direct transfers, pushing opposition parties to devise equally compelling welfare alternatives or shift focus to other aspects of governance like law and order, infrastructure, or economic growth beyond immediate handouts. The sustainability of these welfare models, the potential for patronage politics, and the balance between welfare and long-term development will remain critical issues for India's democratic future.