SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012-13 STATE ELECTIONS

General Election 2012 to the Legislative Assembly of Gujarat

two-phased election to elect the 13th Legislative Assembly of Gujarat was held on 13 and 17 December 2012. This was the 12th assembly election since the states formation in 1960. At 72.02%, the voters turnout was the highest ever in the states history and over 12 percentage points higher than the previous assembly election (Table 1A). The increase in voters compared to the 2007 election was over 25% indicating that the rise in turnout was not a mere statistical correction. The turnout of men was higher than that of women by over 3 percentage points. Both men and women recorded a much higher turnout compared to ve years ago. There were 1,666 candidates in the electoral fray this time, an increase of 31% over the last assembly election. The Outcome

base and the party ended up winning 61 seats, up by only two seats since 2007. The Gujarat Parivartan Party (GPP), a breakaway faction of the BJP led by former Chief Minister Keshubhai Patel, which contested on 167 seats and which
Table 1A: Summary Electoral Participation Electorate, Turnout and Number of Candidates Compared to the Assembly Election (2007)
Assembly Election 2012 Change from 2007

(%)
Total electorate Male electorate Female electorate Other electorate Total voters Total turnout (%) Male turnout (%) Female turnout (%) Number of candidates 3,80,99,110 1,99,50,206 1,81,48,715 189 2,74,39,763 72.02 72.94 69.50 1,666 +4.12 +5.69 +2.44 +25.45 +12.25 +10.63 +12.48 +31.39

The nal outcome of the election was in favour of the incumbent once again. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi registered a fth consecutive victory in the state over its main opponent the Indian National Congress (INC/Congress). For Modi who became chief minister of the state in 2001 and led the party to election victories in 2002 and 2007, this 2012 win was a mandate to govern the state for the third straight time. The BJP which put up candidates on all the 182 assembly seats of the state managed to win a total of 115 seats, down two seats since 2007 (Table 1B). This was also its lowest seat tally since it rst came to power in Gujarat on its own in 1995. The party secured an overall vote share of around 47.9%, down 1 percentage point since 2007. Clearly, the decline in the BJPs votes was not as drastic as to have caused a major upheaval in terms of seats. The Congress on the other hand increased its vote share by just 1 percentage point since 2007 to settle at 38.9% votes. This was not enough for the Congress to make a major dent into the BJPs
88

For electorate, voters and candidates, the change is in percentage with 2007 as the base. Change in turnout is computed in percentage points compared to the turnout in 2007. Total voters and total turnout includes both EVM votes and postal votes. However the male and female turnout percentages do not include postal votes as there is no gender break-up of postal votes available. Source: Figures available from Election Commission of India statistical report http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/ StatisticalReports/SE_2012/Reports_Index%20Card_ ECIApplication_GujaratState_CEO.pdf; accessed on 8 March 2013; Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS data unit.

was widely expected to play a spoiler for the BJP, failed to make any major impact and won only two seats with a vote share of 3.6%. The Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) which contested on 12 seats ended up winning two seats, a loss of one seat since last time. The Janata Dal-United (JD-U), which put up candidates on 65 seats, won one seat. There were a total of 668 independents in the fray during the election but only one managed to enter the assembly. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) which put up candidates on 163 seats drew a blank and secured only 1.3% of the votes. Together, the BJP and the Congress accounted for 86.8% of the valid votes polled. This was a shade less than what it had been in 2007, indicating that the main competition in the state continues to be between the two national parties. Sixteen out of the 97 women who contested the election made it to the new assembly. In 2007 too, 16 women had been victorious. The total number of women contestants then had been 88. Even though the BJP was down two seats compared to 2007, most of its victories were quite comfortable; in fact, more so than they were ve years ago. While in 2007 the BJP had won 62% of its total 117 seats by a victory margin of over 10,000 votes, in 2012 the party won 74% of its 115 seats by similar

Table 1B: Summary Results: Seats Contested, Won and Votes Secured by Major Parties in 2012, Compared to the Assembly Election (2007)
Seats Contested Seats Gain/Loss of Won Seats since 2007 Vote Share (%) Vote % Per Seat Contested Vote Swing since 2007 (% Points)

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Indian National Congress (INC/Congress) Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) Samajwadi Party (SP) Communist Party of India (CPI) Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) Gujarat Parivartan Party (GPP) Janata Dal-United (JD-U) Lok Jan Shakti Party (LJNSP) Other parties Independents Total

182 176 12 163 67 3 9 167 65 44 110 668 1,666

115 61 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0

-2 +2 -1 0 0 0 0 +2 0 0 0 -1 0

47.86 38.94 0.95 1.25 0.26 0.02 0.08 3.63 0.67 0.20 0.32 5.82 100

47.86 40.22 14.46 1.38 0.70 1.29 1.79 3.96 1.83 0.54 0.51

-1.26 +0.94 -0.10 -1.37 +0.11 -0.01 -0.07 +3.63 +0.01 +0.09 -1.18 -0.79 0

(1) Others Parties in 2012 include Communist Party of India-Marxist Leninist (Liberation) (CPI-ML (L)), Republican Party of India-A (RPI-A), Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal (ABMSD), Socialist Unity Centre of IndiaCommunist (SUCI-C), Indian Justice Party (IJP) and other smaller parties. Other Parties in 2007 included CPI-ML (L), RPI-A, ABMSD, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Shivsena (SHS) and other smaller parties. (2) GPP is a new party and did not contest in 2007. Source: Detailed constituency level results from Election Commission of India statistical report of 2012 Gujarat Assembly election http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/SE_2012/Reports_Index%20Card_ECIApplication_GujaratState_ CEO.pdf, accessed on 8 March 2013; Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS data unit.

june 15, 2013

vol xlviiI no 24

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012-13 STATE ELECTIONS

margins (Table 1C). Conversely while the BJP had won 21% of its seats in 2007 by margins of less than 5,000 votes, in 2012 this gure came down to 11%.
Table 1C: Comparative Analysis of Seats Won by Different Victory Margins: Assembly Elections (2007 and 2012)
Victory Margins Total Seats Congress BJP Others (Votes) 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012

Up to 1,000 1,001-5,000 10,001 and above Total

3 18 10 30

1 3 2 6

2 4 6

39 32 19

20 12 20 17 73 85

5,001-10,000 35 27 12 99 119 24 182 182 59

61 117 115

Others in this table include other smaller parties and Independents. Source: As in Table 1B.

A region-wise analysis of the verdict reveals that the BJP was ahead of the Congress in all the four regions of the state north Gujarat, Saurashtra and Kutch, central Gujarat and south Gujarat. However, the extent of its lead varied from region to region (Table 2A). Out of
Total Seats Turnout (%)

all the four regions, the BJPs performance was the best in south Gujarat. Not only did the party get more than 50% of the votes here, it also won 80% of the seats of this region. South Gujarat is also the region which saw the highest gap between the BJP and the Congress, both in terms of votes and seats. Within south Gujarat, the BJPs best performance came from Surat district where it won 16 of the 18 available seats and secured 55% votes. The other region where the party did extremely well was Saurashtra and Kutch, where Keshubhai Patels GPP was expected to damage its prospects. The BJP won 34 of the 54 seats on offer in this region, down only marginally since 2007. The partys vote share in the region was 45%, 3 percentage points less than 2007. The GPP secured around 8% of the votes in Saurashtra and Kutch and ended up winning only two seats,

Table 2A: Turnout and Performance of Major Parties by Regions and Districts Region/Districts
Congress BJP GPP Others Seats Won Vote (%) Seats Won Vote (%) Seats Won Vote (%) Seats Won Vote (%)

North Gujarat Banaskantha Patan Mahesana Sabarkantha Gandhinagar Ahmedabad Saurashtra & Kutch Kutch Surendranagar Rajkot Jamnagar Porbandar Junagadh Amreli Bhavnagar Central Gujarat Anand Kheda Panchmahals Dahod Vadodara South Gujarat Narmada Bharuch Surat Dangs Navsari Valsad Total

53 9 4 7 7 5 21 54 6 5 11 7 2 9 5 9 40 7 7 7 6 13 35 2 5 18 1 4 5 182

72.7 75.6 71.6 74.6 76.7 75.5 69.2 69.8 68.2 70.6 71.6 69.0 66.9 70.4 67.8 69.9 72.8 75.4 72.9 72.5 69.3 72.9 73.5 83.3 75.8 71.2 69.8 76.5 74.4 72.0

21 5 1 2 6 3 4 16 1 1 5 2 0 4 2 1 18 4 5 4 3 2 6 0 0 2 1 1 2 61

40.2 43.7 44.1 36.9 50.7 46.8 33.5 37.2 40.0 41.3 37.7 38.8 23.1 36.3 37.5 34.6 40.9 42.3 46.2 40.0 40.5 37.8 37.4 37.9 36.1 34.7 45.3 44.4 40.5 38.9

32 4 3 5 1 2 17 35 5 4 6 5 1 4 2 8 20 2 2 3 3 10 28 2 4 16 0 3 3 115

49.6 41.5 44.2 50.3 37.9 47.0 58.9 45.0 45.4 48.5 44.8 46.0 46.1 42.1 35.7 49.7 46.0 44.1 43.2 44.6 42.9 50.6 51.6 43.7 47.5 55.1 42.9 49.3 49.2 47.9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

1.4 1.3 1.4 1.9 0.9 0.6 1.7 7.8 5.1 3.1 10.8 6.9 0.8 12.3 12.4 3.3 2.2 1.2 2.1 5.0 2.8 1.0 2.6 1.1 1.7 3.8 1.3 1.9 0.8 3.6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4

8.8 13.5 10.3 10.9 10.5 5.5 5.9 10.1 9.5 7.0 6.8 8.3 29.9 9.4 14.3 12.3 10.9 12.4 8.4 10.4 13.8 10.6 8.5 17.2 14.7 6.4 10.5 4.4 9.5 9.6

one being Keshubhais own seat of Visavadar. The Congress won 16 seats, a minor gain of just two seats since 2007 and secured 37% of the votes. Within Saurashtra, the BJPs best performance was in Bhavnagar district where the party secured nearly 50% of the total votes and won eight of the nine seats. In Kutch and Surendranagar districts too, the party won all but one seat. It was only in Amreli and Junagadh that the contest between the BJP and the Congress was somewhat equally matched. While Saurashtra and south Gujarat regions saw an impressive performance by the BJP, the same cannot be said for the central and north Gujarat regions, both of which saw a much closer battle. In central Gujarat, which was once a Congress stronghold, the BJP won 20 seats while the Congress ended up with 18 seats. Half of the BJPs seats came from the district of Vadodara. In the districts of Anand, Kheda and Panchmahals however, it was the Congress which led the BJP in terms of total seats won. In the north Gujarat region too, considered a BJP bastion, the contest was quite close with the Congress winning 21 seats, eight more than last time and the BJP winning 32 seats, down six since 2007. While the difference in vote share between the Congress and the BJP was a huge 10%, this was mainly due to the BJPs impressive performance in the district of Ahmedabad where the party secured a whopping 59% of the vote and won 17 of the 21 seats on offer. The contests were much closer in the other districts, with the Congress leading the BJP in Gandhinagar, Banaskantha and Sabarkantha districts. In Sabarkantha, in fact, the Congress secured 51% of the vote and won six of the seven available seats. The Urban Handicap Much of the credit for the BJP retaining power in Gujarat goes to the urban areas of the state, whose population and share in assembly seats has steadily risen over the last decade. It was in urban and semi-urban Gujarat, and not so much in rural Gujarat, that the BJP did spectacularly well winning 62% of its total 115 seats. The party won 36 of
89

Others in this table and in Tables 2B, 2C and 2D include other smaller parties and independents. Source: As in Table 1B.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

june 15, 2013

vol xlviiI no 24

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012-13 STATE ELECTIONS

Table 2B: Locality-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Parties by Rural-Urban Nature of Constituency
Locality Total Seats Turnout (%) Congress Seats Won Vote (%) BJP Seats Won Vote (%) GPP Seats Won Vote (%) Others Seats Won Vote (%)

Rural Semi-urban Urban Total

98 45 39 182

74.1 71.1 68.1 72.0

49 8 4 61

42.1 37.1 32.8 38.9

44 36 35 115

42.9 49.0 59.5 47.9

2 0 0 2

3.8 3.6 3.1 3.6

3 1 0 4

11.1 10.3 4.6 9.6

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 2C: Category-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Parties by Reserved and General Constituencies
Categories Total Seats Turnout (%) Congress Seats Won Vote (%) BJP Seats Won Vote (%) GPP Seats Won Vote (%) Others Seats Won Vote (%)

Reserved (SC) Reserved (ST) General Total

14 26 142 182

69.9 75.1 71.7 72.0

4 15 42 61

41.4 45.3 37.5 38.9

10 10 95 115

47.6 40.2 49.3 47.9

0 0 2 2

5.2 1.8 3.8 3.6

0 1 3 4

5.8 12.7 9.3 9.6

As per Census 2001, SCs constitute 7.1% and STs constitute 14.8% of Gujarats population, available from http://www. censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/A-Series/A-Series_links/t_00_005.aspx (accessed on 18 March 2013). Source: As in Table 1B.

Table 2D: Muslim Concentrated Seats-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Parties Muslim Population
Muslim Population Total Seats Turnout (%) Congress Won Vote (%) BJP Won Vote (%) GPP Won Vote (%) Others Won Vote (%)

Muslims up to 10% Muslims 10% to 20% Muslims above 20% Total

117 53 12 182

72.6 70.5 72.5 72.0

40 16 5 61

39.1 38.4 40.0 38.9

72 36 7 115

46.3 51.7 46.7 47.9

2 0 0 2

4.2 2.1 4.6 3.6

3 1 0 4

10.4 7.8 8.7 9.6

(1) 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 census 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. (2) As per Census 2001, Muslims constitute 9.06% of Gujarats total population, available from http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_ Data_ 2001/Census_data_ finder /C_Series/Population_by_religious_communities.htm (accessed on 18 March 2013). Source: As in Table 1B.

elected Muslim candidates belong to the Congress. The BJP did not eld any Muslim candidate. An analysis of the results by the proportion of Muslim population in constituencies reveals that the contest between the BJP and the Congress was much closer in constituencies where Muslims are present in substantially high numbers (over 20% of the population) than where they are not. For instance, while the overall vote gap between the BJP and the Congress was 11 percentage points in the 170 seats where Muslims constitute below 20% of the population, the vote gap in seats with a larger concentration of Muslims was much lesser at 7 percentage points (Table 2D). In constituencies where Muslims are over 20% of the total population, the BJP faced some stiff competition from the Congress in terms of votes. But here too, it ended up winning more seats, which could partly be due to polarisation and partly due to the presence of rebel Congress candidates. For instance, the BJP victory in Jamalpur Khadia, a Muslim majority seat, was mainly due to the presence of a Congress rebel who polled over 30,000 votes. It must be pointed out, however, that the BJPs victories were much bigger in seats where Muslims are between 10% and 20% of the population as opposed to seats where Muslims constitute less than 10% of the population. This could again be a result of vote polarisation but needs to be investigated further.
[Pre-poll and post-poll surveys were conducted by CSDS in Gujarat and the marginals for the same will be uploaded soon on the Lokniti website www.lokniti.org.]

the 45 seats falling in the semi-urban category and 35 of the 39 seats in the urban category reducing the Congress to single digits (Table 2B). While in the semi-urban seats the BJP got 49% votes, in the urban seats it got a massive 60% of the vote. As mentioned earlier, it was mainly in the primarily urban districts of Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Surat that the BJP smashed the Congress. In the rural areas, on the other hand, the BJP actually trailed the Congress, with the former winning 44 seats and the latter 49. The BJP led the Congress on reserved scheduled caste (SC) seats and general seats, but trailed it on reserved scheduled tribe (ST) seats both in terms of seats and vote share. In the SC seats
90

category, the BJP won 10 out of the 14 seats, down one seat since 2007 (Table 2C). The Congress, on the other hand, won four seats, up two since the previous election. In the ST seats category, the Congress outperformed the BJP, winning 15 out of the 26 seats. This was an improvement of one seat since the last election. The BJP won 10 seats, also up by one seat since 2007. STs constitute nearly 15% of Gujarats total population. On general seats, the BJP led the Congress by a huge margin winning 95 of the 142 such seats. Muslims comprise 9% of Gujarats total population, but only two Muslim candidates were elected to the 182member Gujarat assembly this time. This is three fewer than 2007. Both the
june 15, 2013

Permission for Reproduction of Articles Published in EPW

No article published in EPW or part thereof should be reproduced in any form without prior permission of the author(s). A soft/hard copy of the author(s)s approval should be sent to EPW. In cases where the email address of the author has not been published along with the articles, EPW can be contacted for help.
vol xlviiI no 24
EPW Economic & Political Weekly