SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2011 STATE ELECTIONS

non-completion) from the updated electoral rolls of the selected polling booths. No substitution was allowed. Of the 9,000 sampled respondents, 4,617 could be interviewed within the stipulated time. The social profile of the respondents interviewed largely matched the demographic profile of the state (Table X). The discrepancy between figures for rural and urban between census and survey may be due to investigators failure of proper identification of the rural and urban locations. The interviews were conducted by specially trained field investigators. The respondents were interviewed in the faceto-face interview situation using a structured interview schedule in Tamil. Respondents were mostly interviewed at their home, pre ferably alone. The voting question was asked using a dummy ballot paper and dummy ballot box. The fieldwork for the survey in Tamil Nadu was coordinated by G Koteswara Parasad. The survey was designed and analysed by a team of researchers at Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi which included Banasmita Bora, Shreyas Sardesai, Vibha Attri,
Table X: Social Profile of Sample vs Census in the Post-Poll Survey
Census 2001 (%) Survey (%)

Rural Women Muslim Christian Dalits

56 50 6 6 19

63 47 4 6 27

Alok Satpathy, Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Himanshu Bhattacharya, K A Q A Hilal, Kanchan Malhotra, and Yogendra Yadav. Sanjay Kumar of the CSDS directed the survey.

Fifteenth Assembly Elections in West Bengal

est Bengal went to the polls for its 294 assembly seats. Compared to five phases in 2006, this time the election took place in six phases, spanning over almost a month from 18 April to 10 May, 2011. Of the 5.62 crore voters on the rolls, 85% turned out to vote. This is the highest turnout in the history of assembly elections in West Bengal (the previous highest turnout was 82.9% in 1996). The increase in the number of contestants was even higher than the voting turnout. With a total of 1,792 candidates in the fray, the state recorded an increase in the number of contestants by 8 percentage points over the last assembly election (Table 1A). Widely expected to be a game changing election, the assembly election was preceded by the panchayat election in 2008,
Table 1A: Summary Electoral Participation Electorate, Turnout and Number of Candidates Compared to the Assembly Elections (2006)
Assembly Elections 2011 Change from 2006 (%)

the Lok Sabha election in 2009, by-elections to the assembly in 2009 and municipal elections in 2010. The Left Front (LF) had faced significant reversals in all these elections. The Lok Sabha election of 2009 was the first time when the Left failed to win a majority of seats and plurality of votes, ever since it came to power in West Bengal in 1977. The stage was, therefore, set for a straight fight between the incumbent Left

Front, which had been in power without a break for over three decades and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) led alliance that had acquired significant political space in recent years. There was a major change in alliances this time as far as the one led by TMC was concerned. In 2006, the TMC was part of the NDA which also consisted mainly of the TMC itself and of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This time, the TMC led alliance also included the Indian National Congress (INC), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Socialist Unity Centre of India-backed by TMC (SUCI). The LF, however, retained its allies as in

Table 1B: Summary Results Seats Contested, Won and Votes Secured by Major Parties in Alliances, Compared to the Assembly Elections (2006)
Seats Seats Contested Won Gain/Loss of Seats since 2006 Vote- Share (%) Vote % Vote Swing Per Seat Since 2006 Contested (% Points)

Left Front (LF) Communist Party of India (CPI) Communist Party of India (Marxist) CPI(M) Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) All India Forward Bloc (AIFB) West Bengal Socialist Party (WBSP) Revolutionary Communist Party (Rasik Bhatt) (RCPI(RB)) Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Trinamool Congress+ (TMC+) All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) Indian National Congress (INC) Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) Socialist Unity Centre of India-backed by TMC (SUCI) Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Gorkha Janamukti Morcha (GJM) Independents Others

294 14 213 23 34 5 2 2 1 294 226 65 1 30(2) 289 3 400 482

62 2 40 7 11 1 0 1 0 227 184 42 0 1 0 3 2 0

-173 -6 -136 -13 -12 -3 0 0 -1 +176 +154 +21 0 +1 0 +3 -2 -4

41.05 1.84 30.08 2.96 4.80 0.74 0.23 0.35 0.05 48.35 38.93 9.08 0.03 0.31 4.06 0.72 3.29 2.53

41.05 38.55 41.25 40.38 41.55 43.56 32.80 45.19 19.65 48.35 49.97 43.17 7.11 47.42 4.13 79.46 NA NA

-9.13 -0.07 -7.05 -0.75 -0.86 -0.15 +0.23 -0.01 -0.03 +7 +12.29 -5.63 -0.16 +0.31 +2.13 +0.72 -0.50 -0.22

Total electorate Male electorate Female electorate Total turnout Male turnout Female turnout Number of candidates

5,62,06,476 2,94,81,750 2,67,24,726 84.8% 84.4% 84.5% 1,792

+16.7 +16.8 +16.6 +2.9 +2 +3.7 +8.3

(1) For electorate and candidates the change is in %, with 2006 as the base. Change in turnout is computed in percentage points, compared to turnout in 2006. (2) Overall turnout figure taken from ECI website. Figures of Male turnout and Female turnout sourced from the website of CEO, West Bengal. Source: Figures downloaded from Election Commission of India website, http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/ eci2011.html; and http://ceowestbengal.nic.in/mis_pdf/ election_2011/vt_2011.pdf; accessed on 3-6-2011. Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS Data Unit.

(1) Seat and vote changes since 2006 for LF and TMC+ constituents do not add up to the changes for the alliance as a whole because the composition of the alliances underwent a change after the last assembly elections. In 2006, the LF had also included NCP and LF backed Independents. In 2006 AITC had an alliance with the BJP. In 2011 AITC had an alliance with the INC. So for the purpose of calculating the seat change and vote swing between 2006 and 2011, TMC and INC figures of 2006 have been combined and the BJP has been kept separate. (2) Others in 2011 include JDU, BSP, HMS, IUML, JDS, SMT, JNP, CPIML(L), RPI, JMM, JVM, RPI(A), LJNSP, SWJP, SJP(R), INL, AMB, AJSU, IJP, GNLF, PDS, JKP(N), KSMUL, AIMF, SDPI and Other smaller parties. (3) *SUCI which contested 30 seats was supported by TMC on 2 seats. In 28 seats, the party pitted candidates against the Congress. The SUCI vote-share for those 28 seats has been included in Others. Source: Detailed constituency level results downloaded from Election Commission of India website, http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/ CurrentElections/eci2011.html; accessed on 3/6/2011. Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS Data Unit.

142

june 18, 2011 vol xlvi no 25 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2011 STATE ELECTIONS

2006, except the NCP. The BJP contested the elections alone. Going by the trend witnessed during the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, subsequent elections for local bodies and bye-elections, the outcomes for the assembly elections were on expected lines. Overall, the TMC led alliance outperformed the incumbent Left Front. By winning 227 out of a total of 294 seats, TMC+ reduced the Left Front to mere 62 seats. For the LF this was a loss of 173 seats since 2006. The BJP which contested 289 seats could not manage to win even a single seat. The Gorkha Janmukti Morcha, which has a limited pocket of influence in Darjeeling area won all the three seats it contested. The vote shares of parties, nevertheless, depict a slightly different picture. Although the TMC + got a decisive lead (of 7.4%) over the LF in terms of vote share, the Left Front still managed to secure 41% of total votes polled (Table 1B, p 142). In terms of vote share per seat contested, the TMCs performance was better than its ally, the Congress. On an average, it got about 50% of votes polled in the seats it contested (Table 1B). A disaggregated analysis of results shows remarkable variations in performance of the alliances. The LF, despite an overall poor performance, actually had a lead over the TMC+ in the North Bengal Region by 1 percentage point, however it could not translate this lead into seats. On the other hand, the Greater Kolkata region proved to be a waterloo for the LF, for it managed to win just one out of 66 seats in the region and had the lowest vote share in this region. The loss of LF meant direct gains for the TMC+. The LF suffered badly in its stronghold districts of Coochbehar, Jalpaiguri, Dakshin Dinajpur, Paschim Midinapore, Purulia, Bankura and Bardhaman. In none of these districts, the LF could win even half of the total seats. Moreover, it could not win even a single seat in four districts. By contrast, not only did TMC+ win most of the seats in its stronghold districts, it also made a huge dent in the LF strongholds (Table 2A). The loss for the LF was less in rural areas compared to the urban constituencies. Though the TMC+ was ahead of the LF even in rural constituencies, but its lead was less in rural constituencies compared to urban constituencies. The LF suffered a lot

in the semi-urban and urban constituencies. It is here that the TMC+ pushed the LF to the corner and made all the difference in the poll outcome. In the semi-urban constituencies, the TMC+s vote lead over the LF was 11 percentage points. The LF s performance was the worst in the 52 urban constituencies, where it could not win even a single seat (Table 2C, p 144). In the past, the LF always had an advantage in the reserved constituencies for SC/ ST as compared to the general seats. Even after this defeat, the LF did not give in
Regions Total Seats

easily in these constituencies. This is evident from the fact that the TMC+ had a very small lead in terms of vote share (3-4 percentage points) over LF as against over 9 points lead in general seats. In fact, half of the total seats that the LF won during the recent assembly elections are reserved seats (Table 2B). That fact that the LF did comparatively well among SC and ST reserved constituencies is further confirmed by its better performance in constituencies with higher concentration of dalits and adivasis. In
BJP Seats Won Vote % Others Seats Won Vote %

Table 2A: Region-wise and District-wise Analysis Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties
Turnout Left Front TMC+ (%) Seats Won Vote % Seats Won Vote %

North Cooch Behar Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Uttar Dinajpur Dakshin Dinajpur Maldaha South East Murshidabad Nadia North 24 Parganas South 24 Parganas Greater Kolkata Nadia North 24 Parganas South 24 Parganas Kolkata South Kolkata North Howrah Hooghly South West Howrah Hooghly Purbo Medinipur Paschim Medinipur Purulia Bankura Bardhaman Birbhum Total

54 9 12 6 9 6 12 71 22 15 16 18 66 2 17 13 4 7 12 11 103 4 7 16 19 9 12 25 11 294

84.2 86.1 85.7 79.6 82.3 88.7 82.7 87.1 86.0 87.7 87.7 87.3 79.7 90.3 83.3 80.7 66.6 65.7 80.8 84.1 86.9 84.4 86.1 90.2 88.5 81.1 87.1 86.3 86.9 84.8

16 4 5 0 3 1 3 18 7 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 27 0 1 0 9 2 3 9 3 62

39.8 45.4 39.5 23.2 41.7 42.9 40.8 41.9 41.7 40.6 41.4 43.7 37.1 42.3 37.1 38.2 29.7 32.7 38.0 38.4 43.5 40.2 42.1 43.0 44.6 41.5 43.8 44.8 42.3 41.1

33 5 6 3 5 5 9 53 15 12 12 14 65 2 17 13 4 7 12 10 76 4 6 16 10 7 9 16 8 227

38.8 39.1 38.5 24.4 36.3 48.4 43.8 47.9 44.4 48.7 48.7 50.3 56.2 50.5 57.7 55.7 60.0 59.3 53.0 56.5 48.4 54.4 51.8 52.3 46.6 42.7 47.1 48.5 47.1 48.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 5.1 6.1 2.1 3.8 4.2 7.3 4.3 4.9 5.0 4.4 2.8 3.5 3.8 2.8 2.3 3.3 4.3 4.9 3.8 3.7 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.5 2.8 4.0 3.9 6.5 4.1

5 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

16.2 10.3 16.0 50.3 18.3 4.6 8.1 6.0 9.0 5.7 5.5 3.2 3.2 3.4 2.4 3.8 7.0 3.7 4.1 1.3 4.4 2.5 3.3 1.8 5.4 13.0 5.1 2.8 4.1 6.5

(1) Others in this table and in Table 2B, 2C and 2D include JDU, BSP, HMS, IUML, JDS, SMT, JNP, CPIML(L), RPI, JMM, JVM, RPI(A), LJNSP, SWJP, SJP(R), INL, AMB, AJSU, IJP, SUCI(C), GNLF, PDS, JKP(N), KSMUL, AIMF, SDPI, GJM, Other smaller parties and Independents. (2) Regional classification in West Bengal does not follow the district boundaries with some urban constituencies of the districts of North and South 24 Parganas, Nadia, Hooghly and Howrah lying cheek-by-jowl with the Kolkata district. These constituencies with AC id 92, 93, 102, 104, 107, 118, 119, 137, 140, 144, 174-8, 180, 184, 188, 189, 198-202 are included in Greater Kolkata region. Source: As in Table 1B.

Table 2B: Category-wise Analysis Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties by Reserved and General Constituencies
Category Total Seats Turnout Left Front TMC+ (%) Seats Won Vote % Seats Won Vote % BJP Seats Won Vote % Others Seats Won Vote %

SC ST General Total
Source: As in Table 1B.

68 16 210 294

87.6 85.4 83.9 84.8

20 10 32 62

44.4 40.0 40.0 41.1

48 5 174 227

47.8 36.0 49.5 48.4

0 0 0 0

4.0 6.3 3.9 4.1

0 1 4 5

3.8 17.7 6.6 6.5

Economic & Political Weekly EPW june 18, 2011 vol xlvi no 25

143

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2011 STATE ELECTIONS

Table 2C: Locality-wise Analysis Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties by Rural-Urban Nature of Constituency
Constituency Type Total Seats Turnout Left Front TMC+ (%) Seats Won Vote % Seats Won Vote % BJP Seats Won Vote % Others Seats Won Vote %

Rural Semi Urban Urban Total

197 45 52 294

86.9 85.3 76.8 84.8

57 5 0 62

42.7 39.4 36.0 41.1

136 39 52 227

45.7 50.5 57.1 48.4

0 0 0 0

4.2 3.9 3.6 4.1

4 1 0 5

7.4 6.2 3.3 6.5

(1) Rural constituencies are those constituencies where 75% or more electors live in rural areas. Semi Urban constituencies are those constituencies where more than 25% 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 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
Major Community Total Seats Turnout Left Front TMC+ (%) Seats Won Vote % Seats Won Vote % BJP Seats Won Vote % Others Seats Won Vote %

Muslim 30% and above 87 SC 30% and above ST 30% and above 89 8

85.4 87.5 83.7

25 28 5

41.8 43.7 37.9

61 61 2

45.3 46.7 29.5

0 0 0

4.6 4.5 5.5

1 0 1

8.3 5.1 27.1

(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. Source: As in Table 1B.

constituencies with 30% or more dalit electorate, the LF was marginally behind TMC+ in terms of vote share. In constituencies with a concentration of Adivasi voters, the LF enjoyed a lead of 8 percentrage points over TMC+. The LF did not do all that badly in constituencies with higher concentration of Muslims. In these constituencies, the TMC+ had a lead over the LF by 3 percentage point (Table 2D). The survey data reveals that the age of voters played an important role in influencing the poll outcome. While the TMC+ gained across age-groups, its gain compared to 2006 was highest among young voters (21 percentage points in the 18-25 age group) (Table 3, p 145). Clear political articulation can be seen in terms of locality or residence. Even as the support base of LF eroded both in rural and urban areas, yet the rural voters did not desert it the same way as the urban voters. As compared to 2006, while it got 7% less votes among rural voters in 2011, the loss was disproportionately high among urban voters (16%). It also trailed behind the TMC+ among urban voters by 16 percentage points. Like locality, educational background of voters also seems to have influenced the poll outcomes. By and large, the non-literates still preferred the LF, but those with higher levels of education appeared to have gone out of the way to support the

TMC+. The TMC+ had a lead of over 11 and 16 percentage points over the LF among those educated up to secondary and post secondary level. As in the case of the highly educated, the LF suffered a big loss amongst the upper class voters, although its support base denuded across classes. Compared to the 2006 assembly election, the support base of the LF amongst the upper class voters declined by 15 percentage points. It is further confirmed by a huge erosion in the support base among those belonging to salaried/professional and business classes particularly in urban areas. Among the voters of these classes, the LF lost 19 and 12% votes, respectively, as compared to 2006. Nonetheless, the lower class mainly skilled and semi-skilled workers also deserted the LF the way salaried/professional classes did. Needless to say, the TMC+ took a huge lead over the LF among these classes. The LF, however, retained much of its ground across occupational groups/classes in rural areas. Barring the exceptions of those at the lowest rungs of occupational ladder, that is, agricultural and non-agricultural workers, its loss among the farmer and salaried and professional classes was marginal. Nevertheless, the marginal farmers and the share croppers continued to prefer the LF as in the last assembly election. Not only did the LF gain among them, it also took a lead, though small, over the TMC+.

The LF lost and the TMC+ improved its vote share across caste-communities. But the LF suffered badly among the upper castes and OBCs. Among brahmins, kayasthas and OBCs, it lost by 17, 18 and 14 percentage points respectively as compared to 2006. The loss of LF among these caste groups turned out to be a direct gain to the TMC+ enabling it to push the LF way behind, in terms of lead in vote share. Even though the LF failed to fetch as many votes as it did in 2006 among the SCs as a whole, it retained its support base among the Rajbansis, the most populous groups within the SCs (18.4% of total SC population). Although a significant decline in Muslim vote for LF, as the CSDS survey shows, had already taken place by 2006, it however, did not do as badly as was expected in this election. Compared to the last assembly election, the LFs loss among the Muslims was marginal. How did people assess the work done by LF government? As far as satisfaction with overall performance of the LF government is concerned, slightly less than half the voters, as the survey data indicates, were satisfied with whatever the government could do during past five years. But compared to five years ago, the LF government enjoyed much less approval of people on the work done by it (Table 4A, p 145). The majority of people, of course, stood satisfied on many parameters of development such as conditions of road, supply of electricity, quality of education in government schools. And yet, the LF had to contend with much lower ratings compared to what its government had five years ago. As the CSDSsurvey indicates, the LF government was rated badly on the issue of law and order in the state (Table 4B, p 145). It is further confirmed by poor handling or sheer mishandling of various incidents directly related to law and order. Only a small minority of those who had heard about the incidents of violence particularly in Nandigram, Singur, Lalgarh and Netai

available at

Delhi Magazine Distributors Pvt Ltd

110, Bangla Sahib Marg New Delhi 110 001 Ph: 41561062/63

144

june 18, 2011 vol xlvi no 25 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2011 STATE ELECTIONS

Table 3: Social Basis of Voting: Survey-based Estimates of Vote for Major Alliances/Parties by Gender, Age, Education, Locality, Class and Caste/Community in Assembly Elections (2006 and 2011)
Left Front 2006 2011 TMC+ 2006 2011 2006 BJP 2011 2006 Others 2011 N in 2011

Table 4A: Level of Satisfaction with the Incumbent Government (2006 and 2011)
Satisfaction with the Work done by Left Front Government 2006 2011 N in 2011

Age groups Up to 25 years 56 37 34 55 3 3 7 26-35 years 49 40 43 48 3 5 6 36-45 years 49 43 45 46 2 5 4 46-55 years 48 43 41 48 1 4 9 56 years and above 53 43 38 46 5 3 5

Satisfied 6 6 6 6 8 858 1,192 1,241 823 799 2,580 2,331 1,032 1,509 1,451 826 83* 4,014 898 635 769 2,360 1,148 245 561 777 526 119 273 522 201 1,418 269 Dissatisfied No opinion

64 26 10

49 37 14

2,552 1,912 697

Gender Men 50 42 44 48 2 4 6 5 Women 51 40 41 49 3 4 6 8 Level of education Non-literate 56 46 34 44 4 3 7 6 Up to primary Up to matric College (no degree) and graduate Postgraduate and professionals 48 48 51 54 43 39 36 27 42 46 43 44 48 50 52 52 2 3 3 2 3 5 5 7 8 4 3 0 6 6 8 15

(1) All figures except N in % and rounded off (2) N stands for sample size for the relevant row. (3) Question asked in 2011 What is your assessment of the work done by the Left Front Govt in West Bengal during the last five years? Would you say that you are satisfied or dissatisfied with it? Identical question was asked in 2006. Source: All figures are based on post-poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances. Total sample in 2006 was 3,381.

Table 4B: Citizen's Assessment of the Work Done by LF Govt during Its Tenure for Various Public Goods and Services (2006 and 2011)
Areas 2006 2011 Im- Deterio- Im- Deterioproved rated proved rated

Condition of roads Supply of electricity Quality of education in govt schools Medical facilities in govt hospitals Law and order situation

77 74

21 24 28 22 41 25

75 66 59 61 46 45

23 30 37 31 46 40

Locality Rural 50 43 40 48 2 4 7 6 Urban 50 34 45 50 3 5 3 10 Class Upper 51 36 43 49 4 6 2 9 Middle Lower Poor 47 51 54 41 42 43 46 39 37 49 48 48 3 2 1 5 5 2 5 8 7 6 6 7

Supply of drinking water 70 73 50 61

Caste community Brahmin 54 37 44 51 2 5 0 8 Kayastha Other Upper Caste OBC Rajbanshi Namashudhra Other SC ST Muslims Others 54 45 53 55 57 54 55 46 48 36 40 39 53 41 43 45 42 44 43 44 38 34 38 36 32 49 42 49 49 49 37 48 46 43 50 47 1 7 0 1 1 2 3 0 4 8 4 4 7 3 6 3 2 3 2 5 8 9 4 9 10 6 7 6 7 8 3 7 5 9 5 7

(1) All figures in % and rounded off; rows do not add up to 100 as those who said Dont know have not been reported here. (2) Question asked in 2011- Now I will ask you about the assessment of the work done by the LF government in the state in the last five years. Do you think the condition of roads, electricity etc has improved or deteriorated? (Probe whether fully or somewhat improved or deteriorated). Categories of Fully improved and Somewhat improved have been clubbed together as Improved; categories of Fully deteriorated and Somewhat deteriorated have been clubbed together as Deteriorated. Source: All figures are based on post-poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances. Total sample in 2006 was 3,381.

Table 4C: Trend in Popularity of Major Political Leaders as Most Preferred CM (2001-11)
Chief Minister Choices 2001 2004 2006 2009 2011

(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 (no degree) and graduate: It includes persons who went to college but could not receive a degree and those who completed five years of education in college. Postgraduate and Professionals: It includes persons 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 either a 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) Others in this table include JDU, BSP, HMS, IUML, JDS, SMT, JNP, CPIML(L), RPI, JMM, JVM, RPI(A), LJNSP, SWJP, SJP(R), INL, AMB, AJSU, IJP, SUCI(C), GNLF, PDS, JKP(N), KSMUL, AIMF, SDPI, GJM, Other smaller parties and Independents. Source: All figures are based on a post-poll surveys carried out by CSDS in 2006 and 2011. Total sample size in 2006 was 3,381 total sample size in 2011 was 5,166; 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 weighed by actual vote share obtained by major alliances/parties in the final results.

Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee 28 Mamata Banerjee Jyoti Basu Pranab Mukherjee 35 9 2

23 11 2 1

45 23 2 6

30 20 4

31 44 2

5 NA

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; Respondents who said Dont 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 West Bengal?" (No names were offered to those being interviewed; all responses are spontaneous and were post-coded). (3) NA: Not Applicable. Source: All figures are based on post-poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances. Sample size in 2001 was 1,793; Sample size in 2004 was 1,026; Sample size in 2006 was 3,381; Sample size in 2009 was 2,041; Sample size in 2011 was 5,166.

approved of the actions taken by the government (Table 4E, p 146). How far the mishandling of various issues reflects upon the electoral prospect of the LF, the CPI(M) in particular, calls for

a deeper probe, but the credibility of the party seems to be at stake. A large majority of people agreed with the allegations of prevalence of widespread corruption within the CPI(M). A large chunk of people also

affirmed that party workers often intruded into their private/personal space (Table 4F, p 146). The negative image of the party created lately was in conjunction with a declining popularity of the then Chief Minister Budhhadeb Bhattacharjee himself. His popularity rating dipped from 45% in 2006 to 30% in 2011. On the other hand, the popularity graph of Mamta Banerjee continued upward trend and

Economic & Political Weekly EPW june 18, 2011 vol xlvi no 25

145

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2011 STATE ELECTIONS

Table 4D: Citizens Comparative Assessment of Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and Jyoti Basu Governments
Whose LF Government was Better? 2006 2011 N in 2011

Table 4F: Citizens Perception of CPI(M)

Statements about CPI(M) Agree Disagree

There is a lot of corruption in the party Party continues to follow its revolutionary principles Party workers and leaders intimidate common people Party workers interfere in peoples personal matter

57 33 36 41

21 31 36 30

Buddhadebs government Jyoti Basus government Both equally good Both equally bad

35 15 20 14

9 39 18 13

454 2010 917 668

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; Respondents who said Dont know or gave other choices have been excluded. (2) Question asked in 2011 - If you had to compare between Jyoti Basus term as chief minister and Buddhadeb Bhattacharjees term as chief minister whose government has been better? Identical question was asked in 2006? Source: All figures are based on post-poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.

Table 4E: Citizens Awareness of Key Incidents and Their Assessment of Left Front Govts Handling of Those Incidents
Incidents Heard About It How Did LF Govt Handle It? Handled Handled Well Poorly

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; Those who said Cant say or had No opinion have not been reported here. (2) Question -Now I will read out some statements about CPI(M) party in West Bengal. Do you agree or disagree with the statement- there is a lot of corruption? Source: All figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.

The social profile of the respondents interviewed largely matched the demographic profile of the state (Table X). The discrepancy between figures for rural and urban between Census and Survey may be due to investigators failure of proper identification of the rural and urban locations. The interviews were conducted by specially trained field investigators. The respondents were interviewed in the face-to-face interview situation using a structured interview schedule in Bengali. Respondents were mostly interviewed at their home, preferably alone. The voting question was asked using a dummy ballot paper and dummy ballot box.
Table X: Social Profile of Sample vs Census in the Post-Poll Survey
Census 2001 (%) Survey (%)

Nandigram violence Lalgarh agitation Singur agitation Rizwanur Rahman case Netai killings

80 65 77 52 43

20 17 20 13 7

41 34 40 25 25

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; Rest Not Heard. Those who said Cant say have not been reported here. (2) Question- Now I will ask you about a few events/incidence that took place in West Bengal over the last five years. Please tell me whether you have heard about ..? How would you rate the govt handling of..- handled well or poorly? Source:All figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.

eventually pushed Buddhadeb Bhattacharya way behind in the recently concluded assembly election (Table 4C).

Survey Methodology for West Bengal Post-Poll Survey The findings presented here are based on a postpoll survey conducted by Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi in West Bengal. A total of 5,166 persons randomly selected from the latest electoral rolls were interviewed, between 19 April and 13 May (after polling but before counting of votes) in 300 locations in 75 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. No substitution was allowed. Of the 9,000 sampled respondents, 5,166 could be interviewed within the stipulated time.

Rural Women Muslim Adivasi Dalits

72 48 25 6 23

80 48 30 5 23

The fieldwork of the survey in West Bengal was coordinated by Suprio Basu. He was assisted field supervisor, Jyotiprasad Chatterjee. The survey was designed and analysed by a team of researchers at Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi which included Banasmita Bora, Shreyas Sardesai, Vibha Attri, Alok Satpathy, Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Himanshu Bhattacharya, K A Q A Hilal, Kanchan Malhotra and Yogendra Yadav. Sanjay Kumar of the CSDS directed the survey.

Puducherry Assembly Elections

Table 1A: Summary Electoral Participation: Electorate, Turnout and Number of Candidates Compared to the Assembly Elections (2006)
Assembly Elections 2011 Change from 2006 (%)

Total electorate Total turnout Number of candidates

8,10,630 86.1% 187

+22.9 +0.2 -14.2

For electorate and candidates the change is in %, with 2006 as the base. Change in turnout is computed in percentage points, compared to turnout in 2006. Source: Figures downloaded from Election Commission of India website, http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/eci2011.html; accessed on 3-6-2011. Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS Data Unit.

Table 1B: Summary Results: Seats Contested, Won and Votes Secured by Major Parties in Alliances, Compared to the Assembly Elections (2006)
Seats Contested Seats Won Gain/Loss of Seats since 2006 Vote-Share (%) Vote % Per Seat Contested Vote Swing since 2006 (% Points)

Congress+ Indian National Congress (INC) Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) INC backed Independent AINRC+ All India NR Congress (AINRC) All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) Communist Party of India (CPI) Communist Party of India(Marxist) (CPI(M)) Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Independents Others

30 17 10 2 1 30 17 10 1 2 1 20 78 29

9 7 2 0 1 20 15 5 0 0 0 0 1 0

-11 -3 -5 -2 +1 +13 +15 +2 -1 0 0 0 -2 0

40.40 26.53 10.68 2.48 0.71 48.32 31.75 13.75 0.94 1.03 0.85 1.32 9.41 0.55

40.40 46.05 33.28 35.28 22.00 48.32 55.47 41.02 30.70 18.82 28.04 1.95 NA NA

-8.96 -2.68 -1.91 -1.32 +0.71 +20.41 +31.75 -2.29 -2.12 -0.89 -1.88 -1.75 -4.50 -5.20

(1) Others column for 2011 include JD(U), BSP, RSP, CPIML(L), LJP, IJNK, PBM, SDPI Others for 2006 include JD(S), BSP, FBL, RSP, RPI(A), LJP, MDMK, PMC and Other parties. (2) CPI(M) contested two seats. However the party contested on only one seat as part of the AINRC+ alliance. On the other seat it put up its candidate against the AINRC. The vote-share for that seat has been included in Others. However Vote % per seat contested for CPI(M) takes into account both the seats it contested. Source: Detailed constituency level results downloaded from Election Commission of India website, http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/eci2011.html; accessed on 3/6/2011. Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS Data Unit.

146

june 18, 2011 vol xlvi no 25 EPW Economic & Political Weekly