Governments worldwide invest substantial resources in infrastructure projects, mainly aimed at connectivity like road, rail, and air services, and rightly anticipate that these enhancements will improve citizens’ quality of life and bolster economic conditions. In democratic countries, visionary or self-promoting politicians expect these to be translated into electoral success. However, the reality often defies these expectations. Despite the successful execution of large-scale infrastructure projects, many governments have lost popular mandates in subsequent elections. This article delves into several examples from India and around the globe, exploring the reasons behind this electoral paradox and why infrastructure achievements alone may not guarantee political victory.
1. Lag Time in Benefits
Reason: Infrastructure projects often take years to complete, and the benefits may not be immediately visible to the electorate.
Example: The Delhi Metro project, initiated in the late 1990s, took several years to fully operational. Initial phases were completed in the early 2000s, but the substantial benefits weren’t felt until much later. Similarly, some of the flyovers in Bangalore have taken a lot of time. Bannerghatta Road and Silk Board Junction of Bangalore were subject to many memes because of potholes and traffic jams.
2. Disruption During Construction
Reason: Large-scale infrastructure projects often cause significant disruption to daily life, leading to public inconvenience and dissatisfaction.
Example: The construction of flyovers and metro lines in cities like Bangalore and Chennai has led to traffic snarls and business disruptions, causing short-term public discontent. Katti Para Junction Flyover in Chennai is one such case example.
3. Public Perception and Visibility
Reason: Voters might not directly associate the improvements with the government responsible for initiating them, especially if the projects span multiple administrations.
Example: The Golden Quadrilateral highway project, initiated under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, continued under successive governments, diluting the credit associated with its completion. In Hyderabad Outer Ring Road was the brainchild of Chandra Babu Naidu, but YS Rajasekhar Reddy Government was credited for the same
4. Basic Needs Over Infrastructure
Reason: For many voters, immediate and basic needs like employment, food security, and healthcare precede long-term infrastructure improvements.
Example: In rural areas, voters may prioritize water supply and agricultural support over a new highway or urban development. This is one of the reasons for SM Krishna’s debacle despite his development of the NICE road. He was accused of ignoring farmers.
5. Political Narrative and Campaign Focus
Reason: Opposing political parties often shift the focus away from infrastructure achievements to highlight other issues, such as corruption, social justice, or identity politics.
Examples: Despite significant infrastructure improvements, including water for every household, electricity for every village, and the increasing height of the Narmada dam in Gujarat under Narendra Modi’s tenure as Chief Minister, the 2007 and 2012 elections saw intense focus on communal tensions of 2002, economic disparities, and neglecting powerful peasant castes such as Patels.
During the first term of the Shiv Sena—BJP Government in Maharashtra, Nitin Gadkari transformed road infrastructure by constructing a record number of flyovers in the Mumbai—Nashik belt. However, in subsequent Lok elections in 1998 and assembly elections of 1999, Shiv Sena and BJP lost assembly elections badly, though NCP and Congress contested separately.
Karnataka BJP Government built a fabulous Bangalore – Mysore highway; it is expected to reduce the travel time between the two cities by 1.5 Hrs and help improve activity, boost tourism, and improve efficiency. On the contrary, the opposition at that time was running a 40 per cent cut Government, and they were even able to build a narrative that high toll fees impacted the common man. This led to a massive electoral defeat for the BJP in the Vokkaliga belt of the Bangalore – Mysore region.
6. Mistrust and Skepticism
Reason: There’s often public scepticism about the motives behind infrastructure projects, with perceptions of corruption and inefficiency.
Example: The Commonwealth Games 2010 in Delhi saw substantial infrastructure development, but allegations of corruption overshadowed the developmental benefits in the public mind.
7. Localised Benefits vs. Widespread Impact
Reason: Infrastructure projects often benefit specific regions or urban areas more than others, leading to uneven electoral advantages.
Example: The Hyderabad Metro, many Flyovers constructed in the BRS regime have greatly improved urban transport in the city, but this benefit doesn’t necessarily translate to votes in rural Telangana or other parts of the state. The lack of last-mile connectivity and parking facilities will cause even more negativity to the ruling regime.
A travel ticket to anywhere in Hyderabad using the metro will be around Rs.80, but reaching from home to the nearest metro and metro to destination and then back to home would cost anywhere between Rs.200-300
8. Complex Electoral Dynamics
Reason: Voting behaviour is influenced by a complex mix of caste, religion, and local issues, which can overshadow infrastructure achievements.
Example: Despite good governance and infrastructure development in Bihar under Nitish Kumar, caste-based voting patterns play a significant role in election outcomes. During Akhilesh Yadav’s term in UP, his government successfully planned and completed the Agra—Lucknow Expressway; at that time, it was considered the longest and most modern expressway. Still, the narrative of 4.5 CM and Yadav caste domination has brought curtains down for the Samajwadi Party.
9. Invisibility of Maintenance
Reason: Regular maintenance and less visible improvements are crucial but often go unnoticed by voters compared to new, large-scale projects.
Example: Regular road maintenance and upgrades in Kerala are essential for connectivity but rarely become central to election campaigns.
Even globally, the scenario is not different.
Brazil: World Cup 2014 and Rio Olympics 2016 Infrastructure
Project: Brazil invested heavily in infrastructure for the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics, including stadiums, airports, and public transportation improvements.
Outcome: Despite these high-profile projects, the ruling Workers’ Party (PT) faced severe political backlash due to corruption scandals and economic issues. President Dilma Rousseff was impeached in 2016, and the party suffered significant losses in subsequent elections.
South Korea: Incheon International Airport
Project: Incheon International Airport, opened in 2001, is consistently ranked among the best airports globally and is known for its cutting-edge facilities and efficiency.
Outcome: Despite this world-class infrastructure project, the ruling Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) lost the 2002 presidential election to the Grand National Party (GNP). Other political dynamics and regional issues influenced voter behaviour more significantly.
United Kingdom: High-Speed 1 (HS1)
Project: High-Speed 1, also known as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, connects London with the Channel Tunnel. Completed in 2007, it significantly improved travel times between London and mainland Europe.
Outcome: Despite the successful completion of HS1, the Labour Party, which was in power during the project’s development and completion, lost the 2010 general elections to the Conservative Party. Economic issues and a desire for political change were critical factors.
Spain: Madrid-Barajas Airport (Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas Airport)
Project: The Madrid-Barajas Airport underwent significant expansion in the early 2000s, including constructing the state-of-the-art Terminal 4, which opened in 2006. It was one of the largest and most ambitious airport expansions in Europe.
Outcome: Despite the successful completion of the project, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) lost the 2011 general elections to the People’s Party (PP). Economic factors, including the severe impact of the European financial crisis, overshadowed infrastructure achievements.
Conclusion
World-class infrastructure projects can significantly enhance a country’s development. However, the examples illustrated that they do not guarantee or become the governing parties’ primary drivers of electoral success. Economic conditions, corruption, public dissatisfaction with other aspects of governance, and broader political dynamics, including healthcare, education, economic opportunities, and security, often play a more decisive role in election outcomes. Voters in developing countries are increasingly aware of a broader spectrum of needs. Infrastructure acts as a mid-layer influence in the political discourse, strengthening or weakening the prevailing narratives of any given voting period. This underscores the multifaceted nature of voter behaviour and the importance of addressing various issues to maintain political support.
Leave a Comment