Voters’ perception of how satisfied they are with the work of the incumbent government is decisive for their voting decision, with satisfaction in most cases leading to support for the incumbent government and dissatisfaction leading to votes against it. This article is not about exploring the relationship between satisfaction with the incumbent party’s performance and voting for it. The main objective is to identify the factors that contribute to voter satisfaction. What aspects of the incumbent government’s performance or policy influence their positive assessment? Considering the election campaigns and prominent issues leading up to the elections and drawing insights from existing literature, this analysis examines the potential determinants of voter satisfaction. It aims to identify how these factors explain voter satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The findings reveal that voter satisfaction with the incumbent government during the 2024 Lok Sabha election was mainly influenced by recent and visible accomplishments rather than long-term factors. The construction of the Ram Mandir and positive evaluations of the government’s performance on economic issues played a significant role in increasing satisfaction.
AcemogluD., & RobinsonJ. A. (2021). Culture, institutions and social equilibria: A framework [Working Paper No. 28832, National Bureau of Economic Research]. http://www.nber.org/papers/w28832
2.
AndersenR., & HeathA. (2003). Social identities and political cleavages: The role of political context. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 166(3), 301–327.
3.
AntwiR. B. (2018). How do voters decide? A study of the determinants of voting behaviour in Ghana. Wright State University.
4.
BarroR. J., & McClearyR. M. (2005). Which countries have state religions?The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1331–1370.
5.
BesleyT. (2006). Principled agents?: The political economy of good government. Oxford University Press.
6.
BouckaertG., & Van de WalleS. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69, 329–343.
7.
BrattonM., BhavnaniR., & ChenT. H. (2012). Voting intentions in Africa: Ethnic, economic or partisan?Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 50(1), 27–52.
8.
CampbellA., ConverseP. E., MillerW. E., & StokesD. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
9.
ChhibberP. (2009). Are national elections any more than aggregations of state-level verdicts?Economic & Political Weekly, 44(39), 58–63.
10.
ChhibberP., ShastriS., & SissonR. (2004). Federal arrangements and the provision of public goods in India. Asian Survey, 44(3), 339–352.
11.
DassonnevilleR., BlaisA., & DejaeghereY. (2015). Staying with the party, switching or exiting? A comparative analysis of determinants of party switching and abstaining. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 25(3), 387–405.
12.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row.
13.
FerejohnJ. (1986). Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice, 50(1–3), 5–25.
14.
FournierP., BlaisA., NadeauR., GidengilE., & NevitteN. (2003). Issue importance and performance voting. Political Behaviour25, 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022952311518
15.
GoldbergA. C. (2014). The impact of religion on voting behaviour: A multilevel approach for Switzerland. Swiss Political Science Review, 20(2), 305–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12068
16.
GrönlundK., & SetäläM. (2007). Political trust, satisfaction and voter turnout. Comparative European Politics, 5, 400–422.
17.
GuptaM. S., & AbedM. G. T. (2002). Governance, corruption, and economic performance. International Monetary Fund.
18.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
19.
HealyA., & MalhotraN. (2009). Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 387–406.
20.
HuntingtonS. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations?Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22–49.
21.
HuntingtonS. P. (2000). Culture counts. In HarrisonL. E. & HuntingtonS. P. (Eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress. Basic Books.
22.
India Today. (2017, July21). PM Modi, RSS have hijacked democratic institutions: Rahul Gandhi. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rahul-gandhi-pm-narendra-modi-rss-1025677-2017-07-21
23.
KailashK. K. (2010). State level coalition governments and federal calculations: Is state politics an autonomous domain?Center for Advanced Studies.
KaufmannD., KraayA., & MastruzziM. (2008). Governance matters VII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2007 [World Bank Institute Policy Research Working Paper, 4654].
26.
KaufmannD., KraayA., & MastruzziM. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues [World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 5430].
27.
KeyV. O. (1966). The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960. Harvard University Press.
28.
KiewietD. R., & Lewis-BeckM. S. (2011). No man is an island: Self-interest, the public interest, and sociotropic voting. Critical Review, 23(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2011.635868
29.
KinderD. R., & KiewietD. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 129–161.
30.
KramerG. H. (1971). Short-term fluctuations in US voting behaviour, 1896–1964. American Political Science Review, 65(1), 131–143.
31.
KulkarniG. R. (2024, June28). Was the Ram Mandir a voting issue in the 2024 LS polls?The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/data/was-the-ram-mandir-a-voting-issue-in-the-2024-ls-polls/article68341988.ece
32.
LandesD. (2000). Culture makes almost all the difference. In HarrisonL. E. & HuntingtonS. P. (Eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress. Basic Books.
33.
LeviM., & StokerL. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475–507. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.475
34.
Lewis-BeckM. S., & StegmaierM. (2008). The economic vote in transitional democracies. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18(3), 303–323.
35.
Lewis-BeckM. S., & StegmaierM. (2009). American voter to economic voter: Evolution of an idea. Electoral Studies, 28(4), 625–631.
36.
MassariP. (2014, May8). Religion and the Indian election. Harvard Divinity School Communications. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/05/religion-and-the-indian-election/
37.
MishraJ. (2022, January17). Explained: What voters think of double engine government. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/assembly-polls-view-double-engine-modi-govt-7726753/
38.
MishraJ., & AttriV. (2020). Governance, public service delivery and trust in government. Studies in Indian Politics, 8(2), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2321023020963518
39.
MishraJ., & NegiA. (2019). Post-poll Survey: BJP, the most preferred party of young India. The Hindu CSDS-Post Poll Survey.
40.
ParsonsT. (1951). The social system. Free Press.
41.
SardesaiS., & AttriV. (2019). Post-poll survey: The 2019 verdict is a manifestation of the deepening religious divide in India. The Hindu, 30.
42.
SenR. (2010). In the name of god: Regulating religion in Indian elections. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 33(1), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401003592511
43.
SharmaY. (2024, February2). ‘Who’s next?’: Modi government raids, arrests rivals before India election. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/2/whos-next-indias-modi-government-raids-arrests-opponents-before-vote
44.
ShastriS. (2019a). How do South Asians see democracy and authoritarianism?Asia Dialogue. https://theasiadialogue.com/2019/05/13/how-do-south-asians-see-democracy-and-authoritarianism/
45.
ShastriS. (2019b). The Modi factor in the 2019 Lok Sabha election: How critical was it to the BJP victory?Studies in Indian Politics, 7(2), 206–218.
46.
ShastriS. (2024, April13). CSDS-Lokniti 2024 pre-poll survey: The leadership factor is the BJP’s trump card. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/elections/lok-sabha/lokniti-csds-2024-pre-poll-survey-the-leadership-factor-is-the-bjps-trump-card/article68058903.ece
47.
ShastriS., & SyalR. (2017). The Modi factor in 2014. Electoral politics in India (pp. 215–229). Routledge India.
48.
SoderlundP. (2008). Retrospective voting and electoral volatility: A Nordic perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31, 217–240.
49.
SuriK. C. (2009). The economy and voting in the 15th Lok Sabha elections. Economic & Political Weekly, 44(39), 64–70.
50.
The Print. (2022, January29). Modi govt hijacked democracy, deceived Parliament, duped SC, says Congress on Pegasus row. https://theprint.in/india/modi-govt-hijacked-democracy-deceived-parliament-duped-sc-cong-on-pegasus-row/815990/
51.
VermaR. (2012). What determines electoral outcomes in India? Caste, class, or voters’ satisfaction with government performance?Asian Survey, 52(2), 270–297.
52.
WangZ. (2010). Citizens’ satisfaction with government performance in six Asian-Pacific giants. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 11(1), 51–75.
53.
YadavY., & PalshikarS. (2008, November). Ten theses on state politics in India. Seminar (Vol. 591, No. 10, pp. 14–22).
54.
YadavY., & PalshikarS. (2009). Revisiting the ‘third electoral system’: Mapping electoral trends in India, 2004–9. In ShastriS., SuriK. C. & YadavY. (Eds.), Electoral politics in Indian states: Lok Sabha elections in 2004 and beyond (pp. 393–429). Oxford University Press.
55.
ZhengF., & LuY. (2012, August). Influencing factors of public satisfaction in local governments’ overall performance evaluation in China. In 2012 fifth international conference on business intelligence and financial engineering (pp. 495–500). IEEE.
