Why Electoral Boycotts Won’t Work In India

New Delhi: In light of the results of the recently concluded Maharashtra elections, the usual EVM skeptic rhetoric of the Opposition returned to cast a shadow on the mandate. Amidst this an odd idea was floated that caught the attention of many, the idea of an electoral boycott. It all started with a tweet on November 26th from a former diplomat KC Singh who said, “Election boycott strategy is being privately argued. A senior Congress leader apparently confided that regional parties don’t agree. They feel they can mostly win in state elections, despite suspected flaws. A Bangladesh-type boycott threat may force transparency & reform.”

Understanding The Bangladesh Model

The ‘Bangladesh model’ became a common template of discussion in India’s internal political discourse after the ouster of Sheikh Hasina on August 5th, 2024. Usually, the Bangladesh model refers to a people-led movement that eventually snowballs into an anti-incumbency movement that can lead to the ouster of an electorally dominant party.

Such was the case of the Awami League, which lost the war of narrative vis-a-vis the country’s reservation system which was skewed in favour of freedom fighters and their families.

After months of mass unrest, the protests culminated in an anti-Hasina movement that led to her departure from Dhaka as a mass mob of protesters marched towards the PM’s residence aided by the military. Some called it a revolution, others called it a coup depending on their political point of view.

However, the Bangladesh-type boycott threat referred to in this particular case by KC Singh refers to an electoral boycott strategy which was employed by one of the principal opposition parties in Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

The BNP has been boycotting the last two general elections in Bangladesh, including the one held earlier this year in the month of January that won Hasina her historic 4th consecutive term as Prime Minister. However if one reads the fine print of the tweet again, the idea is not to boycott the elections but to employ it as a strategic threat to “force transparency & reform”.

At least in its intent, the strategy is clear, that it can merely be weaponized as a threat. This is because there is a long body of theoretical and practical research and evidence to show that “Electoral Boycotts” simply do not work.

Why Boycott Elections?

Classically, electoral boycotts are seen as a tool against an authoritarian system that tends to be unfree and unfair in its electoral processes. This is where the opposition chooses not to take part in uncompetitive elections. The core objective of the boycott is not however to awaken the conscience of the authoritarian power. The real intention is to capture the attention of the electorate and primarily build a global perception of delegitimizing the electoral process of the nation.

This brings us back to the “Bangladesh-type boycott threat” referred to earlier. While in principle, the BNP’s boycott did not have any significant political impact on Bangladesh’s internal political upturn, the perception of a delegitimised electoral process in Bangladesh went against Hasina’s situation.

Due to this perception, even the self-appointed custodians of the democratic world order stood mute when a so-called non-political movement came marching for Hasina’s chair.

The very next morning after Hasina swept 75% of the seats in Bangladesh’s general elections, the US State Department said, "The United States shares the view with other observers that these elections were not free or fair and we regret that not all parties participated." This is the intended objective and the achievable target of an “electoral boycott strategy”.

Interestingly, at the time of writing of this article, the new regime in Dhaka led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus is yet to announce any form of “electoral reform”, nor has it shown any intent of holding “free and fair” elections anytime soon. The unspoken legitimacy that the Yunus administration has managed in the Western world order is a result of the perception that the electoral process in Bangladesh is flawed.

Not to take away from the fact that there may exist significant evidence of electoral manipulation in Bangladesh, However such is the case in every nation of the world. Even the mighty United States is not immune to electoral malpractice allegations. However, January 6th is still termed as an insurrection and not as a revolution.

Historically Boycotts Simply Don’t Work

In an interesting analysis by Binghamton University, which analyzed over 1380 national-level elections held between 1971-2005. European Democracies only saw a 4.4% electoral boycott. The United States and Canada had no reported instances of a nationwide boycott.

The overall rate of electoral boycotts during this period was around 10.4%, with Arab states seeing the highest rate of any region at 21.6%. Compare this to Europe which saw a boycott rate of only 1.8%.

The larger inference from this data point is that democratic regimes as a whole do not see electoral boycotts as an employable strategy. This is because participation in the electoral process outweighs the reformative impact a party desires to have in an electorate as compared to a boycott.  

Comparing India in this case to democracies in Europe or North America is a fair comparison as compared to its Asian neighbours and other Arab nations. Fundamentally the Indian democracy has sincerely espoused the values of liberty, equality, and fraternity with an added focus on secularism since its Independence.

In this regard, the examples of authoritarian regimes in Arab states are a completely disingenuous comparison. While in India’s neighbourhood, there exists a Pakistan where no Prime Minister has ever completed a full term and a Bangladesh which has seen multiple military coups. Indian democracy has been a beacon of peaceful transition of power in the sub-continent, with strict adherence to its constitution and its founding principles.

As compared to all nations in the sub-continent and the world, India is undoubtedly one of the most vibrant democracies on planet Earth.

To delegitimize an Indian election is something that not even the mighty British Empire could achieve. In fact, electoral boycotts, a trusted tool of the Muslim League did not help it completely to attain its objectives.

India as it stands has over half a dozen national parties, over 50 recognised state parties, and over 2500 unrecognised parties. The question then remains, does the Indian National Congress, which won over 21.4% vote share in the last general elections, which presently has a government in 3 states, and won as a junior partner in 2 states this year have enough reason to call for an electoral boycott?

Conclusion

Only the threat of an electoral boycott was believed to be a potent agent of change in the past. The only major notable example comes from South Africa’s 1994 elections. When the president of the Freedom Party decided to boycott the elections and denounced the elections as unfair in South Africa. International pressure increased on the Nelson Mandela government. Consequently, this led to the abolishment of the single-vote system in South Africa and amendments in the constitution vis a vis local self-government.

However, in a more contemporary example, in the case of Azerbaijan, this strategy has had no notable impact. In Azerbaijan, the principal opposition parties have been boycotting elections for multiple years.

However, there has been no significant political pressure on the incumbent administration, nor any widespread loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. In fact, with each consecutive election, western nations have gradually accepted the results and cooperated with the government in Azerbaijan.

In theory, for an electoral boycott to have any impact,  there is not just the need to grab international headlines of ideologies sympathetic to your cause. There is also the need for a genuine on-ground campaign and support. As it stands, the opposition’s narrative of EVMs is yet to see any ground support. The only support it has is in the form of echoes during political press conferences from leaders in disbelief over their electoral debacles.

A comprehensive study of election boycotts between 1990 and 2009 done by Matthew Frankel shows that only 4% of actual election boycotts showed any positive outcomes. In a democracy like India, where the opposition’s alliance had to backtrack on a boycott of the "Exit Polls" within a fortnight, whether it can succeed in a nationwide call for an electoral boycott remains only a thought experiment.