Comments on: Regarding the anti-incumbency factor

By: varnam

varnam — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:27:16 +0000

A Minor Modi-fication…

Such secular mud never must have been flung on anyone in the history of India. Tons of editorials were written and sting operations were conducted. We were warned that if Modi was re-elected, it would be bad for India. We……

By: Oldtimer

Oldtimer — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:09:08 +0000

Well then, Moditva vs Mediatva.

By: Milind

Milind — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:51:09 +0000

There is another new word called MODITVA from various english language media.

By: Gujarat Polls 2007 - Narendra Modi wins - World Affairs Board

Gujarat Polls 2007 - Narendra Modi wins - World Affairs Board — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:39:24 +0000

[...] factor or “anti-incompetence” factor is more appropriate. The Acorn ? Regarding the anti-incumbency factor __________________ I rant, therefore I [...]

By: sud

sud — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:42:19 +0000

There does seem to be truth to the anti-incumbency==anti-incompetency hypothesis.

Delhi’s Sheila Dixit won on the basis of performance as did CB Naidu once in Andhra. Modi’s victory is heartening because if anti-incumbency were to become settled wisdom, then our netas would only feather their nests for their next 7 generations (I mean, even more than they do now) because, why bother if you’re gonna get voted out anyway? Might as well stay 5 full yrs and suck the treasury and contracts and commissions dry….

By: NS

NS — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:26:54 +0000

Actually anti-incumbency has now come more or less to mean “non performing”/”incompetent” – what else can you expect from most Governments in India ?

BTW, Modi has won big in Gujarat primarily because he is seen as a very competent leader – kind of a mordern day record for a State Govt to be re-elected for performance reasons alone.

By: On Gujrat Politics « Tech and Trek

On Gujrat Politics « Tech and Trek — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:16:48 +0000

[...] Acorns one liner [...]

By: Anti-incumbency or Non-performance?

Anti-incumbency or Non-performance? — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:22:54 +0000

[...] that voters have nothing against an incumbent government that is competent. He says, there is no such thing as anti-incumbency, only anti-incompetency. It is certainly a plausible explanation. But then, how do you explain the continuation of the [...]

By: B.O.K.

B.O.K. — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:12:07 +0000

Nitin,

Thanks!

Our politicians are in love with the term. When in doubt, just say “anti-incumbency” – that seems to be the rule.

By: Nitin

Nitin — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:56:21 +0000

BOK

I’ve modified the sentence…to say that it is a misnomer. (To say that it is “wrong” is wrong. More correctly, it is inappropriate).

It’s just a fancy word the political punditry came up with to explain why incumbents are voted out. Another example of the common error of mistaking correlation for causation.

(NB: It’s a Sunday, so you’ll all excuse me if I can’t produce satisfactory answers to the question “What about West Bengal?”)

Update: This is comment number 11111

By: Srirangan

Srirangan — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:19:48 +0000

They make excuses for mediocrity. That’s what, as Nitin rightly pointed out, “anti-Incumbency” is.

- Sri

By: B.O.K.

B.O.K. — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:04:46 +0000

While I wouldn’t go as far to suggest that the term itself is wrong in some way, Indian political parties do indeed misuse it quite often.

I just did a Google search for “anti-incumbency” and 7 out of the top 10 results were from India (8, if you take out the Wikipedia entry). And the trend continues even as you go down.