I. Who are the People Against?
The first question related to populism was to ascertain if there is widespread disenchantment with a particular group. That a little more than 48 percent of all respondents reflected an anti-elite attitude, which was also more than twice that of any other cleavage (minorities, migrants, upper and lower castes), clearly shows that the primary motivation behind populist attitudes is against elites more than traditional cleavages that typically influence politics in India. It is also the case that this attitude is concentrated in a few states like Kashmir, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi (Figure 3D.1). On the other hand, Kerala stands out as a state that reflects a non-populist attitude, though it has the largest number of respondents who had ‘no opinion’ on the question.
Figure 3D.1: Anti-Elite Sentiment (by State)
Figure 3D.2: Anti-Elite Sentiment (by Age)
Further, the survey results do point to some underlying factors that influence respondents with a populist attitude. Interestingly, age, caste and religion seem to matter more than gender and location (urban/rural), while education and class have a moderate influence. We present the results on age, religion, caste and education and exclude the other factors considering their limited influence on the anti-elite perception.
Figure 3D.3: Anti-Elite Sentiment (by Religion)
Figure 3D.2 reveals two patterns. First, older respondents seem to be less certain about their opinions. Second, an anti-elite sentiment seems to decrease quite substantially as the age of the respondents seem to increase. While it would not be possible to argue what the results would be if the respondents grow older or how they felt when they were younger, one can clearly say that the younger population today is relatively more anti- elitist than the elder population, and that the latter is less certain as to where they stand on the ‘elite versus the people’ divide.
With the exception of Christians, almost all other non-Hindu religions seem to hold an anti-elite attitude particularly Sikhs, other religions, and Muslims (Figure 3D.3). While the antagonism is most stark amongst the Sikhs, Christians seem to be equally divided on this question. However, Hindu’s being the largest religious group, the analysis warrants that we examine if there are further divisions within the Hindus.
Dalits and other castes within the Hindu population seem to have a higher proportion of respondents who share an anti-elitist attitude more than the other caste groups (Figure 3D.4). Interestingly, the Adivasi caste group seems to be as divided as the Christians on this question. In sum, one could speculate that the lower castes and Dalits may be reflecting a sentiment against upper and OBC caste groups even though the latter groups are divided on this question.
Figure 3D.5: Anti-Elite Sentiment (by Education Level)
The education table reflects two interesting patterns – an upward linear line among those who believe that elites are not blocking their progress, and a U-shaped curved line among those who believe that they are indeed blocking their progress (Figure 3D.5). Education seems to play a role among those who feel that elites are not blocking their progress, as college educated respondents seem to feel less strongly anti-elite compared to the non-literates. Simultaneously however, among those who feel that elites are blocking their progress, both the non-literates and the college educated hold relatively strong anti-elite views.
II. Is Politics a Battle or Compromise between Good and Evil?
While 48 percent believe that elites are blocking their progress on the one hand, 47 percent believe that politics is ultimately a compromise between starkly divergent views on politics on the other. Put another way, while an anti-elite based antagonism is widespread, it is heartening to note that almost an equally substantial number believe that compromises more than ‘battles’ lies at the core of political contestations. That being said, 29 percent believe that it is a battle, and therefore this result requires further analysis.
Our results show, predictably, that those belonging to urban areas and the upper class seem to endorse the idea of politics being a compromise. Interestingly however, Christians, other religious groups and Adivasi groups seem to share a similar view of
Figure 3D.6: Battle or Compromise (by State)
An antagonistic relationship between political contestants seems to be a feeling concentrated in fewer states compared to an anti-elite attitude, as seen above (Figure 3D.6). Respondents in Kashmir, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh seem to have a stronger populist perception relative to other states, but respondents in Punjab seem to distinguish between anti-elite perceptions and the nature of political contestants. Interestingly, Kerala seems to share this idea of antagonistic political contestants, whereas Nagaland is exactly on the opposite end. Even more interesting, respondents in Delhi seem to overwhelmingly think that politics is a compromise and not a battle between good and bad.
Interestingly, while the idea of an antagonistic relationship is equally shared across all age groups, younger people seem to be more persuaded by the idea of a compromise between good and bad political contestants. However, the latter pattern needs to be understood carefully as around 56 percent of those who agree that it is a compromise have not revealed their age (Figure 3D.7).
Figure 3D. 8: Battle or Compromise (by Education Level)
On education, those who hold a high school or college level education seem to have an opinion on this question relative to those who have lower levels of education – only 17 percent in the former two groups do not have an opinion on this question (Figure 3D.8). Although education matters in the forming of an opinion, these opinions also diverge as 32 percent of the respondents who have studied up to middle school seem to believe that politics is a battle. Put another way, education seems to help form opinions but not necessarily in the direction that politics is a compromise between good and bad.
III. Can Elected Leaders Override Courts on Behalf of the People?
The third question related to populist attitudes is whether respondents believe that elected leaders should be able to override courts, reflecting an attitude that popular sovereignty can undermine public institutions because they may feel that such sacrosanct institutions are in fact not representative of popular interests. Predictably, respondents that are upper class and those that are in urban locations believe that courts are sacrosanct. Interestingly divergent results are revealed when one considers states, age and education. Gender, caste and religion (excepting Sikhs) do not seem to show divergent patterns with the larger majority for courts and a significant minority for elected leaders. On this question then, we present results related to state, age and education.
Figure 3D. 9: Elected Leaders can Override Courts (by State)
Clearly, the eastern states of West Bengal, Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura do not feel that elected leaders can override courts (Figure 3D.9). At the other end, Punjab, Tamil Nadu followed by Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Kashmir have more than a quarter of the respondents who think that elected leaders can override courts. Delhi is an interesting case in that most people feel that courts should be able to limit elected leaders as against the opposite perception.
While one should note that around 54 percent of respondents who believe that courts should limit elected leaders have not mentioned their age, it is interesting that the older respondents don’t seem to have an opinion on this question (Figure 3D.10). Seen another way, a substantial number of young respondents believe in the courts, and around one fifth of respondents across all age groups affirm the contrary. There are larger numbers of older groups who do not share an opinion and so remain non-committal about the relationship between the courts and the elected leaders.
Figure 3D. 11: Elected Leaders can Override Courts (by Education Level)
Education clearly shows that educated people have formed opinions on this question with the majority affirming that courts should be able to limit elected leaders (Figure 3D.11). However, one cannot ignore that the percentage of people who believe that elected leaders can override courts is also higher among college educated respondents.