From Festival to Fever Pitch: The Transformation of India's Electoral Process

What has changed in the nature of election campaigning?

The most visible transformation lies in the mechanics and aesthetics of campaigning. Accounts from earlier decades, such as those from West Bengal, describe a process rooted in community participation, involving volunteers painting party symbols on walls and local leaders holding street-corner meetings. As noted by commentator Buddhadev Nandi, there was a competition among grassroots workers to draw party symbols, a task now outsourced to professional agencies. This localised, volunteer-driven model has been largely supplanted by a centralised, professional, and capital-intensive approach.

Today, campaigns are managed by political consulting firms that employ data analytics for voter-targeting. The hand-painted wall has given way to giant, glossy flex boards and digitally printed hoardings, a shift noted in the source material. The reach of campaigning has also moved online. According to a 2019 report by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), over 15% of voters reported being contacted by party workers on social media platforms like WhatsApp, a method non-existent two decades ago.

How has the financing of elections evolved?

The scale of expenditure in Indian elections has grown exponentially, altering the nature of political competition. The Centre for Media Studies (CMS), a New Delhi-based research organisation, estimated that the expenditure for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections exceeded ₹55,000 crore ($8 billion), making it the most expensive election ever held anywhere in the world at that time. This level of spending is driven by the professionalisation of campaigns, extensive media advertising, and logistical expenses such as helicopter usage for star campaigners.

To manage political funding, the government introduced the Electoral Bond Scheme in 2017, arguing it would improve transparency in donations. However, the scheme was challenged for its anonymity, which critics argued obscured the link between corporate donors and political parties, potentially enabling quid pro quo arrangements. In its judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. vs Union of India (February 15, 2024), the Supreme Court struck down the scheme. The Court held that the anonymous nature of the bonds violated the voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.