Unpacking Public Satisfaction: An Analysis of the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Voter’s satisfaction incumbent performance 2024 Lok Sabha election election issues retrospective voting

A significant determinant of voting choices, as emphasized in several studies, is the incumbent party’s performance. Voters’ decisions regarding whom to vote for are greatly influenced by their level of satisfaction with government performance. Previous literature indicates that voters’ perceptions and evaluations of how well the incumbent party has governed directly influence the likelihood of re-election (Besley, 2006; Dassonneville et al., 2015; Ferejohn, 1986; Key, 1966; Soderlund, 2008).

When citizens perceive a party to have performed effectively and met expectations during its last term, they tend to maintain their allegiance and vote for that party. Conversely, voters may re-evaluate and switch their preferences in response to the poor performance of the incumbent party (Soderlund, 2008). However, Dassonneville et al. (2015) found that those who switch parties are not necessarily disenchanted with politics; rather, they are disillusioned with their former party’s performance. Through this retrospective behaviour, citizens hold politicians and parties accountable for their actions and choose leaders who will govern honestly and competently (Ferejohn, 1986). Key (1966), cited in Healy and Malhotra (2009), argues that citizens fulfil their civic responsibilities by evaluating the work done by the government and its overall performance when making their voting choices. Retrospective voting occurs when citizens assess past governmental performance to guide their future electoral decisions.

Data from Lokniti-CSDS post-poll surveys of Lok Sabha elections from 2004 to 2024 also show that if people are satisfied with how the government is performing, they are more likely to vote for the party of the incumbent government in the next election (Table 1). Over these five elections, the pattern is clear: when voters are satisfied with the government’s performance, they tend to vote for the incumbent party. Voters who were completely or somewhat satisfied with the government consistently demonstrated high support for the incumbent. Support was highest among those who were completely satisfied. Conversely, those who were fully dissatisfied were more likely to vote for other parties than the incumbent. These results align with the literature supporting the notion that voter satisfaction is an important factor in voting for the incumbent. Incumbent governments that successfully maintain high levels of satisfaction are more likely to secure votes from these satisfied voters, and those governments that fail to meet expectations risk losing favour and support in future elections.

Table 1.

Vote for Incumbent Government by Level of Satisfaction with Their Performance 2004–2024.

Level of Satisfaction with the Performance of the Incumbent Government	Vote for the Incumbent Party in Lok Sabha Elections
	2004	2009	2014	2019^*	2024
Fully dissatisfied	13	11	6	4	6
Somewhat dissatisfied	24	18	14	18	25
Somewhat satisfied	37	34	31	48	51
Fully satisfied	63	65	58	80	79

Source: Lokniti-CSDS Data Unit. National Election Studies (NES) 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019 and 2024.

Note: All figures are in percentage. ^*NES 2019 pre-poll.

However, this relationship is more complex in the Indian federal structure. Verma’s (2012) analysis challenges the idea that general satisfaction with the central government’s performance determines national election outcomes. Instead, voters consider the performance of the central government, state government and constituency representatives (Verma, 2012). In India, ruling parties differ across many states, and the nature of party competition varies among them; for the majority of voters, the performance of the state government becomes more salient than that of the central government (Yadav & Palshikar, 2009, p. 406).

Nonetheless, one cannot ignore the possibility that voters may express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction as a form of retrospective reasoning regarding their voting choices. Once voters have cast their ballots, they might claim that they were satisfied or dissatisfied because of their choice rather than acknowledging that their satisfaction initially influenced their voting decision. In short, voters may rationalize their voting decisions after the fact rather than being guided by their satisfaction with the government. However, this article does not seek to examine the direct relationship between voter satisfaction and the act of voting for the incumbent party. Instead, its primary objective is to identify the factors that shape voter satisfaction. What aspects of government performance or policy drive positive assessments? Are there specific indicators that significantly influence voters’ evaluations of the government? This article adopts a comprehensive approach to explore voter satisfaction with government performance, aiming to illuminate the key factors that influence public perceptions.

Factors Shaping Voter Satisfaction with the Incumbent Government

There is a plethora of literature on how the incumbent government’s performance is rewarded or penalized by voters. However, limited research exists on the specific indicators that contribute to government performance. Voter satisfaction with the incumbent government’s performance is shaped by various factors, ranging from economic conditions to governance quality, social welfare policies and other emotional and cultural considerations.

Economic Factor

One of the key determinants of satisfaction with the government is economic performance, which includes employment opportunities, inflation control and growth in sectors such as agriculture and industry, alongside voters’ own economic conditions. Positive economic outcomes often lead to higher satisfaction among voters, while economic downturns result in dissatisfaction. Several studies focus on the economic factors influencing voter satisfaction and their impact on voting behaviour. These studies, based on the rational choice model of voting behaviour, argue that voters hold parties accountable for their economic performance by rewarding or punishing them on election day (Andersen & Heath, 2003; Campbell et al., 1960; Downs, 1957; Key, 1966). Previous literature supports this relationship and points towards two types of economic considerations: one’s own economic situation, or pocketbook factors, and the performance of the country’s economy, broadly referred to as socio-tropic factors. In the first case, voters assess their financial situations and evaluate the performance of the government (Kramer, 1971; Lewis-Beck & Stegmaier, 2008, 2009). In the second case, voters are more influenced by broader national economic conditions, such as the unemployment rate, inflation and gross domestic product, or the overall well-being of the country (socio-tropic factors), than by their individual financial situations (ego-tropic or pocketbook factors) when making voting decisions (Bratton et al., 2012; Kiewiet & Lewis-Beck, 2011; Kinder & Kiewiet, 1981).

In the Indian context, Suri (2009), while analysing the electoral verdict of the 2009 Lok Sabha election, demonstrated that economic perceptions significantly influence voting decisions in India’s elections. Voter support for the incumbent party is linked to national economic conditions and individual household well-being. Retrospective evaluations of economic performance, particularly egocentric considerations, have a stronger impact than future expectations. This suggests that Indian voters prioritize personal economic conditions over broader economic factors. However, Suri’s analysis did not account for other possible factors affecting electoral outcomes, limiting the scope of his findings.

Good Governance

Public service delivery plays a crucial role in shaping voter perceptions. Effective and efficient services in health, education, infrastructure and sanitation significantly enhance public satisfaction with governance. Furthermore, perceptions of transparency and accountability in service delivery also influence satisfaction levels. Studies have established a link between satisfaction and good governance (Gupta & Abed, 2002; Kaufmann et al., 2002, 2010), arguing that citizens’ satisfaction with the government increases when they perceive it as practising good governance, which encompasses key attributes such as the rule of law, participation, transparency, consensus orientation, responsiveness, equity and inclusiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, and accountability (Bouckaert & Van de Walle, 2003; Kaufmann et al., 2008; Levi & Stoker, 2000; Wang, 2010).

In India, past studies have shown that citizens place great importance on access to drinking water, roads, electricity, medical facilities and education (Chhibber et al., 2004), believing that the government should bear primary responsibility for these public goods. In this context, the responsiveness of the democratic state is essential to give empirical meaning to the ‘idea’ of democracy that citizens cherish and value (Shastri, 2019a), thereby consolidating their trust in the state. Moreover, the perception of good governance is known to foster trust in the government. Mishra and Attri (2020) support the view that effective governance at the state level leads to higher levels of trust. Another significant factor influencing voter satisfaction is the introduction or expansion of social welfare schemes. Voters tend to reward governments that implement benefits such as subsidized housing, healthcare or food distribution, particularly for lower-income and marginalized communities. An article in this volume discusses this factor in detail.

Socio-cultural Factors

While governance and economic factors undoubtedly play a role in shaping voter satisfaction, recent studies highlight the significant influence of societal elements such as culture, religion and moral value systems in political outcomes (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2021; Parsons, 1951). Cultural theories have regained prominence in both economics and political science, providing explanations for the economic, social and political differences observed across countries, regions and ethnic groups. Samuel Huntington was a leading figure in this revival, positing that cultural differences are fundamental drivers of economic and political divergences, as well as sources of international conflict. He also argues that cultural values significantly influence national behaviours (Huntington, 1993, 2000). This perspective is echoed by economic historian David Landes, who asserts that ‘culture makes almost all the difference’ (Landes, 2000, p. 2) in terms of economic growth and cross-country differences.

Haidt (2012) also explains that cultural factors, particularly those tied to moral values like sacredness and purity, often overshadow political and economic concerns in shaping voter satisfaction. He argues that voters are guided more by deep-seated cultural intuitions than by rational policy discussions or economic performance. Some studies reveal that individual religious beliefs and contextual factors significantly shape electoral preferences, underscoring the complex interplay between personal faith and broader social dynamics in determining voting outcomes (Barro & McCleary, 2005; Goldberg, 2014).

In the Indian context, caste and religious sentiments profoundly impact electoral outcomes, shaping political attitudes and influencing voter behaviour in various ways (Sardesai & Attri, 2019; Sen, 2010). For instance, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has effectively utilized Hindu identity to consolidate support, particularly through campaigns centred around significant religious sites, such as the Ram temple at Ayodhya. Although the construction of the Ram temple was a temporal event, it has a long political history associated with the BJP. During the 2014 Lok Sabha election, the BJP launched a campaign for constructing a Ram temple at the site of the Babri Masjid, which was destroyed in religious violence in 1992 (Massari, 2014). Just a couple of months before the national election, the inauguration of the Ram temple took place, leading to arguments that the BJP would benefit from this event. However, the party could not fully capitalize on the construction of the Ram temple, as other influential factors played a role in voters’ decisions (Kulkarni, 2024). Nonetheless, it appealed to a larger segment of the Hindu population, and the BJP government was praised for this long-awaited achievement. Therefore, it will be interesting to observe the impact of the construction of the Ram temple on voter satisfaction concerning the overall performance of the government.

Trust in Democratic Institutions

Trust in institutions is a vital aspect of democracy and is closely related to citizens’ sense of efficacy, which further influences their satisfaction with how democracy functions. These institutions serve as the primary bulwark of democracy. If they fail to meet the people’s needs, democracy becomes inherently weak (Shastri, 2019a). Grönlund and Setälä (2002) argue that trust in institutions, such as parliament, positively correlates with higher satisfaction and increased political participation, particularly voter turnout. They suggest that trust in these institutions reflects citizens’ belief that the system operates fairly and effectively, which, in turn, enhances satisfaction with policy outputs and government actions. This trust is distinct from trust in individual politicians, which tends to have a more limited effect on turnout and satisfaction.

During the NDA regime (2014–2024), opposition parties have alleged that the BJP hijacked democratic institutions (India Today, 2017). The ruling party has been accused of obstructing the democratic functions of various public institutions, such as the judiciary and the Election Commission of India. In fact, during its second tenure, the BJP consistently faced criticism from political actors and observers for misusing investigative agencies like the CBI and ED to silence their opponents (Sharma, 2024; The Print, 2022). Therefore, it is pertinent to assess public trust in these institutions and their perceived satisfaction with the incumbent government.

Leadership

Charismatic leadership and the perceived competence of the incumbent leader are critical factors in shaping voter satisfaction. Strong, decisive leadership can enhance voter approval, even in the face of mixed policy outcomes. Leadership plays a crucial role in influencing public satisfaction with the incumbent government. Following the 2014 Lok Sabha elections in India, the importance of leadership became increasingly evident, particularly in the context of Narendra Modi’s rise as Prime Minister (Mishra & Negi, 2019; Shastri, 2019b; Shastri & Syal, 2017). The results of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections demonstrated that Modi’s leadership was a driving force behind the BJP’s electoral success (Shastri, 2019b). However, in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, there was a decline in Modi’s charisma; unlike in the previous election, he was not the primary vote-puller for the BJP (Shastri, 2024). This raises the question: has this decline in leadership preference also affected voter satisfaction with the performance of the incumbent government? This factor will also be examined.

Policy Changes

In addition to various factors, voters are significantly influenced by existing short-term issues and critical policy changes when making their decisions (Antwi, 2018). Those who prioritize specific issues tend to place greater importance on the government’s performance in those areas when determining their support (Fournier et al., 2003). From a retrospective perspective, satisfaction with the performance of the incumbent party often hinges on how effectively the party has addressed the issues that matter most to voters during its tenure.

The BJP’s decision-making regarding the abrogation of Article 370 and the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) represents two critical policy changes that underscore the incumbent government’s assertiveness and commitment to its manifesto promises. Since its inception, the BJP has consistently advocated for the removal of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and no government prior to the BJP had succeeded in fulfilling this aspiration of certain sections of Indian voters. The BJP framed this action as a challenge, positioning it as the fulfilment of a long-standing commitment to its electoral base, thereby enhancing its image as a decisive party capable of implementing transformative policies.

Another policy shift was the CAA, enacted in December 2019. This Act aims to provide a pathway to citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who entered India before 31 December 2014. Proponents of the CAA argue that it reflects the BJP’s commitment to protecting religious minorities facing persecution in neighbouring countries, positioning the party as a defender of Hindu interests. This policy has resonated particularly well with voters from the majority religion, who see it as a bold affirmation of the party’s ideological stance. Given this context, it is essential to examine whether these critical policy changes will positively affect public assessments of the incumbent government’s performance.

Aggregation of State Politics

The intricate relationship between state politics and national electoral outcomes in India has garnered significant scholarly attention, with scholars asserting that state politics has evolved into a relatively autonomous domain, exerting considerable influence on the broader national political landscape. Scholars argue that diverse political practices across states lead to varying voter behaviours, often diverging from national trends (Chhibber, 2009; Yadav & Palshikar, 2008). This argument is crucial for understanding how local issues can dominate electoral discourse, influencing voter satisfaction with the national government and shaping national election results. Moreover, the rise of regional parties and coalition politics at the state level complicates the narrative, as these entities often play pivotal roles in shaping voter preferences, which ultimately aggregate into national verdicts (Kailash, 2010).

In recent times, the BJP has promoted the concept of a ‘double-engine government’, where the ruling party holds power at both the state and national levels. This has emerged as a significant factor shaping voter satisfaction with the incumbent government’s performance. Voters perceive this arrangement as beneficial due to streamlined governance, enhanced accountability, consistent policy frameworks and political stability. Mishra’s (2022) analysis suggests that satisfaction derived from a double-engine government can directly influence electoral outcomes, as voters tend to support candidates from the ruling party if they believe the governance model is effective. However, rising expectations and the government’s ability to address local issues can also impact satisfaction levels, underscoring the importance of maintaining this alignment for incumbent governments seeking electoral support.

Conceptual Framework, Data and Methods

In the existing literature, numerous broader issues have been found to influence voters’ satisfaction with the performance of the incumbent government. These issues encompass a wide range of factors, including economic concerns, governance quality, socio-cultural dynamics, trust in democratic principles, leadership effectiveness and policy implementation. The literature indicates that voter satisfaction is not solely a reflection of the government’s achievements; it also depends on the perceived alignment between voter expectations and governmental actions. Factors such as trust in institutions, the charisma of leadership and the effectiveness of policy implementation significantly shape voter perceptions, alongside economic conditions and governance quality.

While previous studies have addressed these issues from different perspectives, our article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how these factors affect voter satisfaction and to identify which factors are most significant. Drawing on these diverse concepts, we propose to employ a conceptual framework that unpacks the elements influencing satisfaction with the incumbent government during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections (shown in Figure 1). This framework facilitates a systematic examination of how the aforementioned broader issues intersect and interact, ultimately shaping voter satisfaction.

Figure 1.

Framework of Understating the Voters’ Satisfaction with the Government.

For this article, the data were primarily drawn from the National Election Study 2024, conducted among 19,663 respondents across 191 parliamentary constituencies in 23 Indian states using multi-stage random sampling. To construct our dependent variable (DV), representing the dominant sentiment of satisfaction with the incumbent NDA, we used the following question from the NES post-poll study conducted by Lokniti-CSDS: ‘Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the performance of the BJP-led NDA government at the Centre in the last five years?’ The order of the response categories was reversed, ranging from ‘not at all satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’. Five per cent of voters did not answer the question; therefore, for our analysis, these ‘no responses’ were excluded. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, more than six in 10 voters indicated they were either somewhat satisfied or fully dissatisfied with the performance of the BJP-led NDA government at the centre. Nearly one in five said they were somewhat dissatisfied, and another one in five reported being completely dissatisfied with the performance of the incumbent government (Table 2).

Table 2.

Satisfaction with the Performance of the NDA-led Central Government.

Satisfaction with the Performance of the NDA-led Central Government	%
Not at all satisfied	19
Somewhat dissatisfied	20
Somewhat dissatisfied	38
Highly satisfied	24

Source: NES post-poll 2024 conducted by Lokniti-CSDS.

To measure the overall effect of pocketbook concerns on perceived satisfaction with the incumbent government, we used two questions from the NES post-poll study. The first question evaluated existing financial satisfaction: ‘In your current financial situation, overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with it?’ The second question assessed changes over time: ‘Compared to five years ago, how is the economic condition of your household today? Would you say it has become much better, better, remained the same, become worse, or much worse?’ To standardize the responses, they were arranged from negative to positive evaluations of the respondents’ financial conditions. Non-responses to both questions were treated as missing data.

For socio-tropic concerns, two dummy variables were used, derived from responses to an open-ended question where voters listed the most liked work of the incumbent government. The first dummy variable was ‘Economic_development’ and the second was ‘Improved_employment’ (refer to Table 3 for the frequencies). To measure the effect of governance, we used a dummy variable ‘Better_governance’ and a variable called ‘service_experience’, created from a survey question asking: ‘Based on your overall experience, how easy or difficult was it to benefit from welfare schemes—was it very easy, easy, difficult, or very difficult?’ The responses were reordered from ‘very difficult’ to ‘very easy’ on a scale. For the socio-cultural factor, we used the dummy variable ‘Ram Mandir/Hindutva’ (refer to Table 3 for the frequencies).

To assess voter trust in political institutions, we used three questions from the study: ‘Please tell me how much trust you have in the Supreme Court, Indian Media, and the Election Commission of India. Would you say you have a great deal of trust, some trust, not much trust, or no trust at all?’ The responses were reversed, ranging from ‘no trust’ to ‘high trust’. Non-responses to all three questions were excluded from the analysis. The collective values were computed into a scale ranging from 0 to 12, where lower numbers implied no trust and higher numbers indicated high trust. Additionally, a question on voters’ perceptions of the misuse of investigative agencies was included: ‘Recently, a number of Opposition leaders have been arrested on corruption charges, but hardly anyone from the BJP has been arrested. Are the leaders of the BJP less corrupt than Opposition leaders, or are the Opposition leaders being arrested for political reasons?’

For measuring the effect of leadership, a dummy variable ‘Modi’s_leadership’ and another variable ‘Modi_effect’ were used. To capture the Modi effect, the question was asked: ‘If Narendra Modi was not the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate, would you have still voted for the same party, or would your decision have changed?’ Then, a dummy variable ‘CAA_Article 370’ was used to measure the impact of policy changes (refer to Table 3 for the frequencies). To assess the impact of the state a voter resides in, a variable was created by grouping the states into two categories. One group consists of states ruled by the BJP or its allies, while the second group includes states ruled by non-BJP/NDA parties.

Table 3.

Frequencies of These Independent Variable.

Most Liked Work of the NDA	%
Ram Mandir/Hindutva	27
Performance on economic front	16
Governance	14
Employment	5
Modi’s leadership	2
Enacting laws like CAA and removal of Article 370	2
Other work	21
Did not like any work	14
Satisfaction with personal economic condition
Not at all satisfied	11
Somewhat dissatisfied	19
Somewhat satisfied	47
Highly satisfied	23
Current economic condition of the household compared to the past
Much worse	5
Worse	13
Remained the same	37
Better	31
Much better	14
Shared experience in availing the benefits of the welfare schemes
Very difficult	15
Difficult	36
Easy	37
Very easy	12
Modi’s effect on vote choice
Not effect	51
Modi effect	24
Use of investigating agencies
Opposition leaders arrested due to political reasons	43
BJP leaders are less corrupt	23

Source: Lokniti-CSDS Data Unit. National Election Study (NES) 2024.

Note: Figures may not add up to 100 as some respondents did not share their responses.

Analysis

Moving on to our explanatory variables, Table 3 provides the descriptive statistics for these variables. The data reveal that, when asked about the most liked work of the NDA, nearly three in 10 voters credited the NDA government for constructing the Ram Mandir or promoting Sanatan Dharma. One in six (16%) voters appreciated the government’s performance on the economic front, followed by 14% who praised the government’s work on governance. Voters also credited the government for generating employment (5%) and for enacting laws such as the CAA and the abrogation of Article 370. A small proportion also appreciated the government due to Modi’s leadership.

Regarding personal economic satisfaction, close to a quarter of respondents were fully satisfied with their economic condition, while close to half were somewhat satisfied. In contrast, 30% expressed either complete or partial dissatisfaction. Delving into the current economic condition of their households compared to the past, over two-fifths reported improvement, four in 10 said there was no change, and one in five felt it had worsened.

When we look at the level of trust in public institutions using the index created by combining the three institutions—the Election Commission of India, the judiciary and the Indian media—on a scale ranging from 1 to 12, the average score was 8.5. This suggests a moderate level of trust among voters in public institutions. However, nearly two in five voters also held the opinion that the BJP is misusing investigative agencies by arresting opposition leaders for political reasons.

When we tried to understand the impact of these factors on the overall satisfaction with the incumbent government’s performance, we came across different insights. For instance, voters who are more satisfied with their personal economic condition and perceive an improvement in their household’s financial situation tend to rate the NDA government more favourably. For example, for those who report being highly satisfied with their personal economic condition, the average satisfaction was 3.25, while for those dissatisfied with their economic condition, the average satisfaction with the government was much lower, at 1.82 (Figure 2). However, the level of satisfaction increases if people perceive an improved economic condition of their household. For instance, for those who believe that there is a high improvement in the finical condition of their household as compared to the past, the level of average satisfaction goes to 3.34 (Figure 3). This trend suggests that retrospective evaluations of personal and household economic conditions are crucial factors in shaping voter satisfaction.

Figure 2.

Source: Lokniti-CSDS Data Unit. National Election Study (NES) 2024.

Figure 3.

Source: Lokniti-CSDS Data Unit. National Election Study (NES) 2024.

In addition to economic factors, voter satisfaction also varies based on perceptions of government performance. For instance, those who believe the government has been successful in generating employment and promoting economic development report higher satisfaction levels (see Figure 4). The average satisfaction score among this group is significantly higher than the overall satisfaction figures. Moreover, respondents who express approval of the NDA government primarily due to Modi’s leadership show a marked increase in satisfaction, with his leadership receiving an average score of 3.14. Narendra Modi’s leadership is a pivotal factor in determining voter satisfaction. However, when assessing Modi’s influence within the party, it appears that his presence is more beneficial for the party as a whole rather than solely for his candidacy as Prime Minister. There is little difference in satisfaction levels between voters who would still support the party without Modi as the Prime Ministerial candidate and those who might have shifted their party choice if he were not the candidate (Table 4).

Figure 4.

Source: Lokniti-CSDS Data Unit. National Election Study (NES) 2024.

Table 4.

Modi’s Effect and Double Engine States and Their Level of Satisfaction.

	Average Satisfaction with NDA Government
Overall	2.71
Modi’s effect
Would have voted for the same party	2.82
Would have voted for a different party	2.76
Double-engine government
Opposition ruling states	2.66
NDA ruling states	2.75

Source: Lokniti-CSDS Data Unit. National Election Study (NES) 2024.

State-level political dynamics also play a role in shaping voter satisfaction, though to a lesser extent. Voters residing in NDA-ruled states report slightly higher satisfaction (2.75) compared to those in opposition-ruled states (2.65). However, this difference is marginal, suggesting that while the political alignment of the state government matters, it is not the dominant factor driving voter satisfaction (Table 4). In the 2024 Lok Sabha election, it was found that states with a ‘double-engine’ government (where the same party governs both the state and the centre) did not always report uniformly high satisfaction, which contributed to varied electoral outcomes. Satisfaction levels were notably higher in some double-engine states such as Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh—states where the BJP contested without allies and had a strong foothold. Conversely, in states with moderate satisfaction levels, four were double-engine states: Rajasthan, Odisha, Assam and Bihar. Within these states, BJP’s performance slowed in Rajasthan and Bihar, while it made gains in Assam and Odisha. Interestingly, even in some non-double-engine states, the BJP improved its electoral performance in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, which suggests that moderate satisfaction in these states may have played a role.

In contrast, nine states reported below-average satisfaction levels, of which four—Haryana, Goa, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra—were double-engine states. Yet, in the 2024 election, the results were not in favour of the BJP-led NDA government in these regions. Additionally, in opposition-ruled states such as Karnataka, West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Kerala, satisfaction levels were lower than the national average, reinforcing the notion that state-level dynamics significantly shape voter satisfaction (Table 5).

Table 5.

Average Satisfaction with the Performance of the Central Government Across States.

State	Average Satisfaction with NDA Government
Himachal Pradesh	3.3189
Uttarakhand	3.2785
Chhattisgarh	3.1255
Gujarat	3.0831
MP	3.0820
Rajasthan	2.9884
Odisha	2.9670
Assam	2.8729
Delhi	2.8723
Telangana	2.8580
Andhra Pradesh	2.8534
Bihar	2.8377
Tamil Nadu	2.7902
Jharkhand	2.7171
Overall	2.7104
Karnataka	2.6815
Haryana	2.6761
Goa	2.6522
West Bengal	2.6094
Uttar Pradesh	2.4657
Maharashtra	2.3886
Jammu and Kashmir	2.3733
Punjab	2.2337
Kerala	1.9652

Source: Lokniti-CSDS Data Unit. National Election Study (NES) 2024.

Table 6 presents Spearman’s rho correlation, which examines the relationship between the index of trust and overall satisfaction with the central government’s performance. The results show a positive correlation between trust in public institutions and the level of satisfaction with the incumbent government’s work at the centre.

Table 6.

Correlation Matrix of Trust in Public Institution and Level of Satisfaction.

	Spearman’s Rho Correlation	Satisfaction with the NDA
Index of trust in institutions	Correlation coefficient	0.198
Index of trust in institutions	Sig. (two-tailed)	0.000

Source: Lokniti-CSDS Data Unit. National Election Study (NES) 2024.

Multivariate Analysis

The bivariate analysis revealed a statistical association between various sets of variables capturing voters’ concerns regarding the economy, governance, policy changes, leadership, trust in democratic institutions and socio-cultural factors. However, to better understand the factors driving satisfaction, an OLS regression model was employed for multivariate analysis (Table 7). This approach allows us to determine whether the relationships observed in the correlation were due to individual factors or whether one factor was influencing others. The DV, as previously discussed, is an ordinal variable ranging from no satisfaction to high satisfaction.

Table 7.

Regression Model.

	Model 1		Model 2
	Standardized Coefficients Beta	Std. Error	Standardized Coefficients Beta	Std. Error
Economic factor
Satisfaction with personal economic condition	0.179^*	0.013	0.176^*	0.013
Current economic condition of the household compared to the past (worsen to improved)	0.138^*	0.011	0.142^*	0.011
Employment generation	0.247^*	0.045	0.226^*	0.048
Economic development	0.335^*	0.036	0.312^*	0.038
Governance
Better infrastructure	0.274^*	0.038	0.261^*	0.040
Shared experience in availing the benefits of the welfare schemes	0.120^*	0.012	0.123^*	0.012
Socio-cultural factor
Construction of Ram Temple	0.391^*	0.034	0.360^*	0.036
Trust in democratic principles
Trust in public institutions	0.057^*	0.004	0.050^*	0.004
Misuse of investigating agencies	0.120^*	0.021	0.120^*	0.022
Leadership factor
Liked the government because of Narendra Modi	0.131^*	0.068	0.122^*	0.070
Modi effect on vote choice	−0.048^*	0.021	−0.056^*	0.022
Policy change
CAA_Article370	0.151^*	0.059	138^*	0.062
Double engine	0.038^*	0.020	0.032^*	0.020
Partisanship (reference no partisanship)
Close to NDA	0.133^*	0.024	0.125^*	0.024
Close to INDIA	−0.080^*	0.025	−0.074^*	0.026
Demographic control variables
Muslim (reference to Hindu)			−0.090^*	0.035
Urban			0.001	0.023
Women			0.005	0.020
Economic class (poor to upper)			−0.027^*	0.011
R-square (sig. value)	0.422 (.000)		0.426 (.000)
Dependent variable: Level of satisfaction with NDA government (no satisfaction to high)

Source: Lokniti-CSDS Data Unit. National Election Study (NES) 2024.

Note: ^*Significant value at <.05.

All relevant explanatory variables were included in the model, such as the NDA government’s most prominent achievements—construction of the Ram Temple, employment generation, economic performance, governance, the enactment of the CAA and the abrogation of Article 370. Additionally, factors like Modi’s leadership, satisfaction with personal economic conditions, the current economic condition of the household compared to the past and trust in public institutions were considered. Variables like the ruling state government and partisanship were also included to assess whether these factors had any specific impact on satisfaction levels.

The OLS regression analysis provides valuable insights into the factors influencing voter satisfaction with the NDA government. The data reveal that socio-cultural factors play a prominent role in shaping voter satisfaction. The construction of the Ram Temple stands out as the most influential factor (β = 0.391) in the model, underscoring the significance of religious and cultural achievements for a segment of the electorate. This highlights the importance of symbolic issues in the political landscape. Nonetheless, economic factors, particularly socio-tropic ones, also play a critical role in shaping satisfaction levels. The government’s efforts in economic development and employment generation emerge as a strong predictor of satisfaction, reinforcing the importance of job creation in shaping positive voter perceptions. However, perceptions of broader economic development have the highest impact among economic factors (β = 0.335), indicating that voters are particularly responsive to macro-level economic growth when evaluating government performance.

Governance factors also influence satisfaction, though to a slightly lesser extent. Improvements in infrastructure are strongly linked to higher satisfaction levels, suggesting that visible government investments in public works resonate well with voters. Other factors were also statistically significant, but not to a great extent.

To examine the impact of demographic variables such as religion, gender, locality and class, additional control variables were included in regression model 2. The existing relationships and emerging trends remained unchanged after controlling for these factors, though some interesting observations emerged. Muslims reported significantly lower satisfaction compared to Hindus, reflecting the potential influence of religious identity on government evaluations. Other demographic variables, such as urban–rural residence, gender and economic class, showed minimal impact, indicating that satisfaction is largely driven by policy and performance-related factors rather than by these demographic characteristics.

Conclusion

An analysis of voter behaviour during the 2024 Lok Sabha election reveals a significant trend: socio-cultural factors, particularly the construction of the Ram Temple, were central to determining voter satisfaction with the BJP-led NDA government. However, this sentiment was not merely a short-term factor. It reflected deep-rooted beliefs among voters over an extended period, and the BJP’s ability to fulfil this long-standing cultural promise greatly benefited the party, leading to a positive assessment. Although economic issues such as employment, household economic improvement and broader economic growth remained relevant, voters appeared to prioritize symbolic, collective achievements over personal economic conditions. This suggests that for many voters, the government’s success in delivering on long-standing cultural and religious promises held greater importance than immediate economic circumstances.

Jonathan Haidt’s theoretical framework from The Righteous Mind (2012) offers a valuable explanation for this phenomenon. According to Haidt, voters are often driven by intuition rather than reason, particularly on issues of morality and religion. This makes it difficult for rational arguments or policy achievements to alter their beliefs once shaped by deep-seated moral intuitions. In the 2024 election, the Ram Temple became a potent symbol within the ‘divinity’ moral system Haidt describes, where values such as sacredness, purity and cosmic order take precedence over concerns for individual rights or economic well-being.

While leadership was also an important factor, it was not the dominant driver of satisfaction. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership did contribute positively to voter approval, but the data suggests that the government’s tangible achievements had a more substantial impact.

Demographic factors, particularly religion, also shaped voter satisfaction. Muslim voters were significantly less satisfied with the NDA government compared to Hindu voters. This suggests that religious identity played a key role in how voters evaluated the government’s performance, likely due to the government’s focus on Hindu-centric issues like the Ram Temple.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Kailash K. K., Suhas Palshikar, Siddharth Swaminathan, and the anonymous referee for their comments and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Acemoglu

, & Robinson

J. A.

(2021). Culture, institutions and social equilibria: A framework [Working Paper No. 28832, National Bureau of Economic Research]. http://www.nber.org/papers/w28832

Andersen

, & Heath

(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.

Antwi

R. B.

(2018). How do voters decide? A study of the determinants of voting behaviour in Ghana. Wright State University.

Barro

R. J.

, & McCleary

R. M.

(2005). Which countries have state religions? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1331–1370.

Besley

(2006). Principled agents?: The political economy of good government. Oxford University Press.

Bouckaert

, & Van de Walle

(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.

Bratton

, Bhavnani

, & Chen

T. H.

(2012). Voting intentions in Africa: Ethnic, economic or partisan? Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 50(1), 27–52.

Campbell

, Converse

P. E.

, Miller

W. E.

, & Stokes

(1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.

Chhibber

(2009). Are national elections any more than aggregations of state-level verdicts? Economic & Political Weekly, 44(39), 58–63.

10.

Chhibber

, Shastri

, & Sisson

(2004). Federal arrangements and the provision of public goods in India. Asian Survey, 44(3), 339–352.

11.

Dassonneville

, Blais

, & Dejaeghere

(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.

Downs

(1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row.

13.

Ferejohn

(1986). Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice, 50(1–3), 5–25.

14.

Fournier

, Blais

, Nadeau

, Gidengil

, & Nevitte

(2003). Issue importance and performance voting. Political Behaviour 25, 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022952311518

15.

Goldberg

A. 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.

Grönlund

, & Setälä

(2007). Political trust, satisfaction and voter turnout. Comparative European Politics, 5, 400–422.

17.

Gupta

M. S.

, & Abed

M. G. T.

(2002). Governance, corruption, and economic performance. International Monetary Fund.

18.

Haidt

(2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.

19.

Healy

, & Malhotra

(2009). Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 387–406.

20.

Huntington

S. P.

(1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22–49.

21.

Huntington

S. P.

(2000). Culture counts. In Harrison

L. E.

& Huntington

S. P.

(Eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress. Basic Books.

22.

India Today. (2017, July 21). 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.

Kailash

K. K.

(2010). State level coalition governments and federal calculations: Is state politics an autonomous domain? Center for Advanced Studies.

24.

Kaufmann

, Kraay

, Lora

, & Pritchett

(2002). Growth without governance [with comments]. Economia, 3(1), 169–229.

25.

Kaufmann

, Kraay

, & Mastruzzi

(2008). Governance matters VII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2007 [World Bank Institute Policy Research Working Paper, 4654].

26.

Kaufmann

, Kraay

, & Mastruzzi

(2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues [World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 5430].

27.

Key

V. O.

(1966). The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960. Harvard University Press.

28.

Kiewiet

D. R.

, & Lewis-Beck

M. 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.

Kinder

D. R.

, & Kiewiet

D. R.

(1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 129–161.

30.

Kramer

G. H.

(1971). Short-term fluctuations in US voting behaviour, 1896–1964. American Political Science Review, 65(1), 131–143.

31.

Kulkarni

G. R.

(2024, June 28). 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.

Landes

(2000). Culture makes almost all the difference. In Harrison

L. E.

& Huntington

S. P.

(Eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress. Basic Books.

33.

Levi

, & Stoker

(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-Beck

M. S.

, & Stegmaier

(2008). The economic vote in transitional democracies. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18(3), 303–323.

35.

Lewis-Beck

M. S.

, & Stegmaier

(2009). American voter to economic voter: Evolution of an idea. Electoral Studies, 28(4), 625–631.

36.

Massari

(2014, May 8). Religion and the Indian election. Harvard Divinity School Communications. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/05/religion-and-the-indian-election/

37.

Mishra

(2022, January 17). 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.

Mishra

, & Attri

(2020). Governance, public service delivery and trust in government. Studies in Indian Politics, 8(2), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2321023020963518

39.

Mishra

, & Negi

(2019). Post-poll Survey: BJP, the most preferred party of young India. The Hindu CSDS-Post Poll Survey.

40.

Parsons

(1951). The social system. Free Press.

41.

Sardesai

, & Attri

(2019). Post-poll survey: The 2019 verdict is a manifestation of the deepening religious divide in India. The Hindu, 30.

42.

Sen

(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.

Sharma

(2024, February 2). ‘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.

Shastri

(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.

Shastri

(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.

Shastri

(2024, April 13). 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.

Shastri

, & Syal

(2017). The Modi factor in 2014. Electoral politics in India (pp. 215–229). Routledge India.

48.

Soderlund

(2008). Retrospective voting and electoral volatility: A Nordic perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31, 217–240.

49.

Suri

K. C.

(2009). The economy and voting in the 15th Lok Sabha elections. Economic & Political Weekly, 44(39), 64–70.

50.

The Print. (2022, January 29). 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.

Verma

(2012). What determines electoral outcomes in India? Caste, class, or voters’ satisfaction with government performance? Asian Survey, 52(2), 270–297.

52.

Wang

(2010). Citizens’ satisfaction with government performance in six Asian-Pacific giants. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 11(1), 51–75.

53.

Yadav

, & Palshikar

(2008, November). Ten theses on state politics in India. Seminar (Vol. 591, No. 10, pp. 14–22).

54.

Yadav

, & Palshikar

(2009). Revisiting the ‘third electoral system’: Mapping electoral trends in India, 2004–9. In Shastri

, Suri

K. C.

& Yadav

(Eds.), Electoral politics in Indian states: Lok Sabha elections in 2004 and beyond (pp. 393–429). Oxford University Press.

55.

Zheng

, & Lu

(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.