The Group of 53 and the power of swing

It is a depressing read for a BNP loyalist. Not only is the incumbent confronted with an unfavourable swing in voter sentiment, but also the much heralded inclusion of Ershad under its umbrella seems likely to negate any gains that the existing alliance with Jamaat might have yielded. Moreover, internal feuding over nominations appears likely to split the BNP vote, making its rival, the AL, the primary beneficiary.

Barring gross irregularities in the conduct of the polls, the AL boat apparently should sail to the finish line ahead of the others. Yet, a significant uncertainty lies in the fact that as much as 53% of electorate are yet to make up their minds. The eventual decision of this contemplative group could still deliver electrifying surprises.

The principal catalyst of tantalising electoral results is of course the power of swing. It is a peculiarity of the first-past-the-post mechanism in a parliamentary form of government that even minute changes in voter sentiment can yield very large upsets in the number of seats gained or lost. The following table illustrates this point using results from the last five general elections in the United Kingdom.

In 1992, there was a minor swing away from the Conservatives, a mere -0.38%. Yet, as it transpired, even that paltry change in sentiment cost them 40 seats. Turning to 1997, the year Tony Blair took over as prime minister, the Labour Party had improved its seat count from 271 to 418 -- a massive gain of 147 seats. Was this stunning accomplishment the consequence of an overwhelming increase in the Labour vote? Not really! This windfall in the number of seats was achieved by a relatively modest improvement in their share of votes, from 34.39% to 43.20%, i.e., only 8.81% -- a real bargain! Herein lies the power of swing.

Interestingly, though, the correlative relationship between the swing and seats gained/lost is rather tenuous. In fact, the power of swing can be rather illusive at times. For example, in 2001 the Conservative Party increased its share of votes by 1.01%.

In a departure from the disproportionate results engendered by even small movements in voter sentiment this swing, with respect to all other parties, gained them only one additional seat. Whither, then, the power of swing? The answer depends upon the voting patterns prevailing in each constituency.

In a stronghold constituency, it would take a very large swing to remove the incumbent. On the other hand, in a marginal constituency, even a small swing would be good enough to bring in a new winner.

Thus, to gauge the power of swing, one has to categorise each constituency as stronghold, marginal, etc., and then calculate the swing required to upset the constituency. And this is exactly what Kamran Choudhury has done in the context of election 2007.

So, when he says that a small swing in overall voter sentiment would upset a huge number of seats, one should sit-up and smell the coffee.

Returning once more to the 53% undecided, this group is now in a position to conjure up a massive swing in 2007. The sheer mass of this group can potentially upset many traditionally stronghold constituencies. Such an impending threat should make the main political parties very nervous indeed. Yet, it is their abject performance in government and in the opposition that has created the group of 53. And now this group is in a position to wreak havoc on many political fortunes. It is a propitious moment for them to demand from the political parties straightforward answers to issues of national importance. The major political players would do well to comply.

On the obvious flip-side, the Group of 53 has also provided an opportunity for smaller political parties and independent candidates to show their worth. Disenchantment with the major players being so great, statistical opportunities might have arisen in some constituencies for new faces to make an entrance.

There is strength in numbers, there is power in swing, a historic opportunity awaits the group of 53 to send a strong message all across the political landscape: "Don't mess with Bangladesh!"

The writer is a businessman.