Why Vijay stakes prestige for bypolls after Tamil Nadu win

The TVK is the ruling party. Both constituencies were vacated by AIADMK legislators who resigned within weeks of being elected and crossed over to Vijay. The same two leaders – Maragatham Kumaravel in Madurantakam and P Sathyabama in Dharapuram – are now contesting as TVK candidates.

What is at stake?

A victory would suggest that not merely politicians but at least enough of their voters have travelled with them. A defeat in even one seat would complicate the story that the TVK has been telling since it came to power in May: that the centre of Tamil Nadu politics has shifted decisively towards Vijay. More immediately, senior TVK leaders acknowledge that losing a seat could slow the movement of AIADMK functionaries towards the ruling party.

Since the Assembly elections, the TVK has been drawing former ministers, legislators and local functionaries from the weakened AIADMK. In Dharapuram alone, local-level AIADMK leaders have moved towards it. A victory would make further movement easier. A loss, on the other hand, would remind leaders contemplating a switch that a change of party is far simpler than transferring a constituency.

That is why the bypoll is also a test of something difficult to measure until votes are counted on October 9: how much of Vijay’s April coalition of voters remains personally attached to him after the excitement of the general election has passed. TVK leaders believe women may be particularly important. Their assessment is that male voters could remain more firmly distributed among established party loyalties, while Vijay still has room to increase his support among women.

Why Vijay has stepped in?

Whether that assessment survives the ballot box is another matter. But it partly explains Vijay’s decision to campaign at close range rather than leave the election to ministers and local organisers. In Madurantakam, his roadshow included village stops, interactions with residents, a tractor ride and tea at a roadside shop.

The Chief Minister who campaigned sparingly while seeking power is campaigning unusually hard after acquiring it.

The Opposition understands the symbolism. The AIADMK has turned the circumstances of the bypoll itself into its campaign. Its supporters have repeatedly called Sathyabama a “traitor” for winning Dharapuram as an AIADMK candidate and then resigning to join the TVK. The argument is simple: voters elected an AIADMK MLA in April, why should they be asked five months later to elect the same person for another party?

Former CM and DMK chief M K Stalin has made a similar argument from the DMK, describing the elections as resulting from the “death of democracy” and attacking the TVK for making voters return to polling booths before, as he put it, the indelible ink from the general election had disappeared. The DMK, however, faces a different test.

DMK’s strength test

The DMK enters these by-elections without the broad alliance that accompanied it into the Assembly election. The Congress, VCK, MDMK and IUML have moved into Vijay’s political orbit, while the CPI and CPI(M) are contesting separately. That means the DMK does not necessarily have to win to construct a favourable argument from the result.

If its candidates substantially increase the party’s vote share from April while contesting largely on its own, DMK leaders can argue that the defeat five months ago did not destroy the party’s underlying electoral strength. A victory would be much more significant, but even a stronger second-place performance could provide Stalin with evidence that voters who deserted the DMK are beginning to reconsider.

Do or die for AIADMK?

For the AIADMK, the stakes are more existential. These were its seats. If its former MLAs can resign, join TVK and then defeat AIADMK candidates in the same constituencies, Vijay would have demonstrated something more damaging than attracting prominent defectors: that the AIADMK label itself may no longer be necessary for some of its former representatives to win.

The campaign has also acquired the familiar complications of Tamil Nadu by-elections. Leader of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Assembly Udhayanidhi Stalin has accused the TVK of distributing cash in Dharapuram, alleging that money was being carried in tiffin boxes. CPI(M) state secretary P Shanmugam has separately said villagers told Left campaigners that several parties were distributing money and that the TVK was paying the most. The TVK has categorically denied the allegations, saying it opposes cash-for-votes politics.

Left adds intrigue

The Left’s presence adds another peculiarity. The CPI and CPI(M) have supported Vijay’s government from outside but are now fighting his candidates. The PMK, meanwhile, has remained neutral amid discussions about a possible future relationship with the TVK. All of which makes October 6 an unusually crowded examination of a government less than five months old.

By-elections are poor instruments for measuring an entire state. Local candidates, organisation, turnout and the advantages of incumbency can distort any attempt to turn two constituencies into Tamil Nadu. But these two seats have acquired importance because Vijay himself has made them important.

Four days of personal campaigning has raised the price of victory. The TVK is no longer merely trying to retain two defectors. It is asking voters to ratify the political movement that brought those defectors to Vijay in the first place.

In April, Vijay had to prove that his crowds could become votes. Then he returned with 108 seats, falling 10 short of the required 118 for an absolute majority in the 234-member House. Five months later, the question is narrower but perhaps more revealing. After government, Assembly debates and the ordinary frictions of power, will those votes still follow him?

For the TVK, winning both seats keeps the political traffic moving towards Vijay. Losing even one could, for the first time since April, give some of those travelling in that direction a reason to check the road.