If we listen to the debates about elections and voting behavior in India today, a familiar pattern emerges: women voters are often discussed as recipients of social welfare systems rather than as political actors with decision-making powers. This pattern will become increasingly visible after the state elections in 2023 Karnataka, Telangana and the recent discussions surrounding Bihar. The free bus programs such as Shakti Yojana And Mahalakshmi scheme Among the most discussed measures, apart from the long-standing welfare measures in Bihar, are the measures in force in these southern states. These discussions often end with a simple conclusion: Women voted for the material incentives.
What is political mansplaining?
Well-being undoubtedly influences voting behavior; it shapes the voting decisions of men and women. But when women’s votes are reduced to welfare votes, it resembles a deeper pattern. Their political arguments are not only interpreted in simplistic terms, but also reduced and dismissed, and their stories are told by male-dominated panels of experts. This is not just an oversimplification, but a form of political mansplaining with negative implications for democracy and gender equality.
When women’s votes are reduced to welfare votes, this resembles a deeper pattern. Their political arguments are not only interpreted in simplistic terms, but also reduced and dismissed, and their stories are told by male-dominated panels of experts.
Mansplaining in politics isn’t just about interrupting TV debates; it works in more subtle and structural ways. It shapes whose interpretation is seen as legitimate and authoritative and whose voices are sidelined.
If a significant part of the political commentary reduced What effect does women’s votes have on welfare votes? It promotes the misogynistic idea that female voters are “emotional” rather than rational. The sexist assumption here is that women are less likely to evaluate multiple issues such as unemployment, inflation, governance, etc.
Mansplaining and misogynistic views against female voters
While the studies of Center for the Study of Evolving Societies-Lokniti have shown that female voters evaluate multiple concerns, including price rises, unemployment, corruption, and law and order, political mansplaining is rooted in deep patriarchal prejudices of political pundits, who are predominantly men. Women do it do not vote as a single bloc; Your choices vary depending on class, religion, income and region.
These results underscore the simplification of the claim: well-being alone determines women’s voting behavior. Political mansplaining begins when this complexity is ignored.
Beyond the “Freebies” Narrative: What Welfare Actually Means
Welfare systems not only contribute to immediate financial savings; they also produce effects that go beyond this. Consider the Mahalakshmi free bus tour program in Telangana. After its introduction bus Passenger numbers have increased significant, but these statistics only tell us part of the story. While I was chatting with a beneficiary of this program, she said, “Earlier, I even had to ask and get the bus ticket from my husband, now I travel alone.” With this free bus ride, I save around Rs 2,000 every month and use it for my children’s education and other household expenses.” For them, the program isn’t just about money, it’s about autonomy and dignity.
FII
For many of these women, such programs have a positive impact on their everyday mobility and decision-making power, but these dimensions never appear in such election commentary. A similar pattern emerged in Karnataka after the introduction of the Shakti system. Reports from Hindustan Times described how the female beneficiaries of this program experienced noticeable changes in their daily lives. Sarala, a domestic worker, travels from Ganganagar to Hebbal in Bengaluru every day and said the program allows her to save Rs 20 every day; These small savings could be used for their household expenses.
This program also benefits students significantly. Shashikala, who studies at Malleshwaram Girls PU College, said the savings from the program would help support her education following the recent loss of her father, while her mother now works as a construction worker to support the family.
These stories tell us that welfare is not only experienced as financial relief; It can strengthen autonomy, expand mobility and increase women’s bargaining power within their families. But post-election analysis often simplifies these experiences into a single explanation: women voted for “freebies.”
Welfare, autonomy and everyday freedom
A similar pattern is seen in Bihar, where gender-specific welfare measures such as the Mukhyamantri Cycle Yojana and the Mukhyamantri Kanya Utthan Yojana have been in place in the state for years. Public commentary often portrays women voters in the state as loyal welfare recipients, but reports on the ground suggest a more complex reality. One of the beneficiaries of the bike program told The Indian Express that receiving a bike gave her a sense of “freedom” and enabled her to travel independently and pursue her education.
For many of these women, such programs have a positive impact on their everyday mobility and decision-making power, but these dimensions never appear in such election commentary.
Freedom, mobility and independence. These are not just electoral incentives.
Despite these complex experiences, post-election comments often condense them into a single narrative: “Women vote for welfare.” End of story. But whose story is this? When women’s lived experiences are replaced by the interpretations of male experts, their dependence is emphasized and agency disappears.
How mansplaining works in election discourse
Mansplaining works in many interconnected ways. First, through interpretive gatekeeping, television panels and media platforms often invite male analysts and commentators as the only legitimate interpreters of elections and voting behavior; Female voters rarely present themselves as analytical voices. When we see prime-time debates on socio-political issues, elections, voting and governance, conducted largely by male commentators, it subtly conveys a message: women speak and male experts interpret. Infantilization through welfare framing, another form of mansplaining. When women-focused care is portrayed primarily as an emotional stimulus, they are implicitly treated as less politically worrisome. Although welfare also affects men, their voting behavior is rarely reduced to gratitude; Meanwhile, women’s decisions are often explained as welfare-driven decisions, and women voters are more reactive than reflective.
Furthermore, this pattern reflects what scholars call “epistemic injustice”; It is a form of injustice that occurs when a person’s knowledge, experience, credentials and analytical skills as a knowledge producer are dismissed or undervalued based solely on their identity/identity. In the electoral context, women’s explanations of why they vote are treated as secondary to expert commentary, and their political reasoning is replaced by narratives from specialists who claim to know better. If women’s political argumentation is simplified and their voice is always explained as welfare gratitude, this limits the scope to recognize the aspect of deliberation. This is particularly striking when we see recent voting trends, where women’s turnout has matched or exceeded that of men in several elections. But are they heard equally?
This way of portraying women’s voting behavior also affects how political measures are discussed. Welfare policies that expand mobility and improve access to public spaces may risk being judged as electoral tactics rather than developmental interventions. Is this good for a country where the labor force participation rate of women is significantly lower than that of men? Electoral analysis becomes weaker when it treats women voters as a unified group, because they are not. Different women approach elections differently, their priorities vary depending on caste, creed, region, etc. Recognizing these differences is important to understand how women engage in politics. Ignoring them leaves a familiar hierarchy in place: men interpret politics while women are interpreted.
Recognizing well-being as a factor in shaping voting behavior does not require restricting the political agency and thinking of half the population; Well-being shapes gender choice, and the problem here lies in how women’s choices are narrated. Furthermore, democracy is based not only on the right to vote, but also on the recognition of everyone as an equal political actor with autonomy. Epistemic equality simply means recognizing the ability of every citizen to interpret the socio-political phenomena and also recognizing each individual as a potential contributor to the production of knowledge.
Therefore, challenging mansplaining in elections is not about denying the influence of welfare systems, but about restoring women’s interpretive sovereignty. Women vote, speak and lead, and their political arguments deserve to be heard, not explained away.
Kanchi Dileep is a Masters student in Political Science at the University of Hyderabad. His research interests include gender issues, forest rights and Indian politics.