The election results on May 4 will offer insights into five key questions for Tamil Nadu. First, as actor-turned-politician C Joseph Vijay suggested in July 2025, could this election mark a watershed moment, comparable to 1967 and 1977? Second, is Vijay the X factor in this contest, and if so, to what extent can he shape outcomes? Third, has the AIADMK retained its 2021 strength? Fourth, in Jayalalithaa’s absence, does the DMK hold a clearer advantage? And finally, what might these results indicate about the BJP’s longer-term prospects in the state?
In 1967, C N Annadurai’s DMK defeated an undivided Congress led by K Kamaraj in a two-cornered contest, aided by a broad alliance that lent weight to what critics had described as a relatively smaller party. In 1977, M G Ramachandran secured power in a four-cornered contest with a 30 percent vote share, supported by alliances that proved crucial to his success. In both instances, electoral breakthroughs were underpinned not only by leadership appeal but also by organisational depth and political partnerships.
Vijay’s entry presents a different dynamic. Since launching the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam in February 2024, he has stayed away from electoral contests and is now entering the fray independently. At this stage, his role is best understood as that of an X factor—one who could influence margins, particularly in urban and semi-urban constituencies, even if the extent of that influence remains uncertain.
His ability to draw large crowds, especially among younger voters, is evident. With nearly a fifth of the electorate under 30, this demographic presence is not insignificant. There may also be some support from sections of women, minority communities and voters who had earlier backed smaller parties. However, the translation of such visibility into votes is not always linear.
The trajectory of Vijayakanth offers a useful, if not directly comparable, reference point. In 2006, his DMDK secured 8.4 percent of the vote in a trilateral contest, affecting outcomes across several constituencies. By 2009 and 2011, his role had evolved through alliances, enabling him to emerge as a significant player for a period.
At the same time, sustaining such a position proved challenging. The experience underscored the importance of organisational consolidation, leadership depth and consistent political engagement beyond electoral cycles. In that sense, while Vijay may register a notable presence, the extent to which it translates into a durable political role will depend on factors that go beyond immediate electoral performance.
In the current context, it is plausible that he could emerge as a third force or influence the balance in a closely contested scenario. Achieving that, however, would require sustained organisational development, broader leadership structures and more consistent engagement with both cadres and the public sphere.
The AIADMK’s performance will be closely watched, too. In 2021, the difference between AIADMK and DMK was relatively narrow in terms of vote shares, within the framework of alliances that shaped the contest.
Subsequent realignments, including the return of T T V Dhinakaran’s AMMK to the AIADMK fold, may have some bearing on electoral arithmetic in specific regions. Such shifts could help consolidate sections of the vote base that had previously been fragmented.
At the same time, electoral outcomes in the state have often been influenced by broader alliance configurations and campaign dynamics. Edappadi K Palaniswami has consolidated his position within the party, and the extent to which that translates into electoral traction will become clearer as the contest unfolds.
Since Jayalalithaa’s passing, the DMK has held office and maintained its organisational presence across the state. Its alliance structure and welfare-oriented approach form part of its electoral strategy, as is typical of governance in Tamil Nadu. As with any incumbent, there are both advantages and challenges. How these are weighed by the electorate will depend on a range of factors, including local issues, campaign narratives and turnout patterns.
The BJP, for its part, has been seeking to expand its footprint in the state over time. Its trajectory has seen gradual growth, often in alliance with regional parties. At the same time, Tamil Nadu’s political landscape has historically been shaped by distinct linguistic, cultural and regional factors, which continue to influence voter preferences.
The presence of multiple parties and alliances also has the effect of shaping vote consolidation across different segments of the electorate. In this context, the BJP’s role may be better assessed over a longer horizon rather than through a single electoral cycle.
Taken together, the upcoming election may reflect a measure of continuity, alongside elements of change at the margins. The principal Dravidian parties remain central to the contest, supported by established organisational networks and alliances.
Vijay’s presence introduces a variable that could influence outcomes in specific constituencies and, potentially, the overall balance in a close contest. Whether this evolves into a more enduring political role will depend on developments beyond this election.
For now, the results may be less about a decisive break from the past and more about how existing political formations adapt to emerging shifts within the electorate.
R Kannan | Author of Anna: Life and Times of CN Annadurai, MGR: A Life and The DMK Years: Ascent, Descent, Survival
(Views are personal)