By Azher Ahmad Dar
The recent elections, with results having been declared on the 4th of June, are surprising for various reasons. The BJP was anticipating that it would win a 2/3rd majority without the support of the NDA, with politicians assiduously saying, ‘Ab ki baar 400 paar’. It is a surprise for both the BJP and the India Alliance, with the India Alliance having taken a leap and the BJP recording a reduction in its tally.
At the meeting of the NDA in New Delhi on June 5, the NDA chose Narendra Modi as the leader of the NDA, with the social media calling Nitish Kumar and Chandrababu Naidu the ‘Kingmakers’.
What do coalitions entail for politics, and how will they have an impact on the political situation of the country, is an interesting question.
Political parties have been important tools of interest articulation, and non-political associations have to pin their interests and issues through the political parties.
With the first general elections in 1952, the Indian National Congress clinched to power with a handsome majority because of the nationalist legacy of the party and the stalwarts that were in the party.
Many would say that the period between 1952 and 1967 was an era of single-party dominance.
But they are practically wrong; technically, it may have been so, but the great Indian political scientists like Rajni Kothari and C.P. Bhambari has a point as to how this period too marked the competition between parties.
The INC has been a catch-all party, drawing people from every segment of society, supported by the fact that in the very first Cabinet, Nehru had invited Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Shyma Prasad Mukherjee.
Juxtaposed to the present opposition, there were a number of factions within the Congress party who used to criticise or appraise the party for that matter. This mechanism had kept the party under strict regulation.
The factions had bargaining power, as do today’s coalition partners. Rajni Kothari calls this ‘competitive dominance’. The opposition parties too had bargaining power, which they got through the factions in Congress. There was always a tussle going on between the government wing and the organisational wing of the INC, with plans like the Kamraj Plan testifying to it, according to which those who had served for a considerable period of time now should work for the strengthening of the organisation.
Every decision taken was on the basis of consensus, and the PM had no penchant for interfering in it, as it would have negatively affected the party. This was the beauty of the Congress era in terms of its accommodating nature, which others could not.
Now we come straight to the Janata Party coalition in 1977, formed under the leadership of Morarji Desai, in opposition to the excesses that were committed during the emergency, as 676 opposition leaders were arrested. The revelation of the Shah commission confirms the atrocities that were committed during the emergency.
Luckily, the coalition clinched the top spot, and the government was formed.This marked the beginning of the coalition era in the country.Morarji Desai was chosen as PM of the country.
However, within a matter of two years, the coalition fell apart, the major reason being the struggle for power within the coalition, leaving the party in the doldrums. It revealed both the positives and negatives of a coalition. Then various other coalitions were formed, which proved short in duration.
This reveals several things about the coalition government.
A coalition is good, as totalizing power in a single party leads to power becoming arbitrary, which has authoritarian tendencies and takes away the rights of people, especially their political rights. This is evident in China, Indonesia, and Latin America, which have had a single-party system and where the human rights of the people have been subverted.
Rajni Kothari, in his famous book ‘Politics in India, says that a coalition is the regionalization of politics, or politicisation of the regions. While it is desirable that the regional parties play a role at the centre for the prosperity of their regions, it has a negative effect too.
While it may mean government intervention in regional issues, the kind of issues that are raised depends also on the type of parties in the coalition and the demands that they are pressing.
The famous French aristocrat Alex de Touqville says in his book ‘Democracy in America’ that the coalition is a den of corrupt politics.
Regionalization has a negative tendency too; it may sometimes give room to regionalism, which is usually perceived as negative, leading to unbalanced regional development.
Drawing on John Dewey’s’ Social endosmosis’ and Rajeev Bhargava’s definition of a nation where people are in close communication with each other, it may lead to bitterness in interstate relations.
Francis Fukuhama, in his celebrated book ‘The End of History and the Last Man’, reiterates this very fact that drawing on Plato’s ‘thymus’ and Friedrich Nietzsche’s calling people ‘the beast with red cheeks’, it can be said that people will only be in a web of cordial relations when they are recognized.
This seems to be missing in Indian politics.
The parties are seen as antagonists, which should not be the case. Seeing them as part of a developmental process is what is desirable for a country like India.
The asymmetrical devolution of funds among states is done on the basis of the fact that where the central government has a majority, it is favoured, and vice versa, which is at odds with the essence of cooperative federalism.
A coalition also means that the main party may not be able to take bold and good decisions because of a lack of majority.
There are various problems too in the India alliance; while group representation is the essence of Indian politics, the allies have a particular target group, leaving others at the mercy of God. SP is for Yadavs; BSP is for Dalits; AIMIM is for Muslims, etc.
As long as they don’t widen their social bases, how are others going to be included in the governance of the country with the faulty first-past-post system of representation?
Pratap Bhanu Mehata says that the failure of the communal parties has partly been because of their small social base;as long as the social base is not widened ,it is likely that in the long run they will suffer.
The BSP in this election has not been able to get even a single seat.
How are Hindus or Muslims going to vote for a party that has a particular orientation?
This gives room to appeasement politics and the politicisation of ascriptive values like religion and caste,which is dangerous for the well-being of people. The parties must contest on issues like employment, basic needs, etc. The immaturity of the country’s political system explains this predicament.
Now, seeing the trend of the past five years, it is highly desirable for a democracy like India to go for a coalition. Now that we have a strong opposition, it is a win for democracy, which will keep the ruling government in perpetual check.
Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer
- The author is a 2nd year student of political science at the University of Delhi. Email: [email protected]
Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now
Be Part of Quality Journalism |
Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast. |
| ACT NOW |
| MONTHLY | Rs 100 |  |
| YEARLY | Rs 1000 | |
| LIFETIME | Rs 10000 | |
