Open Forum
New
Delhi, 10 April 2012
Policy Paralysis
COALITION DHARMA OR ADHARMA
Dr S. Saraswathi
The Congress is busy conducting a
post-mortem on the Uttar Pradesh elections. It needs to put its house in order,
like the others, more so in view of a nagging threat of the General Election
being held before 2014. Will there be a third or a fourth front eventually is a
question doing the rounds. However, it seems certain that whatever front emerges,
if at all, coalition politics is going nowhere.
Since 1988 General Elections to
Parliament, the country has not given a clear mandate to any particular party
to govern the nation. Coalition governments have become the rule at the Centre and
the lone single party rule of the Congress under P.V. Narasimha Rao (1991-96)
was a minority government. Political
pundits predict that the era of coalition governments at the Centre will last
for a long time.
In a vast country with immense
diversity of problems and streams of thinking, it is but natural that political
parties also emerge to reflect this plurality and cannot merge with one another completely and lose their
identity. To long for a two-party system
as the ideal pattern is out of place in a pluralistic society presenting a mosaic
of social-cultural scenario and wide disparities in every aspect of
development.
Regional and State level parties
have grown in this atmosphere and have come to power in many States. The national parties losing more and more
ground to regional parties, the Lok Sabha is a multiparty collectivity from
which the governments are formed.
However, the Indian experience
during the past two decades in running coalition governments has not
contributed anything worthwhile to strengthen democracy in a multiparty system,
but on the contrary presents lessons in survival tactics. In the holy name of “coalition dharma”, new lessons are offered in parliamentary democracy and Cabinet
system. Coalition dharma clothes a makeshift cabinet for a fractured mandate, and
covers policy paralysis of a motley group with high sounding words. The nation faces a difficult task of
preventing coalition dharma fast degenerating into collective adharma.
There is no reason or method in the
formation of coalitions. The concept of like-minded parties has never
worked. It exists only in a negative
sense as anti-Congress and anti-BJP.
Thus, the DMK has been a partner with the NDA as well as the UPA; so
also the TMC and the PMK. The BJP is
able to take the DMK in one cabinet and the AIADMK in another. Parties that
bitterly attack each other during the elections join together to form
governments! Some parties that are
opponents in a State like the Congress and the SP in Uttar Pradesh are able to
cooperate at the Centre when occasion requires.
Coalitions of disparate groups are known in France and West Germany. They have also faced instability, but have
worked with a common objective of sticking together for a period.
Coalition governments in India bind together a disparate
group with a strong string made up of power, influence, and positions and all
that they can afford. Therefore, the
group does not fall asunder easily but is unable to do anything substantial.
The leading party, which is practically the ruling party, has ideological
standpoints and even defined policy measures, but often encounters opposition
from its own allies and restrains itself to routine matters or refrain from
consulting allies. This is the state now
commonly ridiculed as “policy paralysis”.
Novel lessons in parliamentary democracy are offered both by
national and regional parties and by constituent units of coalition
governments. The Congress that was averse to coalition government till 2004
changed its position on a realization of its own weakness. In the last about eight years, as the leader
of coalition governments at the Centre, it has refined the concept of coalition
dharma and has improved the art of
survival.
In a sound parliamentary democracy, the ruling party
normally tries to build consensus with the opposition parties on major national
issues. Presently, this consensus
building exercise is required even among the allies of the ruling party that
form a self-seeking disarrayed group. In the absence of policy convictions,
consensus is likely to be worked out not solely on policy agreements but on
“give and take” whatever that may mean in politics.
Strong regional parties can successfully bargain package of
benefits for their States no matter what the policy or programme they have to
support as the price. They understand
coalition dharma as rallying behind
the ruling party in parliament whatever may be their policy outside. Thus, they develop a double personality – one
before Parliament and another before their electorate in their regions. Coalition
dharma can place a junior partner in
many awkward situations to which they voluntarily submit in order to remain
near the power Centre.
Embarrassment on policy platforms is no less for the leader
of the coalition. United Front
government under Deve Gowda was known for retraction of decisions and
withdrawal of public statements under the pressure of allies. The coordinator of
the NDA was compelled to make almost monthly trips to Chennai to sort out
differences with an ally. The present
UPA is constantly under threat of withdrawal of support of one or other allies
making it impossible for the government to proceed with vital economic
reforms. The first and the only injunction
of Coalition Dharma that partners on the whole like to follow seems to be to avert the downfall of the Government even if
governance dies in the process.
That job of pulling down a coalition government is the
specialization of parties promising “outside support” - a political position that has been nurtured
under Indian coalition governments.
The first coalition government of the United Front formed
under V.P.Singh in 1989 received outside support from both the BJP and the Left
parties and lost power with the withdrawal of support by the BJP. The coalition
under Chandrasekhar that followed on the promise of support by the Congress was
betrayed very soon. Again in 1996 and
1997, the Congress used this game of “outside support” for the National Front
governments of Deve Gowda and I K Gujral only to be withdrawn quickly. UPA I survived on the timely support of the
Samajwadi Party when the Leftists left them on the crucial question of Nuclear
Deal. “Outside support” gives power
without responsibility – a very convenient political weapon that demands no
commitments or obligations.
Indian version of coalition governments has diluted the role
of the Cabinet and of the Prime Minister. The PM has no free hand to choose his
Cabinet colleagues, but has to abide by the dictates of the leader of the
partners. As a corollary, he cannot also remove a minister of an alliance
party. In some instances, the concept of the collective responsibility of the
cabinet is absent. The course of the 2G scam has exposed the weaknesses of
coalition arrangement that is devoid of sense of commitment and responsibility.
Replying to the Motion of Thanks to the President’s address
in to Parliament recently, the Prime Minister has expressed anguish that “the
difficult decisions that we have to take are made more difficult by the fact
that we are running a coalition government”. This statement effectively
portrays our current political situation.---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|