Events & Issues

New Delhi, 14 November 2019

Worst Pre-poll Alliance

MAHAYUTI BREAKDOWN

By Dr. S.Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

Government formation in Maharashtra after general election is virtually a comic show that has exposed the true colours of many parties playing the politics of political alliances. From the breakdown of Mahayuti (BJP-Shiv Sena pre-poll alliance) to the imposition of President’s rule, the hectic meetings and frantic phone calls that have taken place for post-poll coalition, contradicting pre-poll alliance have exposed the complexities in electoral politics. Maharashtra has earned the distinction of displaying the ugliest face of pre-poll alliance.     

Devendra Fadnavis tendered his resignation as Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 8 November on the eve of the expiry of the term of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The Governor asked him to indicate the willingness and ability of his party, which won largest number of seats and also secured majority with its poll ally, to form the government.  He also asked him to act as CM and prove his majority by 8 pm on 11 November.

Nearly 24 hours before time, it became clear that he would not get the required numbers to prove his majority and conveyed it to the Governor. The Governor, following Sarkaria Commission recommendations, gave the chance to the second largest party and the poll-ally of BJP, the Shiv Sena, to form the government. The alliance was not officially broken at that time.

Nearly 20 days have elapsed since the results of elections were declared and no party or alliance came forward to form the government despite the fact that all of them had these many days to align and re-align.  The verdict was in favour of BJP-Shiv Sena pre-poll alliance which won 161 seats (BJP 105 and Shiv Sena 56) out of 288.  NCP - Congress alliance got 98 (54 and 44 respectively) and even with the support of all 29 independents cannot form government.

This arithmetic opened the gates for Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress post-poll alliance – a move that may seem ludicrous to onlookers and a road defying pre-poll alliances presented before the electorate.  Indeed, there are no surprises in politics.  Had  it materialised,  it  would have been  a  unique  model of  the politics of alliances in which the junior partner of the winning pre-poll alliance preferring  to go with defeated  rivals.   

Mahayuti’s demise is in a way the logical sequence of fast moving developments in BJP-Shiv Sena alliance relationship. What was going on as childish quarrels that take place to be forgotten soon to continue their play by children, took a serious turn this time to overturn the poll verdict.

For the players, it is an issue pertaining to inter-party promise, understanding, agreement, or pact relating to sharing offices between two political parties with which the voters are not concerned. For them, it is open defiance of the mandate, a case of cheating. For the entire nation,   it is a lesson in worst instance of politics of alliances. It has gone below the level of what happened in Karnataka after Legislative Assembly election.  It is akin to political defection and points to the need to amend the Defection Law to enlarge its meaning.

The Shiv Sena has been reiterating that the BJP has promised to share all posts including that of  CM on 50:50 basis. This is completely rejected by the BJP. The parties have to learn that voters are not concerned with inter-party agreements particularly on “give and take”.  They may only like to know who will be the CM.    

The ground for abrogation of the alliance being  the understanding or misunderstanding over sharing of power, particularly the post of CM, it is established beyond doubt that the alliance was formed for sharing posts and not for promoting any ideology or  programme  and  not even for  bringing any party  to power or preventing any party from coming to power. It is confirmed further by the inability of Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress to join hands. The general perception that the BJP and Shiv Sena constitute natural allies because of certain ideological similarities is proved wrong.   

Several individuals and parties have contributed to reversal of people’s mandate in Maharashtra.  Electoral alliances are reduced as a mere strategy without principles adopted by allies with individual aims without a common goal. The victims are voters and the strain is on the authorities who have to interpret and execute the law and Constitution. 

There are many studies on coalition governments in various democracies, but very few on pre-poll coalitions known as political or electoral alliances. Such alliances emerge only in a multi-party system and find fertile soil where diverse interest and pressure groups form parties and fight elections to influence political decisions.  In federal systems, State-level parties have become indispensable partners for national parties for winning General elections.

A scholar lists a total of 134 elections in advanced industrial democracies held between 1946 and 1998, where at least one pre-election coalition participated. He found that a disproportional electoral system provides a strong incentive to political parties to join hands. His works suggest that voters are aware of pacts and alliances and it impacts government formations after elections. In India, awareness about electoral partners among voters is increasing due to joint campaigning, but the ease with which parties switch sides is disgusting.

Portfolio allocation is found to be the most important practical consideration in coalitions – pre-poll or post-poll.  A simple law labeled “Gamson’s Law” - a law of proportionality - which is allocation of office proportionate to seats contributed became popular in the 1970s, but this simple formula conflicts with bargaining theories in which the ability of parties to foster and sustain coalitions, the geographical spread and total vote share of parties which are important determinants for growth and influence of parties are ignored.  

In most West European multi-party democracies, pre-election as well as post-election alliances typically include ideologically similar parties. In Denmark, Red-Green alliance was formed by the Communist Party, the Left Socialists, and Socialist Party in 1989 and they united after two years. In the UK, Labour and Cooperative alliance has been contesting elections since 1927 under an agreement. Here in India, power and positions being the goal for most parties, ideology and compatibility in partnership take a back seat. The tragedy enacted in Maharashtra is a blow to the 25year-old alliance.

A form of pre-election alliance known as Electoral Fusion under which two or more parties on a ballot list could nominate the same candidate was in practice in Italy and USA, but given up. It helped minor parties to influence polling. In India, vote bank politics is well developed and practised. Groups are grown and nurtured to become non-political party allies. These vote banks are not likely to remain happy over their patron’s electoral gimmicks as in Maharashtra.

Generally, a pre-election promise is not made by parties to the people to form the government together with their allies if they win. It is taken for granted as a natural follow-up. Three major parties in Maharashtra today feel free to join hands with their rivals after elections without people’s mandate. Breaking an alliance or taking new partners is similar. Herein comes ethics in politics!---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)