The BJP won 303 seats on its own, accounting for 56% of the total mandate. Their alliance, the NDA accounted for 65%. Is it fair to assume that the rest constitutes opposition? Not really. The next largest party the Congress won 9.6% and its alliance the UPA won 16.8%. DMK, TMC and YSRCP all regional parties, which otherwise have nothing in common, each account for 4% of the mandate. DMK seeks to come to power and cannot antagonise the ruling dispensation, hence will remain ambivalent, rather tilting towards NDA than UPA in a cinch. TMC seems to have lost way and drifting aimlessly, somewhere in the political quagmire. YSRCP for its sheer survival has to tow the diktat of the alliance in power raising the 65% pitch to 69%. Out of BJD, TRS and BSP which account for 2% mandate each, the first two would most likely buttress the ruling party, raising their pitch further to 73%. BSP is in the same league as the DMK. Rest of the parties, almost 20 in number are so small, that if forced to take sides, they would rather bask in the sunshine than be relegated to the shadows. Effectively, the ruling dispensation can muster a whopping 80% to 85% of the “ha ke paksh mein” vote, in the Lok Sabha. With legislators deserting the ‘what is left’ of opposition by the day, one can only hazard a guess of what would be left of them, if at all any. BJP thus would have a field day for the next five years in the lower house. A similar analysis for the Upper house, would place the ruling alliance at about 130 marks of the total 235 seats currently filled and likely to touch the 150 mark or 60% of the total mandate of 245 seats in the not-so-distant future.
The political theory postulates that in a democratic country, opposition counts. Democratic systems function with checks and balances. They also rely on transparency, accountability and responsibility. In parliamentary democracies, the legislative body is the reassurance of checks and balances. Opposition parties are inseparable components of parliaments and they also function according to the rules of the game, reassuring the application of those checks and balances with their contribution to government policies and constructive criticism. Democracies become complete with opposition. With times changing, do we have to relook at this postulation? After all, democracy is of the people, by the people and for the people. If those people elect with a majority as large as 80% of the mandate to rule, why the other side should grudge or cite theories of checks and balances? This premise assumes that there will be none which is debatable. On the contrary, the past has several instances when a weak ruling dispensation along with a fragmented opposition has legislated on behalf of the people, though ways employed to bring them round is another story.
The debate would return back to the fundamental question of opposition and the relevance of it. Today, the opposition has eroded to a perilously low level. They oppose just for the sake of opposition. Where does then, the constructive debate happen? A matter currently in great contention is the triple ‘talaq’ bill. Fundamentally, this empowers women in a male dominated world. Yes, there is a flip side to the Bill that may seek to penalise men. Instead of debating to cover desertion of women by men of all faiths which is more detrimental to women, and bring forth several other contentious issues in the public domain, merely opposing will fetch no dividends. Whatever is left of the opposition must intelligently cull out the larger issues or the redundancy will swamp them soon.
Gone are the days when the opposition believed that it has the right to oppose the government on the basis of populist and allegedly pro-poor, policy theories. This space has already been ceded to the ruling dispensation as can be seen from the massiveness of the mandate in 2014, corroborated by even larger mandate in 2019. History suggests that governments with brute majority have often exercised unrestrained political will. The Indian constitution wisely subscribes to the doctrine of separation of powers. The opposition will do well to proactively highlight the constitutional obligations rather than react to the actions of the government. For this to happen the parliament will need constitutional experts, erudite orators and extremely articulate presenters as members. It is a sad commentary of the times that we find not many in the category.
The role of Judiciary gains supreme significance in such times and must act as the conscience keeper for the public, since they too represent the people. In recent times, It was the Supreme Court which struck down the policy of coal allocation, cancelled telecom licenses, nullified section 6A of DPSE ACT 1946 increasing the independence of CBI, brought in concept of “institutional integrity” in appointment of CVC etc. Common to these judicial decisions and to the public debates that followed was the issue of “corruption”, the very plank on which BJP contested elections and won hands down. However, the point one must not lose sight is that, all these decisions came when the government of the day was weak. The task However, is more onerous now that the government has brute majority. It is not lost on anybody the effect of the National Judicial Accountability Commission (NJAC) bill that was passed, where the Government appreciated no criticism against the bill. The Attorney General during the hearing had stated, “Adjudicate as you please but the collegium system is buried and the Parliament will re-legislate even if constitutional amendment is struck down”. No one can possibly miss the underlined message. We could possibly see more of the same for who, if not the Judiciary, bring about the checks and balances in the system now? Who is the arbitrator now that the opposition is decimated?
A sea change is needed in the way the opposition conducts itself from now on. What is the point in opposing every government initiative? Is it not that they were elected with such mandate because they were expected to implement policies that the people identified with? One could possibly oppose the government for shortcomings in performance but not on issues presented in the manifesto.