Coalition is a temporary alliance for combined action. An alliance is a union or association formed for mutual benefit, between individuals or entities. Further, an association is a group of people organized for a joint purpose. In a colloquial sense, all these are used in the context of governance and running Governments. In reality, the definition does not limit the coalition or the alliance, or an association as existing only between likeminded individuals or entities or even parties. By extension does it mean that Governments can be run even with disparate groups, albeit for a common cause? The political disruption currently on, amply proves this.
Exploring further, a coalition government or an alliance, is a cabinet of a parliamentary government in which many or multiple political parties cooperate, reducing the dominance of any one party within that coalition or alliance. The usual reason for this arrangement is that no party on its own can achieve a majority in the parliament. The United Progressive Alliance, on paper, had multiple parties sometimes with juxtaposed thought processes, coming together, ostensibly to run the government. In true sense, no party had the majority to run the government by itself, through Congress was the largest party in the alliance. Alliances don’t work when partners flex muscles. A principle of equals among friends must prevail. Unfortunately, crumbs and puddings are shared on the nuisance value brought on the table. Animal farm nuances are practiced more often than not.
A coalition government might also be created in a time of national difficulty or crisis, for example, during wartime or economic crisis, to give a government, the high degree of perceived political legitimacy or collective identity it desires, while also playing a role in diminishing internal political strife.
A host of Countries, like the Nordic, Australia, Austria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kosovo, Latvia, Lebanon, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine and our own Country, in the past and even presently, have operated and are operating, with coalition cabinets. The United Kingdom, traditionally a single-party majority government, also operated a formal coalition between the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties.
Germany, where coalition is the norm, rarely has more than two or three parties coming together. In federal Australian politics, the conservative Liberal parties are united in a coalition. In fact, this Coalition is so stable, that in practice, the lower house of Parliament is a two-party house, with the Coalition and the Labour Party sharing the governance.
India’s first-ever coalition government was formed at the national level under Morarji Desai, which barely lasted two years. The next general election in 1989 saw another coalition government under National Front that lasted barely, a further two years.
Either strong democratic principles or values, ingrained in our polity, or an opportunity to share the spoils, saw even a minority government, where the governing party, had most seats, but still, less than half the total, rule the country with élan.
However, the first successful coalition government in India that completed the whole five year term was the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led National Democratic Alliance that had 13 parties, with Atal Bihari Vajpayee as PM from 1999 to 2004. If success is measured as keeping the stock together, two successful coalitions followed with, with Congress at the helm. Mediocrity breeds more mediocrity and was amply proven. Least common denominator prevailed and work was reduced to almost nil. The current government is also an alliance with 35 member parties coming together to make a total of 331 seats, the difference being, one party having a lion’s share, that of 275 seats, a whopping 83% of the total. In a technical sense, this is a coalition. But is this really so?
This brings us to the story of coalition and what keeps the coalition partners together. In a coalition where no single party has a majority, partners may come together to have a pie of the cake in the garb of governance. Rise in corruption levels and a governance deficit naturally follow. What then, makes partners and even disparate groups come together, in a coalition when one of them has a pole position? A fear of being left out, a fear of turning redundant, a fear of being devoured by the bigger fish, a fear of being in perpetual fear and awe, an opportunity to be near the power centres, and a hope that something better may come their way, singly or in a combination, of some or many of these reasons, collectively weigh, to keep the bees flying over to the queen bee. From the major party’s perspective, it is an opportunity to showcase a national perspective and a national acceptability. Does the Major Party need these smaller elements at all for governance or to survive? The flip side of such a scenario, However, will be technically a one-part rule, with others reduced to insignificance. Can our great democratic traditions take such a beating and still survive?
A National majority itself must suffice for a national colour and a national acceptability. It is extremely important and imperative to relook at the parliamentary system where multiple parties can spring from nowhere and be there to knock at every opportunity. An association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself a political party and intending to avail itself of the provisions of Part-IV-A of the representation of the People Act, 1951, relating to registration of political parties, can get itself registered with the Election Commission of India and start operating as one. The process is so simple that between 2014 to the current, as many as 242 new outfits have enrolled themselves with the Election Commission as political entities, taking the total registered parties in India to 1,866. This is ridiculously large and a drain on the economy and governance, not to speak of the corruption and crime that they could spew.
The number of ever-increasing leaders without an iota of leadership acumen would only end up assuaging either hurt or bloating even more, already bloated egos. Even assuming, 56 of these are recognised and registered parties, is this number not large enough, not to pass muster of Orwellian democracy? Are we prophesying to the World that there are 56 distinct thought leaders, thought groups, and ideologies in the Country that can govern in 56 different ways if they come to power on their own? A cursory glance through the manifestos, would show, that there may not be more than two or three, in the main, governance models, ideologies and thought processes. If that be the case, why cannot, a single amendment to the constitution, be made, that all parties with similar ideologies and thought processes, either merge or go bust. Why at all multiple parties be allowed to function with their delivery models, based on personalities, rather than their willingness to innovate in governing and their capability and understanding of governance? Democracy has a value proposition. When a majority party enacts a law to rationalise the chaos that too is democracy. Wars after wars, have shown that loose cannons have never delivered. Political disruption has started with people underestimating the potential. How else would one expect a body of people ruled for 25 years with a left ideology, embracing with more than a majority, a right ideology, when apparently there have been no distress calls so to speak?
Is it not time to move to a two-Party system as they practice in the US? Certainly, the two Party system is criticised as well, the most important consequence of governance moderation, within political conflicts, when the party nominees would avoid taking a strong stand, on controversial issues. We know only too well that the same criticism holds good when there are alliances and coalitions. On the contrary, analysis – paralysis syndrome would kill any spirit of democratic values coming to the fore to throw up workable solutions. Can we now seek a national debate on electoral reforms?