coalition politics

7/27/2019 Coalition Politics

1/12

UNIT 23 COALITION POLITICSStructure23.0 Objectives23.1 Introduction23.2 Forms of Coal itioh Politics23.3 Coalition Behavioy23.4 boalition Governm nt: A Comparative Study23.5 Coalition Politics in\ dia (1 947- 1967)23.6 Emergence of ~oa l i t+nGovernments in India ( 1 967- 1977)23.7 E~nergenceof ~oalitih nGovernment at the Centre (1 977-1 979)23.8 The Decline of Coalition Politics (1980-1989)23.9 Coalition Governments and Coalition Politics (from 1989)23.10 Working of the Coalition Govern~nentsn India23.11 Let Us Sum Up23.12 Some Useful Books ,23.13 Answer to Check Your Progress Exercises',-23.0 OBJECTIVESAfter going through this unit, you should be able to:

U~lderstand he meaning of coalition;Discuss different forms of coalition politics; and

/

Discuss the nature and emergence of the coalition governments at the state levelafter 1967 assembly elections.

The term coalition has been derived from the Latin word 'Coalitio' which is the verbalsubstantive of "Coalescere'-co together, and 'alescere'-to grow up, which means togrow or together. Coalition, thus, means an act of coalescing, or uniting into one body:a union of parties. In the specific political sense the term coalition denotes an allianceor temporary union of political forces for forming a single Government. As suchcoalitions are direct descendants of the exigencies of a multi-party system in ademocratic regime. Coalition governments are co~nmonly ontrasted with single partyGovernments, in which only one party forms government.A coalition is a grouping of rival political actors brbught together either through theperception of a comlnon threat, or the recognition that their goals cannot be achievedby working separately. In general terms a coalition is regarded as parliamentary orpolitical grouping which is less permanent than a party or faction or an interest group.

23.2 FORMS OF COAL ITION POLITICSConstitutional framework and electoral system of a country determines the forms thatcoalition politics takes. 'These are three in nature: parliamentary, electoral andgovernmental. Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU


2/12

Party System and Elections Parliamentary coalitiori may occur i n a situation when no single party erijoys an overi n I nd ia al l majority. The party which is asked to for ill a govern~iieritmakes an atteli ipt to ruleas a mi~i or i ty overnment, re lying upon an arrangemelit with other party or parties forits survival. Tlie Ja~iataDal government led by V.P. Singli in 1989 was such agover~imetit.Sucli a gover~iment ilay seek support from tlie oppos it io~i ol itical partiesfor different items o f legislatioil or tlie government may survive merely because tlieoppositio~i iay not like to defeat tlie gove r~i li le~ itither to gain poli tical advantage ornot to be deprived o f their existing poli tical base. The Congress government led byNarasimha Rao in 1991 was sucli a government in its early tenure.Electoral coalitions represent two or more than two political parties who enter in to anagreement which provides for a mutual withdrawal o f candidates in an elect io~io thattlie co~icer~iedarties can avoid splittirig o f votes in the co~isti tue~icieshere they arestrong respectively. Sucli coa li tio~is re dif ficul t to be for ~i ied hen the parties havingstrong local base and organisatio~i o not wish to surrender tlieir rights to put up acandidate. Sucli electoral coalitio~is ave become colnliioli in India in recent past int lie form o f for~iiat i o~if United Front and National Democratic Alliance.CoaP'tiongoverliliielits are commonly contrasted witli single party government, inwli h one party holds office. Sucli gover~i~iie~itsliould also be distinguished fromnot,-partisan governments, within wl iicl i tlie members o f tlie Council o f Ministers donot act as represe~itativeso f political parties. Coalition governments are tlie partygovernments. The membership of a coalition gover~iments conventionally defined asthose parties tliat are represented in tlie Cabinet. Some parliamentary governments,however, also co~isisteli tly o-operate wi tl i parties tliat are not represented in tlieCabinet.A t t lie government level, there car1 be different tyl?es o f coalition. Tlie fi rst type istl ie ~iat io~i alovernment in w li ic li mbst, if not all, o f he maill parties jo in togetlier tomeet a ~iat io~ ialmergency arising out o f war or e co~io~ ii icrisis. Tlie ratioiiale behiridthe formation o f sucli a goverlilnelit is tliat ~iationa l risis necessitates tlie suspensiono f party strife and requires tlie conc$ntration o f all forces in a co ~ i i ~ i i o ~ iirection. Tliecoalition gover~imentsed by ~ s ~ u i i l ind Llyod George during tlie First World Warand by Wi~isto~iliurclii 1 during S/econd World War in U~i i tedKingdom were tlieexa~iip les f national goverliments. ,Power-sharing coal it io~i overli~iieiits re fornied when two or liiore than two politicalparties wli icl i are not able to secure majority o f tlieir ow11 oin togetlier to form a~ii ajo ri ty over~iment.United Front as well as BJP -led coal iti o~i overliliielits in theiiiiieties were sucli coalition goverliments. Power-sharing coal it io~i overn~nents triveto ill1pleliie~itSIICII policies and prograliilnes as agreed up011 among the coal tionpartners. Continental Ei~ropea~ioi~ntries ave experienced such Governme~its uiteoften.Check Your Progress Exercise 1Note : i) Use the space give11 below for your answer

ii) Compare your aliswers wi tl i tlie model answers given at the elid o f lie unit.1 ) Briefly explain tlie meaning o f coalition.

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU


3/12

2) Expla in the d if ferent forn is o f coal i t ion pol i tics................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

23.3 COALITION BEHAVIOURA study o f co al i t io ~i el iaviour puts forth the fol lo win g questions: W liat are the distinctc ircunistances wl i ic l i lead to d i f feren t po l i t ica l par t ies o i n in g coal i t ions? W hy does apart icu lar party prefer to enter in to coal i t ion wi t l i o t l ier part ies? Wl iat are theadvantages a pol i t ical party can expect to gain by i ts entering into a coal i t ion?A comparative study o f he coal i t ion bel iav iour drawn fro m t l ie l iis tor ica l exper iencesof co al i t io ~ i o l i t ics in d i f ferent countr ies and at d i f ferent t imes reveal the fo l l ow in gtrends:F irst, a l l t l ie pol i t ica l par ties wh o enter in to a coal i t ion a lways a in i to t i iax in i ise thei rlong term inf luence ov er decis ion-making process.Second, because o f the awareness con cerning the re-distr ibutive consequences o f acoal i tion, t l ie mem ber parties often conipete against eacli otl ier over t l ie al location o fredistribution benefits.Third, the cotnpeti t ior i among the coal i t ion partners is restr icted by t l ie degree towl i ic l i eacli par tner is wi l l in g to to lerate conipet i t ive demands on the part o f he a l l ies.Fourth, in a s i tuat ion wl iere the to lerance among t l ie coal i t ion partners remain o f i ig l ilevel, co~npet i t iveness s rewarded w i t l i d ispropo rt ional ly l i i g l i re turns ill t erms o fpolitical influence.

23.4 COALITION GOVERNMENTS: A COMPARATIVESTUDY

I n pure or modi f ie d tw o party pol i t ic a l systems, such as the Uni ted Kingdo m, N e wZealand and Canada, coa litio n governm ents are rare in the peace time . I n t l ie countr ieswi t l i lnu l t ipar ty systems, sucl i as Belg ium and t l ie Nether lands, a lmost a l l thegoverntneri ts l iave been coali tions. There are ~ h e ruropean countries wi t l i mu l t ipar t ysysteni l ike De nnia rk and Sweden wliere the governments altertiate between coa litiona lor s ingle-party (of ten m ino r i ty ) one. I n the norm al c ircumstances the coal i t iongovernments are formed by tw o to f ive parties. However, the countr ies l ike In dia i ntl ie recent past l iave seen tl ie coal i t io l i go verl i l i iel i t being formed on tl ie basis of asmany as eighteen parties i .e. Vajpayee led Government in 1998. Switzerland is aunique case where al l ma jor parties are reg ularly includ ed i n tl ie coa lition governments.Co al i t ion governments are essential ly features o f parl iamentary for m o f governments,but they have been formed also in the countr ies l ike France and Swi tzer land w l i ic l ihave 'mo dified ' parliame ntary or 'semi-presidential ' system. In l ie developed countriesalmost al l t l ie parties fo l lo w centr ist ideolog y. Power sharing is mo stly t l ie ma in basiso f the format ion o f sucli governments. However, in the develop ing countries l ik eInd ia and Sr i Lanka the co a l i t i o~ i over~ imentsiave been fornied on ideological basis.Some developed countr ies l ike I ta ly, Denmark, France and Sweden l iave a lsoexper ienced coa l i t ion governments formed on the basis o f deological homogenei ty.


4/12

I'artg S ~ s t t m nd Elect ions Despite tlie widespread presence o f c oa li ti o ~i overlilnerits in b oth developed andill l n d i n ';,developing countries. tliere are not silfficielit co lis titi ~ti on al rovisio ns regarding the',process o f on nu lat io~ i nd dissolution o f coalit ion governments. German constitution\s a significant exceptio~ i liicli has provisio~is hicli make it i~npossibleor irresponsibleq,rlianie~ itarians to overthro w a government with out being ready to support allqlternative. I n Sweden, 1974 instrument o f government attempts to describe tliepi;ocess o f forriia tioll o f coalitioli'governmen t in some details.

Check Your P rog ress Exerc ise 2N o te : i) Use the space given below for yo ur answer.

ii) Compare your answesr w itl i tlie m odel aliswers given at tlie elid o f the unit.1 ) What are tl ie different trends in tlie c oa lit io ~i eliaviour?

2) Are there any co~ ist i tu t io~ ialrov is io~ isegarding tlie process o f he formation anddissolution o f coalition governments? Explain.

23.5 COALITION POLITICS IN INDIA (1947-1967)Indian po litics i n the period betweeti 1947 to 1967 was coalitiona l in nature. This wasat tlie level o f politic al parties or p olitic al formations. Functionalist p olitic al scientistslike R ajni Kotliari, Morris-Jones and My ro n W ei ~i er eveloped a theoretical model forthis level in tl ie late sixties tl irough the idea o f a one-party d o ~ n i~ ia n tystem orCongress system. The dom inance o f Congress was reflected b oth i n terms o f tlieninnber o f seats tliat it held in parliament at centre and the governments i t formedin tlie states as w ell as in terms o f its form idable organisational strength outside thelegislative bodies. Thus in the first three general ele cti o~ ls ongress w o ~ i round fortyfiv e per cent o f tlie votes atid seventy fi ve per cent o f the seats i n tlie parliament.The Co~ igress arring br ief interludes continued to rul e i n almost al l tlie states and atcentre. The Congress system, argued Morris Jones, reflected 'dominance co-existingw itl i competit ion but without a trace o f alter~iatio n'.Such a coldssal dominance o fCo~ igress f the po litica l system reduced other parties to marg inality.It fo llow s tl iat t l ie Indian polit ical system during this period cou ld not be understoodin accordarice wi tl i tlie standard textbook forniat o f government and opposition. Itwas tlie bi g Congress versus small and frag~ nen tedorces o f opposition at the Stateas well as tl ie na tio ~ia level. Congress succeSsfully defined Ma uric e Duverger's law-whicli expected two party system to emerge in a plurality electoral system byincorporating political competition and consociational arrangemelits within its boundariesand yet hold ing i t together through a delicate nianagenient o f factions. C reating andsustaining such a broad co al it i o~ i f actio ~iswas greatly helped by the colnple xitiesand ambiguit ies o f ~ i d i a ~ iociety which did not allo w pol aris atio ~i r the formation o fContent Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU


5/12

contradictions that mig ht have fractured such an all-em bra c~n g lliance. I t was alsohelped, according to M yr on Weiner, by traditional values and roles o f conciliation thatCongress party astutely took up. In a sim ilar vein, R a j ~ i i otha ri has also highlightedthe colisensual polit ics based on pluralism, a cco m~ nod atio li nd bargaining follow ed b yCo~igress arty.Thus, around a central dispro portiona tely large party o f consensus were arrangedmuch similar opposition parties o f pressure, which ilnposed a co alit io~ ialogic on boththe ruling party and the opposition parties and groups. The enonnous organisationalsize, regiona l spread, and ideo log ical divers ity o f he Coligress transformed congressin a loose organisation with ideologically diverse groups. These ideologically andregiona lly divergent groups played the role o f opposition in tandem wi th the opp os itio ~iparties wi th whom they shared homoge neity in terms o f ideology arid interests. Thesmall sire o f the oppo sitioli parties ensured that they could influelice tlie p olitic alsystem only by functioning more like indirect pressure groups. As Kothari argues'Congress system has always been a systeni o f coalition mu lti-gr oup in character, andinformed by a colit i~iuo us rocess o f nternal bargaining and mobility'. The coalit ionlogic was not o lil y imposed on the groups inside tlie Congress but on the opp ositioliparties also. Du rin g this period the Governmelital policies came to be decided Inoreby cross party blocs rather than by inner party votin g or a coliverltiolial div ision lilieso f Government and Opposition.The coa litiolia l nature o f Indian po litics was evident when tlie Congress leadership atthe centre often 'transferred a decisioli from tlie space within the party to the spaceo f tlie po litica l system as a whole if they were sure o f t l ie support o f winn ingcoalition'. I t was in this m anner that Congress crises were solved as M a x Zins's studyo f Coligress reveals.

23 .6 EMER G EN C E O F C O A LITIO N G O V E R N M EN TSIN INDIA (1967-1977)

The 1967 elections witnessed the coalit ion polit ics in another for~n , ow i~ iv o lv in ghenon-congress opposition parties. Opposition parties were able to defeat coligress inthe assen~b ly lectiolis in six States by oi li il ig into an electoral coalition. The econolilicdifficulties, the declining le gi ti~ na cy nd the fact that Coligress had never received anabsolute majority in ternis o f votes polled explains the setback to Congress.1967 electiotls; according to Morris-Jones, led to the emergence o f a 'market po lity 'leading to a 'pretty regular and continuous defectors market'. Thus the form atio li o fpower sharing coa lit io ~i y tl ie op po sit io~ i arties and tl ie defection o f the congressfactions led to the forma tion o f non-congress coalition Goverlilnents in nine States.However, the coalition technique whic h worked so we ll fo r Congress did exactly theopposite i n case o f he op po si tio ~i arties. This can be explained by the fact that theopposition parties wit h divergent ideologies di d benefit electorally from the widenedsupport base. However the same factor led to tlie crisis in governance leading to thefailure o f coalit ion governments.Congress, thus was able to co llie back to pow er in most o f the States where i t hadlost power in 1967 elections. How ever, tlie post-1967 congress followed a newpoli tical process wh ich was marked b y the replacement o f consensual politic s by tlieconfrontat ionalist pol i t i cs towards opposition. 'This l iad to do bo th w it h t l ie'marketisation' o f po lit y as w el l as tlie over-ce nt~.alisatio ~if power in tl ie party. TheCo~igress hus adopted a plebiscitary l i iode o f electoral polit ics w hich led to theinstitutional decline in the party. This explail is t l ie inab il ity o f the State leaders o fcongress who were 'nominated' rather than 'elected' in ho ldin g the politica l equilibria

C o a l i t i o n P o l i t i r s



6/12

Party System and Elections in t l ie States b y creation and manipulat ion o f nterest coal i t ions and fa ct i o~ ial ol i tics .in ' India Des truc t io~ i f State- level Congress organisations by an over centralised pol i t icalleadersl i ip led t o t l ie eloiergence o f genirine con ipet i t iori to t l ie congress at t i le Statelevel.Alt l iougl i the Congress led by lndira Gandli i reached an unprecedented electoralvicto ry in t l ie 1971 eleiction it was init ia l ly seen as the resto rat io~ i f he Congressdominance, in retrospect it is obv ious t liat t l ie apparent cont inu i ty o f l ie Co~igress asdeceptive. Tl ie Congress that Indira,Gandli i led to po wer i n 197 1 was in ma ny waysa ne w party that had to negot iate a new terrain o f electoral p ol i t ics marked by t l iepresence o f a great ma ny ne w entrants fro m t l ie 'middle ' peasant castes and theregional groups into t lie ganie o f e lec tora l po l i ti cs t i ~ r n i n gt into t ru ly compet it ive.I t fo l lo ws t l iat Congresg was n o longer a s ingle do ni i ~ia nt arty b ut t l i rougl iout t l ie1970 and 1980's it c o ~ i t i n u e do be t l ie natural pa rty o f gover~iance, l ie pole aroundwli ic l i electoral conipet i t ion was organised. Thereafter, the success or the fai lure o ft l ie attenipts b y the opp os it io ~i art ies to pu t up an electoral coal i t ion against Congressmade a dec is ive d i f ference to t l ie electoral outcome.

23.7 EMERGENCE OF CO ALITION GOVERNMENT ATTHE CENTRE (1977-1979)Tl ie t l i i rd phase in t l i e evo lu t ion o f coal i t ion p ol i t ics was niarked by t l ie defeat of t l ieCo ~i gr es s n 1977 parl ianientary as we ll as assembly elect ions (in as niany as sixStates). Tl ie int roduct io~~f popul ist . bureaucrat ic and authori tarian m ode o f pol i t icsin t l ie par ty had led to t l ie emergency imposed b y t l ie Congress government. Bo t l i t l ieemergel icy and a l ias t i ly assel lib led co al i t io ~i f op po si t io~ i arties were t l ie mainfactors responsible for electoral debacle o f Congress both at t l ie central and statelevel.Ja~ ia taParty was fornied af ter four o pp os i t io ~i art ies-the Congress (0) . lie JanaSangli , t l ie B l iart iya L o k Da l and t lie Social ist Party merged. Ja~ia ta arty subseqi ient lyentered in a coa l i t i o~ i i th t l i e oppos it ion part ies at t l i e regional leve l l i ke Aka l i Da lto f ig l i t t l ie 1977 General elect ions on a comniol i e lect ion symbol and a s ingle l is t o fconte sting candidates.T l ie co a l i t io ~ i overnn ie l it led by M ora r j i Desai cou ld not last i t s fill1 term as theco~ls t i tuent ac tions w i t l i i~ il ie party retained t l ieir ideolo gical dif ferences - a legacyo f t l ie i r pre-merger days. Wi th t l ie tw in objectives take11 dur ing emergency beingf i l l f i l l ed once t lie coal i t ion government was fornied and a~n endn ient i l ls were passed- t l ie a~n bit ion s f ts leaders saw t l ie spl i t in the party and t l ie government fel l in 1979.Defect ions - an of fs l ioo t 'of tl ie market isat ion o f Indian po l i ty int roduced s ince 1967elections-f rom t l ie Ja~ia ta arty led to t l ie forniat ion o f a c oa l i t i o~ i ov ernnien t o f L o kDal and Congress (S) led by Charal l S ingl i w i th t l ie outs ide support o f l ie lef t partiesas well as Congress. Tl i is coal i t ional arrangement was again marked by ideologicalincom pat ibi l i ty and i t was no surprise that tl ie governnient fe l l w i t l i in three weeks o fi ts formation as Congress withdrew its support.

C h e c k Y o u r P r o g r e s s E x e r c i s e 3Note: i ) Use t l ie space given below your answer.

ii) Cl ieck your? answer wi th the mod el answers given at t l ie end o f l ie Uni t .Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU


7/12

1 ) Explain tlie coalitional nature o f politics during tlie one party dominant system inIndia.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

2) What was the nature of tlie coalition Governments which were for~i ied n tliestates after 1967 assembly elections?

........................................................................................................................3) Why did not Janata coalitio~i overnment complete its full term?

23.8 THE DECLINE OF COALITION POLITICS (1980-1989)

The failure of coalition experiment in the form of failure o f Janata coalition governmentto complete its full tertii gave an opportunity to Congress-recovering from a split in1978- under the leadership of Indira Gandlii to capture power in the 1980 elections.Congress received a massive victory in 1984 general elections also. 'rlii~s or adecade the coalition politics came to an end at the centre. At tlie state level, however.the coalition politics continued. Congress, for instance, entered in to an alliance witl iNational Conference in J and K and witli the DMK in 1980 and wit li AI AD MK ill1984 elections in Tamil Nadu. The left parties-led coalition governments were formedin the States o f Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal during this period.I t was during this period that the seeds o f uture coalition politics emerged. Co~igressdespite its electoral triumphs in tlie plebiscitory electioris was continuously losing itsideological and institutional base. As sucli i t was unable to respond adequately to thedemands arid aspirations of the de~nocratically wakened rural social groups wlio hadbeen becoming increasingly aware of lie significance of heir electoral power. Moreover,tlie over centralisation o f power in Co~igress ed to the heightened level o f Centre-State tensions.The ruralisation and regionalisation o f Indian politics led to tlie emergence o f regionalparties whicli were supported by tlie numerically strong and economically powerfillrich peasant castes. Telugu Desam in Andha Pradesli, Akal i Dal in Punjab, AGP inAssam were aniolig the regional parties which ensured a freer competition betweenpolitical parties and increased alternation o f a tendency towards personalised cotitrolo f parties and fragmentation o f the parties into splinter groups etc. Al l these factorspaved tlie way for the end o f the Coligress dominance at tlie State level.

Coal i t ion Pol i t ics



8/12

Party System and Elections What emerged in tlie States was a bipolarity as along wi tl i tlie regional partiesin India Congress even now retained a salience in tlie party system. I t was because Congresscontinued to command greater popular support that1 any otlier party at the nationallevel and also tliat it was the core around which the party systelii was structured.That bipolarity at tlie state level did not, however, yield a bipolarity at tlie Nationallevel as well as becanie evident from 1989 General elections.

23.9 COALITION GOVERNMENTS AND COALITIONPOLITICS (FROM 1989)In tlie run-up to tlie 1989 elections a~iotl ier astily assenhled coalition was formed inthe form o f formation o f Janata Dal wli ich came into existence as a resi~lt f themerger o f several parties like tlie Janata Party, Lok Dal (A), Lok Dal (B), Janata Dal,subseqi~ently ornied an electoral alliance witli tlie parties like DMK, Co~igressS),AGP, CPI, CPI (M) and other small regional parties. This electoral coalition cametb be called National Front wliich entered into an agreeliie~itwitli tlie BJP on sharingseats in tlie 1989 parliamentary elections. As the Congress and its allies did not stakeclaim to forni the Government it was tlie National Front led by Janata Dal which wasinvited by tlie President to form the coalition Government o f National Front led byV.P. Singli which was sup orted froni oi~tside y BJP and left parties who did not ointhe Government. lNational Front niinority Goverrinient was tlie first real coalition Government at tlieCentre as the ~anataGovernment was a coalition Government by Proxy and CharanSigh led coalition Government Lok Dal and Congress (S) fell before proving i t smajority in the Lok Sabha.National Front Government failed to laydown a strong foundatio~i f consensual polity,based on democratic power sharing at wider level. I t suffered from internal crisisbecause of cliange of leadership in Haryana Janata Dal Goveninient. Tlie externalcrisis built up over tlie co~ifrontationwitli the BJP over Ayodliya issue. The intensecompetition for leadersl~ipwithin Janta Dal finally led to the split in Janta Dal. Thenewly formed Janata Dal (S) formed a niinority Governtilent led by Cliandra sliekliarwith the outside si~pporto f Congress after tlie National Front Govern~iientwasdefeated in tlie confidence vote in the Lok Sablia after tlie withdrawal o f support o fBJP. Janata Dal (S) niiriority Governmelit fell as Congress withdrew its support in1991.Tlie Parlianie~itary lections in 1991 again produced a 'hung' Lok Sablia. Congressemerged as tlie largest party but nowhere near the majority mark. With no coalitionsbeing possible, Co~igressormed a minority Govern~ne~ited by Narasi~nliaRao. Tlieminority Government displayed a great skil l in Parliamentary Manoeuvres in order tostay in power. After effecting a split in the Janata Dal in its favour as well as victoriesin the by elections tlie Gover~ime~itas able to secure a majol-ity of i t s own.

\

However, the assenibly elections' between 1993 to 1995 decisively brduglit to an endthe one party do~ninantmulti-party systeni of an earlier era. Co~igressno longerremained the core aroi~ndwliich tlie party systeni was structured. These electionsmarked the i~ite~isifi cationf tlie process of bipolar consolidation all over tlie Countrybarring few States l ike Kerala and West Bellgal where coal it io~i olitics still survived.Thus in as many as twelve States, non-Congress Govern~nent uled by tlie end of1995.Increasing tendency towards a bipolar polity at tlie State level Icd to a situatio~iliata two-party systeni at tlie national level beca~iie mprobable. With the effectiveniarginalisation of tlie Congress from the real arena o f co~npetitionn U.P. and BiharContent Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU


9/12

- he two largest States - t was no w o bvious that Co ~ig ress n its ow11 could nolonger hold its pos itio ~in tlie centre (both in tlie sense o f occupying and defining tliemidd le ground and being most significan t) o f tlie lt id ia ~ i olitic al system. W it11 tlieemergence o f distinct regional party systems in tlie States sig ~ia lle dlie rise o f partieslike Bahujan Samaj Party, Telugu Desam Party, Ason i Gana Pgrisliad, D ravida Mu nnetraKazhagam, Akali Dal at tlie regional level, the Co~igresswas no w one o f t lie Inal lyparties wit h a position in several o f those regional systems. I t was no longer a poleagainst which every polit ical fonnatio n was defined. Even in those States where tlierewas a direct race between the Congress and its rival, tlie Congress was no longertlie natural party o f governance.The above tendencies were confirm ed in tlie par1 amentary e lec tio ~is f 1996. TheBJP made a strong sli ow i~ ig n tlie Northe rn and Wester11States especially i n Bilia rand U.P. and emerged as tlie largest party in tlie Lok Sabha. Tlie party formed aminori ty Govern~nei i twli ic l i barely lasted two weeks before lo si ~i gote o f confidencein L ok Sabha. Tlie regional parties i.e., TDP, D M K , A GP and the Ta m il Ma nil aCongress in alliance wi tli Janata Dal fonned National front com prising o f he communistparties. The resultant United Front-was able to form a coalitio n Gov er~ im ent ed b yH.D.Devegowda first and then b y 1.K.Gujral w itl i tlie outside support o f he coligressand the left parties (CPI for the first t ime in Parliamentary history joined tl ieGovernment). The U F coalition Go ver ~iin ent ollapsed after tlie withdraw al o f supportfrom Congress in 1998.B.IP taking a less011 rom its 1996 experience entered ill to electoral co al it io ~ i it li tlieregional part ies l ike A I A D M K in Tam il Nadu, Samata Party in Bihar, Tr i na ~i i oo lCongress in West Bengal, A ka li party i n P ulljab etc. Subs eque ~itly hese parties(eighteen in number) for~ i ied co al i t io ~i over~imentwliicli lasted barely for one yearas AI A D M K withdrew i ts support it 1 1999. l ' l ie 1999 pa rlia ~ii e~ ita rylections,say thatthe tw o parties Congress and BJP, had electoral all ia ~i ce it li tlie regional parties i nsuch a manner that coal i t ion Gover~i~ne~iteca ~iie nevitable t o emerge.A comparative study o f t lie results o f the 1996 elec tio~ is nd the 1998 or 1999elections reveals a rnajor difference between the two. l'lie 'hung' Parliament w liic liemerged after 1996 elections was n ot just a matter o f no single party getting amajo rity but rather of no party or a clear alliance o f parties being in a position togovern. I n 1998 and 1999 elections, h owever, BJP and Congress have show11 hatdespite no party getting a ma jority on its own, tw o 'poles' have become visible-theCongress and the BJP- wit hin tlie regional sed mu lti-pa rty system. I t is natural thenthat both have been gradually a ccepting tlie imperatives o f coalition pol itics a,idalliance building.Check Your Progress Exercise 4Note: i) Use the space give11 belo w fo r y our answer.

ii) Check your answers wi tl i model ariswers give11 at the end o f tlie Un it.1) Wliat factors contributed in the emergence o f tlie regional parties?

........................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

Coalition I ' o l i t i c s



10/12

Party System and Elections 2) Wliat are the new trendsvisible in tl ie co al it i o~ i olit ics after 1993-1995 assernblyi n I n d i a . elections?

23.10 WORKING OF THE COALITION GOVERNMENTSIN INDIA

I t has been traditiona lly, accepted that the p rinciples o f collective responsibility,h o ~ n o g e ~ ie i t ynd secrecy have bee11a must for effect ive f i~n ct ion ing f Gover~iment.Coal i t ion Governtne~itsortiled in I ndia especially at Centre liave been found lackingin th is respect. T l ie working o f t l ie Coal t ion Go ve rn ~i i e~ itsas been affected by tlieneed to secure inter-party Consensus. The lieterogetieity o f lie C o a li ti o ~ i artners interliis o f lieir social basis and ideologies ofteri has been resultitig into disagreementsbetween the Cabinet ~i iin ist ers n polit ical and departmental matters. This has beetihampering the deliberative atid decision-making process o f he Cabinet. The partiesentering into co alition either under tlie umbrella o f United F ront or Na tional Dem ocraticAl l iance had been confro~ ited i th a s i ti tat ion o f preserving t lie i ~ n i t y f Governmentas well as tlieir separated identity as a partner in tlie Coalition. Tlie CoalitionGovernments at centre have been formed, not on the po sitive basis o f ideological o rprogra tiimatic hom ogeneity but on the negative basis o f cap tur i~ ig ower ( l ike BJP ledcoal it ion Go ve r~ i ~ i i e~ i tn 1998) or to keep Congress and BJP out o f power (like UnitedFront Government i n 1996). This factor lias contributed to the lack o f efficacy as we llas stabil ity o f l iese Gover~iments.Tlie presence o f regiotial parties it 1 t l ie Coalit ionhas also led to a perception that the national outlook has often sought to be oversliadowed by a regional outlook and also that persolla1 or party gains have oftenreceived precedelice over collective ones. The Steering C o ~ ii ~ ii it te ef the Coal i t ionpartners, rather than Cabinet o ften 'acts as the de -facto de liberative body thusund erm ining the process o f Govertiance. Tl ie Gov ernalice also has suffered becauseo f l ie weakened position o f he Prime Minister i n the coalit ion Gqvertinients formedin the recent years. P rime M inis ter has been in no p os iti o~ i o clioose those asministers in tl ie Co uncil o f ministers who do not belong to his ow n party as they arechosen by tlie ir respective party leaders. Tliis has underm ined tlie au tliority o f thePrim e Min ister m ore so as lie feels cotistrained even to disliiiss them w itho ut inv itin gthe w ratli o f the concerned party.I n tlie recent past tlie coa lition governments liave bee11 formed on the basis o f acomtnon agreement by tl ie coalit io~ipartners to in ip leniel i t a Co~i i lnonMin i rnun iProgramme (CMP). However, tlie bic keri ng alllo ng the coalitio n partners lias beenoften obstructive to the process o f it's implementation. More over the very fact thatthe elections in 1996 atid 1998 threw up unwie ldy, unstable and short-lived coa litionGover~ i~ne l i t sas to a great degree responsible for non-impleme ntation o f lie CMP.

23.11 LET U S SUM U Pl 'he coa lition poli tics operates in tw o ways - one, b y the coalit ion o f the polit icalparties outside tlie government; two, form ation o f tlie goverlirnent by tw o or mo repolit ical parties. 'The latter is kn ow h as a coa lition government. The basic aim o f acoalit ion governlnelit is to ensure n~ aj or ity ontrol o f he legislative assembly/ parlia-mentary as we ll as the iniplemelitation o f comnion mi nim um programme. C oalit ionContent Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU


11/12

G o v e r ~ i ~ n e n t snay receive support from outside also. Tlie party systeni and the Coa l i t ion Pol i t i c spolit ical system i n Ind ia in t l ie f irst twe nty- f ive years o r so after Independence wascompletely dominated by Congress both in the electoral and organisational sense.Congress acting on its historical legacy represented a broad-based social coalition.Tlie 'Congress system' was based on coalition in political sense also as it followedcoalit ion lo gic in i ts relat ionship with t l ie opposit ion part ies in t l ie process o f govern-ance. The.period fro m the later ha lf o f tlie 1980s onwards witnessed tlie erosion o fthe central role o f t l ie Congress in nia i~i tai nin g nd restructuring poli t ical consensus.TIILIS tlie process o f po liti ca l mob ilis ati on and pol itic al recruitme nt heralded the ini ita -t ion o f a more di fferent iated structure o f par ty competi t ion. Rapid mo bi l isa t io~i ndpol i t i c isa t io~ i f new regional and socia l groups resulted in to t l ie growth o f a newgenre o f parties and alignments, many o f these focusing o n in divid ual leaders, w liowere able to identity with specific castes and communities. Tlie 1990s in particularwitnessed a decisive end to t l ie do ~ii ina ntmu lt i-pa tty systeni o f t l ie earl ier years. I tsignified a move towards a competit ive mult i-party systeti i both at t l ie central andstate levels. Tlie General electio~isn 1989 and tlie State assembly ele cti o~ is f 1993-1995 confirme d this trend. A lo ng w it l i an upsurge o f new social groups and identit iest l ie grow ing regionalisation o f t l ie national part ies (not exc luding t l ie Congress andBJP) also ex pla i~i she fo r~ iia tio ri f a large number o f parties. Consequently, tl iere hasbeen a blur rin g o f lines between tlie na tional and state patty system. and the processo f ' federal isation' in t l ie party system. I n this cori iplex and interloc king relat ionshipbetween tlie national arid state patty systems. the change in tlie latter have beeni l icreasi~ ig lynf luencing the former. T l ie co al i t io ~i o l i t ics and t lie coal i t ion Govern-ments are related to tlie o ng oin g process o f ranslbrm ation fro111 a single doniinan t toa reg ion based mu lti -p ar ty system. TIILIS there has been an emergence o f a b ipolar i tyat tlie Centre supported by the re gional partics - tl ie Congress and tlie BJP bein g tliew o 'poles' - n an increasingly regionalised mult i-party system.23.12 SOM E USEFUL BOOKS

The Blacknfe ll Eticyclopeditr of Po lit icd Itis if rtiotis, B lac kw e

h a t t e r j e c artlia,, Stcrte rrtirl Politics iri Iritlicr, Ox ford U~ i iv ers i ty ress, Ne w Del l i i .1998.

Coalifioti Govertitrre~~tri It~cliu,ndian Inst i tute o f AdvancedPo1itic.s iri Ir~licr,Orient Longman. Bornbay, 1970.

O CHECK YOUR PROGRESSEXERCISES

1Coalit ion means a i lnion o f parties. In poli t ical sense i t the term all iance denotesan al l iance or teniporary i ln ion o f poli t ic al forces to fo rm t l ie government.There are three types o f coali t ion - par l iamc~l tary,electoral and governmental.Parl iamentary coali t ion is formed when no single party el l joys t l ie niajor ity toform the government. Electoral coali t ion is fornied when two or more poli t icalpa r t i es ~nu t i~a l l ygree to withdraw candidates in an election in order to avoidspli t t ing o f votes in t l ie constituencies wliere they are strong respectively. Thistype o f coali t ion is made when po li t ical parties for111 lie governli ient in a si t i ~ a ti o ~ i Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU


12/12

P a r t y System, and Electionsi n India o f nat ional e l i iergency in a country. I n s i~ cl i ase the parties Str ive t o suspendt l i e i r d i f ferences fo r a colnrnon nation cause.

Check Your Progress Exerc ise 21 ) Tl iese are: a l l par t ies forn i a coal it ion; rnenibers o f t l ie coal i t io n compete wi t heach other over t lie a l loca t io~ i f redistr ibut ion benef its ; t l ie co~n pe t i t io n mol ig

tl ie co al i t ion partners is restr icted to a degree; and, com peti t iveness o f t l ie coa-l i t io n partners is rewarded wi t h d ispropo rt inal ly liigli re tu rns in te rn is o f po l i t i ca linfluence.

2) l'liere are no s l rc l i provis ions, w i t h t l ie except ion o f Ge rn ia ~i onst i tu t ion.Check Your Progress Exercise 31 ) Du r ing t l i i s p li ase t l i e Congress was t l ie do ~ i i i ~ ia n tar ty b oth at the centre andi n t lie states. Th e nature of t l ie coa l i t ion o f that per iod can be expla ined in the

l igh t o f l ie na tu re o f he Congress. Accord ing t o Ra j t i i Ko t l i a r i i t was co~isensualbased on p lura l sni, acconi mo dat on and barga ining.

2) T l i is per iod saw t l ie format ion o f t l ie coal i t io n o f t l ie non-Congress Coal it iongover l iments in n ine states. U ~ i l ik el ie coal i t ion o f l ie Co~igre ss ystem, th is typeo f coa l it i o t i was fo r~ i ie d y t li e part ies w i th d verpent ideologies ar id s i~ ppo rtbases.

3) The Janata co al i t i on did not conip lete i ts terms because o f l ie fo l lo wi ng reasons:ideological d i f ferences between t l ie m embers o f l ie coal i tion, ar id t l ie amb i t i o~ iso f l eaders o f cons t i t i~en t a rt ies.

Check Your Progress Exerc ise 4I) . The rura l isat ion and regio~ia l isa t ion f ndian pol i t ics gave r ise to t lie emergenceo f egional pol i t ics. '1-lie regional parties l iave supported lar gely t l ie rural r i ch wh o

have large nunie rical strength.2) T l iese are- e l id o f t l ie one party dominant m ul t i -par ty system; in tesi f icat ion o fb ipo la r co nso l id a t io~ i n most part o f t l ie count ry ; and, emergence o f d i s t inc t

regional parties.

coalition politics

Documents