Context

Campaign planners the world over have woven veritable fables and fictions around themes like “chaotic coalitions” and virtues of “strong” leaders. Which is more preferable — unstable minority governments or elected dictatorship?

Political History of coalition Government

• Were all the previous minority regimes so weak and indecisive?

• 1991 Economic Reforms – In 1991, economic reform was launched by the Narasimha Rao government, which at that point of time did not even enjoy a legislative majority.

• Pokhran 2 – Pokhran 2 was ordered by a minority PM who also stood up to the rigours of the subsequent US embargo.

• Kargil War – The Kargil war was fought in 1999 when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was a caretaker PM without the backup of surgical strikes.

• Nuclear Deal – The contentious nuclear deal with US was valiantly pushed by a “weak” PM. In the process, the lacklusture PM managed to stage Indian political history’s darkest cloak and dagger operation to rope in the most difficult anti-Congress politician.

• The millennium’s first decade was India’s golden era of investment and growth.

• It happened under two politically-riven coalitions.

Reasons for the desirability of the coalition –

1.Political Consensus Culture –

• What makes minority governments desirable is that they prevent extremes and create a culture of political consultation and consensus.

• A crippling demonetisation or surgical bravado might not have happened under the constraints of a hung Parliament.

2.More federal – By their very nature, the coalitions tend to be more federal and allow wider scrutiny of the executive’s decisions.

3. Voice to Civil Society –

• Such governments allow more say to the members of civil society and social activists.

• Initiatives like the RTI, RTA and Land Acquisition Act might not have been possible under an all-powerful supremo.

Why did coalition Governments fall in the past?

• Coalitions are not inherently unstable and growth is not synonymous with strong leader.

• The fall of the Deve Gowda government was not due to the dissensions in the UF.

• It was triggered by outside supporter Sitaram Kesri’s prime ministerial aspirations.

• The Congress pulled down the I K Gujral government in the hope of a return to office in 1998 on an elusive Rajiv sympathy wave.

• Yet all the 14 UF parties stood together with their two PMs and went to the next elections as an alliance.

• Rainbow coalitions under Atal Bihari Vajpayee (six years) and Manmohan Singh (10 years) together held office from 1998 to 2014.

• This was a credible achievement.

• The dispute resolution mechanism under the 20-month UF of federal and left parties calls for a deeper appraisal for its institutionalised functioning founded on pre-decision consultations and consensus.

• Vajpayee worked under constant pressure from Chandrababu Naidu, J Jayalalithaa and Mamata Banerjee.

• Within his Parivar, the RSS under K S Sudarshan, an ardent adherent of swadeshi economics, tried to put hurdles to Vajpayee’s reform initiatives.

• It objected to privatisation, labour reform, the patents bill and FDI in retail and insurance. Yet Vajpayee was hailed as a successful liberaliser.

Working of Populism And Authoritarianism

• In India, populism meant bestowing preferred vote banks with economically unjustifiable freebies.

• It is not so in the global context.

• Elected dictators world over display a tendency to short-circuit the functioning democratic institutions to establish a direct communication with voters.

• They avoid making a statement on floor of the House, but address people directly.

• Constitutional bodies are treated as hurdles and must be seized or rendered comatose.

• Media control is their forte.