Hung Assembly is the solution - Strange Remedy suggested in the article published in the Hindu.
Satyameva Jayathe
The Hindu in its September 21, 2017 paper had published an article under the head - States of the Opposition written by G. Sampath. It had made me to think that the author is against the progress of India - even to the extent of suggesting no party to get full majority in the forthcoming Lok Sabha election - hung assembly is the best solution!
An analytical examination of the article is done here.
The author is apprehensive and fearful that if the BJP’s Mission 350 plus proves successful, we could soon have a Parliament that is practically ‘Opposition mukt’.
This is a state of fact - acceptable.
The author, in the course of his article, said that after Independence, in the first Lok Sabha, the highest number of seats held by an opposition party was 44 – the same number of seats the Congress has in the present Lok Sabha. This massive mandate achieved by the Congress then led to the ‘Congress System’ that, according to the author, had not spoiled the spirit of pluralism and federalism.
But, the author fears that with the full majority in the Lok Sabha, the BJP System as against the Congress System will endanger the values of pluralism and federalism and will lead to an authoritarian leadership not respective democratic niceties.
It is his opinion and the author is empowered to have his. But, the author had said that ‘Congress System’ had failed the Indian Democracy during Indra Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi regimes – and then this is quite contrary to what he observed that Congress System had not spoiled the spirit of pluralism and federalism in spite of massive mandate. Perhaps he feels that Congress under Nehru alone had respected the spirit of pluralism and federalism than other Congress Prime Ministers.
Congress System of dominance and the BJP System of dominance, according to the author, is that the latter’s dominance will eliminate the pluralistic space and not the former. His judgment that Congress system - the elastic frame of the Congress system held the country together by respecting its pluralistic genotype is not supported by any evidence and is highly questionable and biased to say the least.
The author had not elaborated his statements and opinions with facts/incidents etc. and it seems to be a dictatorial mindset of “I Say – You Agree”. His worry and concern are that a Hindutva-infused nationalism of BJP will be a direct attack on India’s pluralistic outlook.
The author’s solution to end the BJP’s massive win to save the institutional pluralism, a degree of federalism and a democratic frame work for nation building is quite quixotic and unreasonable and unwarranted.
The author says that the solution lies in preventing any party in not getting more than 170 – 180 seats – thereby, thrusting a coalition government in the forthcoming 2019 lok sabha election. With such reduced numbers, even a BJP-led collation government would be a victory for the opposition, as the objective of safeguarding India’s pluralism would have been achieved – the author opined.
For him, the coalition government is preferable even if this is not conducive for the quick and stable and time bound development for India.
Such is the author’s mindset that proves beyond doubt that his hatred towards BJP – under the leadership of Modi is supreme and unquestionable.
In spite of the fact that India had suffered for 10 long years under UPA regime due to coalition politics, the author is for coalition government – which will lead to utter confusion and clash of interests and fear of withdrawing support from the coalition partners affecting good governance.
Any person having national interest will prefer only party with full majority to rule the country especially at the Centre.
Democracy will lose its charm, if Development loses its steam. But the author feels that Development is not that important – but the stopping the BJP getting a full majority in the coming Lok Sabha election is.
THINK INDIA THINK.
The subject article is reproduced here for ready reference:
States of the Opposition
The Hindu dated SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
Political
parties must frame their campaign as a referendum not on leadership but on
democratic values
Of
late, it’s become almost a matter of conventional wisdom that the 2019 Lok
Sabha elections are the Bharatiya Janata Party’s for the taking. The only
unknown, apparently, is the margin of victory.
If the party’s ambitious ‘Mission
350-plus’ plan proves successful, we could soon have a Parliament that is
practically ‘Opposition-mukt’.
In such a scenario, does it still make sense to hope
for a meaningful Opposition in the run-up to 2019 and after? If yes, what might
be the contours of a political strategy that would enable it to pose a credible
challenge to the BJP juggernaut?
Reams have been written about the failures of the
Opposition parties. Far from holding the government to account, they have
either been dormant or busy fighting for survival. The BJP, on the other hand,
has been steadily expanding its footprint. It was in power in five States
before the 2014 polls. Today the National Democratic Alliance is in power in 18
out of the 29 States. Thirteen of those have a BJP Chief Minister.
Some have argued
that the Indian polity has reverted to a state it has witnessed before — that
of single-party dominance, with the BJP taking the place of the Congress. While
this is true in a formal sense, there is a big difference in substantive terms,
one that could seal the fate of Indian democracy as we have known it.
The Congress
system
For more than two decades after Independence,
political competition in Indian democracy took place within the confines of
what political scientist Rajni Kothari termed ‘the Congress system’. It denoted
a polity marked by single-party dominance. Until the onset of the ’70s, the
Congress incorporated oppositional drives into itself by way of multiple
factions at the regional and national level that mirrored the extraordinary
pluralism and diversity of a complex nationhood.
In a traditional society where a political culture
centred on democracy was yet to strike roots, it was the accommodative
pluralism of the ‘Congress system’ that allowed the normative modernity of the
Constitution to slowly achieve a fragile social hegemony.
More than the
‘steel frame’ of the bureaucracy, it was the elastic frame of the ‘Congress
system’ that held the country together by respecting its pluralistic genotype.
Subsequently, as the Congress went into decline,
regional configurations came to power in State after State, and India entered
the coalition era. As it lost ground in State politics, the
Congress was forced to play ball with smaller parties at the national level.
Seen another way, the intra-party coalitions within the ‘Congress system’
became externalised into an inter-party dynamic in the coalition era that began
with the ninth Lok Sabha in 1989, and continued till the 2014 elections.
Political competition being what it is, the vacuum at
the national level caused by the shrinkage of the Congress has now been filled
by the BJP.
It did so by
scripting an alternative national narrative around three elements:
a Hindutva-infused
nationalism;
turning elections
into a referendum on national leadership, specifically Narendra Modi’s
leadership;
and framing the
electoral competition in all-India terms rather than engage with State-level
issues.
If the Opposition has floundered so far, it is because
it has tried, without much conviction, to challenge the BJP on its narrative
home ground. Not surprisingly, its attempts have failed to strike a chord.
Debating nationalism ends up giving more oxygen to
chauvinism. The Opposition does lack a politician who can match Mr. Modi’s
appeal. And regional leaders are better off sticking to State-level issues
where they are on stronger political ground than trying to reinvent themselves
overnight for a national role. In other words, the Opposition needs to stop
being reactive and formulate its own counter-narrative.
Lessons from
the past
Much has been made
of the Congress being reduced to 44 seats in the Lok Sabha. It is taken as a
sign of structural weakness in the Opposition camp. Yet, after Independence, in
the first five Lok Sabhas, the highest number of seats held by an Opposition
party was 44 seats. Did that mean India was ‘Opposition-mukt’ for a quarter of
a century?
History shows us that the Congress’s own fall from
dominance was sparked by challenges at the State-level, not by a national
rival. But that was possible because of the space for political pluralism
offered by the ‘Congress system’.
The fundamental difference between the ‘Congress
system’ and the ‘BJP system’ of one-party dominance is the latter’s
determination to eliminate this pluralistic space. Politically, this is the
toughest challenge facing the Opposition, as well as the biggest weakness of
the BJP, one that could be tapped to construct an alternative narrative.
Put simply, the
Opposition’s counter-narrative would need to dwell on two aspects. One, it must
convey that the 2019 polls are about choosing between two options: a coalition
regime structurally constrained to protect the values of pluralism and
federalism, and a stable majority under an authoritarian leadership unlikely to
entertain democratic niceties.
Second, the Opposition needs to frame the election as
a referendum not on leadership but on democratic values.
A massive win for
the BJP in 2019 would certainly pose a threat to the historical consensus,
established at the time of Independence, which institutionalised pluralism, a
degree of federal autonomy, and a democratic framework for nation-building. The
Opposition has the simple but onerous task of using its political imagination
to bring this threat to the centre of the electoral agenda.
Onus on
regional parties
Its political
strategy, therefore, must aim for a hung Parliament and a coalition government.
An ideal outcome would be one where no party gets more than 170-180 seats. A
‘Mission 180 minus’, as it were. With such numbers, even a BJP-led coalition
government would be a victory for the Opposition, as the objective of
safeguarding India’s pluralism would have been achieved.
Regional parties are best placed to take the lead
here, for they are the ones which would be hardest hit by a creeping
centralisation of power. If they could come together, with or without the
Congress, over a single point agenda of protecting India’s pluralism, it would
obviate the need for a formal pre-poll or seat-sharing arrangement. There is no
other way that, say, a Trinamool Congress and a Communist Party of India
(Marxist) would come together to battle a common rival that could prove more
lethal to both than they have been to each other. Given that the BJP has always
struggled more against non-Congress, regional opponents, it is also a more
canny electoral strategy.
And in case they still lose badly, they can take heart
from the fact that India’s political traditions give the Opposition an
institutional role disproportionate to their actual numbers in Parliament,
through mandatory membership of key committees, appointments panels, and so on.
So, regardless of how they fare in 2019, Opposition parties would continue to
have a major role to play.
All said and done, Indian democracy has never fared
well under powerful parliamentary majorities led by a charismatic Prime
Minister unchecked by coalition dynamics.
We have two
examples, in Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. While one briefly downed the
shutters on democracy, the other gave a fillip to Hindu fundamentalism and
tried to muzzle the press.
The Opposition’s
success would ultimately hinge on how effective it is in convincing the people
that if they value their nation’s democratic traditions as much as they do
development, they must either elect a coalition government in 2019, or force
the ‘BJP system’ to become more like the ‘Congress system’,
not by importing Congressmen, but by imbibing the values of pluralism and
respect for dissent that the Congress stands for in its Nehruvian vision of
itself, if not always in reality. sampath.g@thehindu.co.in
Comments