Coalition politics in India is close to its constitutional politics. The politics of the Constitution broadly carries out two functions. First, it limits majoritarian onslaught in executive and legislative actions. Second, it enables the government of the day to frame and implement better policies for the people through its institutions.
Single-party regimes that enjoyed absolute majority often produced aggrandising executive actions. Jawaharlal Nehru invoked Article 356 to dismantle an elected communist government in Kerala and Indira Gandhi misused Article 352 to proclaim Emergency to stay in power. Legislative abuse was quite rampant. The first amendment to the Constitution, that sought to curtail the freedom of expression, was an illiberal gesture by parliament.
The Modi era is characterised by a series of enactments ranging from penalisation of triple talaq to the Citizenship Amendment Act, all pro-majoritarian. No wonder B R Ambedkar’s warning in the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948 that “it is for the majority to realise its duty not to discriminate against minorities” was clearly discarded.
But a slew of instances where Modi 3.0 is seen in a roll-back mode signifies a positive and healthy change in the executive and legislative domain. It sent the Wakf Bill for discussion in a joint parliamentary committee. Some coalition parties in the NDA publicly expressed their reservations about the Bill. The Centre also kept in abeyance the draft Broadcast Bill.
It withdrew the notification for recruitment to certain posts by way of lateral entry without following the norms of communal reservation. The budget announcement on indexation was also changed. These developments are in sharp contrast with the decisions of earlier government, ranging from demonetisation to the announcement of lockdown during the pandemic.
Article 75 of the Constitution, which talks about the Union cabinet, emphasises that “the council of ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the people”. The emphasis is on the cabinet as a collective, not on the prime minister or any other minister. Again, the accountability of the cabinet is to the people at large. In State of Karnataka vs Union of India (1977), the Supreme Court held that the object of the provision is to make the whole body of persons holding ministerial office liable for each act or omission of the cabinet.
In a coalition government, the cabinet is a pluralistic entity at the functional level. It reflects a rainbow of ideologies, political approaches, and policies. Thus, though the Constitution negates the very notion of autocratic government, in practice, a coalition at the Centre is better suited to its scheme.
Autocracies can happen at the state level too, as abundantly demonstrated by the present West Bengal government. The way in which the horrific murder of a medical trainee and the subsequent agitation were dealt with by the state speaks for itself. Article 164 envisages plurality in the executive decision-making process in states too, by incorporating the collective responsibility clause here as well. But an absolute majority for a single party has the potential to defeat this ambitious provision. Coalition governments at the states have been less aggressive, at the minimum.
In his famous work, Patterns of Democracy, political scientist Arend Lijphart has drawn a distinction between the majoritarian and consensus models of democracy. He indicates that while there is “concentration of executive power in single-party majority cabinets”, there is “executive power sharing in broad multi-party coalitions”. Also, he shows that in the former, there is dominance for the executive in its relationship with the legislature. He also explains about the unitary dimensions of the former and the federal possibilities of the latter.
The proportional representation prevailing in several western European democracies facilitated fruitful coalition governments. But in a first-past-the-post system like ours, coalition is often not a matter of choice. Yet, they yielded positive results. Though from the second half of the 1970s till 1999, we had fragile and unstable coalitions, situations changed for the better thereafter. The 1999 Vajpayee government with its ‘group of ministers’ deciding policy matters with a sense of inclusiveness was a method followed by the government under Manmohan Singh in a different way.
Sonia Gandhi’s National Advisory Council, though was an ‘extra-constitutional’ device, enabled an accommodative practice in governance. Reports show the coalition governments during 1999-2009 created the fastest economic growth post-independence. Centre-state relations improved drastically. The government became closer to the poor and common man. UPA governments used legislative power to promulgate a series of progressive statutes like the Right to Information Act, Right to Education Act, Food Security Act, Law for Street Vendors’ Protection, etc. The schemes for rural employment were excellent and well implemented. UPA’s common minimum programme became a device for good governance.
The latest decision taken by the Union cabinet to revive 50 percent of the last drawn pay as pension is a clear negation of the unpopular National Pension Scheme. That which could not be done by the majoritarian Modi 1.0 and 2.0 governments could be materialised by Modi 3.0 in coalition.
Coalition governments of the past also ensured independence and autonomy to the judiciary and other fourth branch institutions like the Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General and Finance Commission. The Supreme Court was arguably ‘stronger’ when the central government did not enjoy a brute majority.
When there are multiple stakeholders of power, conversation and consensus become the natural ingredients of governance. Unpopular and dictatorial postures are checked within the regime by following the norms of deliberative democracy.
The point is to take the coalition culture forward. A system to check tendencies for corrupt practices also should be evolved to create durable coalition models. Much was not heard in the 2024 election about any scheme akin to a CMP for a future government. Neither the NDA nor the INDIA bloc designed any project to revitalise the people’s engagement with the coalition praxis. The former pretended to be overconfident about a possible devastating majority while the latter failed to integrate the thoughts on policy for the future of the nation.
We must recognise an egalitarian politics of consensus is not only antithetical to majoritarian demagoguism, but also one that must happen in the best interest of people.
(Views are personal)
(kaleeswaramraj@gmail.com)