I I b I b UNIT 23 COALITION POLITICS Structure 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.

3 \ Objectives Introduction Forms of Coal itioh Politics Coalition Behavioy

23.4 boalition Governm nt: A Comparative Study 23.5 Coalition Politics in\ ndia (1 947- 1967) 23.6 Emergence of ~oalit+n Governments in India (1 967- 1977) 23.7 E~nergence of ~oalitihn Government 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~nents in India 23.11 Let Us Sum Up 23.12 Some Useful Books , 23.13 Answer to Check Your Progress Exercises ', -23.0 OBJECTIVES After going through this unit, you should be able to: U~lderstand the meaning of coalition; Discuss different forms of coalition politics; and / Discuss the nature and emergence of the coalition governments at the state level after 1967 assembly elections. The term coalition has been derived from the Latin word 'Coalitio' which is the verbal substantive of "Coalescere'-co together, and 'alescere'-to grow up, which means to grow or together. Coalition, thus, means an act of coalescing, or uniting into o ne body: a union of parties. In the specific political sense the term coalition denotes a n alliance or temporary union of political forces for forming a single Government. As such coalitions are direct descendants of the exigencies of a multi-party system in a democratic regime. Coalition governments are co~nmonly contrasted with single pa rty Governments, in which only one party forms government.

A coalition is a grouping of rival political actors brbught together either thro ugh the perception of a comlnon threat, or the recognition that their goals cannot be ac hieved by working separately. In general terms a coalition is regarded as parliamentary or political grouping which is less permanent than a party or faction or an interes t group. 23.2 FORMS OF COALITION POLITICS Constitutional framework and electoral system of a country determines the forms that coalition politics takes. 'These are three in nature: parliamentary, electoral a nd governmental.

Party System and Elections in India Parliamentary coalitiori may occur in a situation when no single party erijoys a n over all majority. The party which is asked to forill a govern~iierit makes an atteli ipt to rule as a mi~iority government, relying upon an arrangemelit with other party or part ies for its survival. Tlie Ja~iata Dal government led by V.P. Singli in 1989 was such a gover~imetit. Sucli a gover~iment tilay seek support from tlie oppositio~i polit ical parties for different items of legislatioil or tlie government may survive merely becaus e tlie oppositio~i niay not like to defeat tlie gover~ilile~it either to gain political advantage or not to be deprived of their existing political base. The Congress government led by Narasimha Rao in 1991 was sucli a government in its early tenure. Electoral coalitions represent two or more than two political parties who enter into an agreement which provides for a mutual withdrawal of candidates in an electio~i S o that tlie co~icer~ied where they are parties can avoid splittirig of votes in the co~istitue~icies strong respectively. Sucli coalitio~is are difficult to be for~iied when the par ties having strong local base and organisatio~i do not wish to surrender tlieir rights to pu t up a candidate. Sucli electoral coalitio~is have become colnliioli in India in recent past in tlie form of for~iiatio~i of United Front and National Democratic Alliance. CoaP'tion goverliliielits are commonly contrasted witli single party government, in wli h one party holds office. Sucli gover~i~iie~its sliould also be distinguished from not,-partisan governments, within wliicli tlie members of tlie Council of Minist ers do not act as represe~itatives of political parties. Coalition governments are tlie party governments. The membership of a coalition gover~iment is conventionally defined as those parties tliat are represented in tlie Cabinet. Some parliamentary governme nts, however, also co~isistelitly co-operate witli parties tliat are not represented in tlie Cabinet. At tlie government level, there car1 be different tyl?es of coalition. Tlie firs t type is tlie ~iatio~ial

government in wliicli mbst, if not all, of the maill parties join togetlier to meet a ~iatio~ial crisis. Tlie ratioiiale behirid emergency arising out of war or eco~io~iiic the formation of sucli a goverlilnelit is tliat ~iational crisis necessitates tl ie suspension of party strife and requires tlie conc$ntration of all forces in a co~ii~iio~i direction. Tlie coalition gover~iments led by ~s~uiili and Llyod George during tlie First World War and by Wi~isto~i Cliurclii11 during S/econd World War in U~iited Kingdom were tlie exa~iiplesof national goverliments. , Power-sharing coalitio~i goverli~iieiitsare fornied when two or liiore than two political parties wliicli are not able to secure majority of tlieir ow11 join togetlier to form a ~iiajority gover~iment. United Front as well as BJP -led coalitio~i goverliliiel its in the iiiiieties were sucli coalition goverliments. Power-sharing coalitio~i govern~ne ntsstrive to ill1pleliie~itSIICII policies and prograliilnes as agreed up011 among the coa l ition partners. Continental Ei~ropea~i coi~ntries have experienced such Governme~its quite often. Check Your Progress Exercise 1 Note: i) Use the space give11 below for your answer ii) Compare your aliswers witli tlie model answers given at the elid of tlie uni t. 1) Briefly explain tlie meaning of coalition.

2) Explain the different fornis of coalition politics. ................................................................................ ........................................ ................................................................................ ........................................ ................................................................................ ........................................ ................................................................................ ....................................... 23.3 COALITION BEHAVIOUR A study of coalitio~i beliaviour puts forth the following questions: Wliat are t he distinct circunistances wliicli lead to different political parties joining coalitions? W hy does a particular party prefer to enter into coalition witli otlier parties? Wliat are the advantages a political party can expect to gain by its entering into a coalition ? A comparative study of the coalition beliaviour drawn from tlie liistorical expe riences of coalitio~i politics in different countries and at different times reveal the following trends: First, all tlie political parties who enter into a coalition always aini to tiia xiniise their long term influence over decision-making process. Second, because of the awareness concerning the re-distributive consequences of a coalition, tlie member parties often conipete against eacli otlier over tlie all ocation of redistribution benefits. Third, the cotnpetitiori among the coalition partners is restricted by tlie degr ee to wliicli eacli partner is willing to tolerate conipetitive demands on the part of the allies. Fourth, in a situation wliere the tolerance among tlie coalition partners remain of liigli level, co~npetitiveness is rewarded witli disproportionally liigli returns ill t erms of political influence. 23.4 COALITION GOVERNMENTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY In pure or modified two party political systems, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada, coalition governments are rare in the peace time. In tlie co untries witli lnultiparty systems, sucli as Belgium and tlie Netherlands, almost all the governtnerits liave been coalitions. There are ~her European countries witli mul

tiparty systeni like Denniark and Sweden wliere the governments altertiate between coali tional or single-party (often minority) one. In the normal circumstances the coalition governments are formed by two to five parties. However, the countries like India in tlie recent past liave seen tlie coalitioli goverliliielit being formed on tlie basis of as many as eighteen parties i.e. Vajpayee led Government in 1998. Switzerland is a unique case where all major parties are regularly included in tlie coalition gov ernments. Coalition governments are essentially features of parliamentary form of governme nts, but they have been formed also in the countries like France and Switzerland wlii cli have 'modified' parliamentary or 'semi-presidential' system. In tlie developed c ountries almost all tlie parties follow centrist ideology. Power sharing is mostly tlie m ain basis of the formation of sucli governments. However, in the developing countries like India and Sri Lanka the coalitio~i gover~iments liave been fornied on ideologica l basis. Some developed countries like Italy, Denmark, France and Sweden liave also experienced coalition governments formed on the basis of ideological homogeneity . <:orlition Politics

I'artg S~sttmand Elections ill lndin Despite tlie widespread presence of coalitio~i goverlilnerits in both developed and ';,developing countries. tliere are not silfficielit colistiti~tional provisions regarding the ',process of fonnulatio~i and dissolution of coalition governments. German const itution \s a significant exceptio~i wliicli has provisio~is whicli make it i~npossible f or irresponsible q,rlianie~itarians to overthrow a government without being ready to support all qlternative. In Sweden, 1974 instrument of government attempts to describe tlie pi;ocess of forriiatioll of coalitioli'government in some details. Check Your Progress Exercise 2 Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer. ii) Compare your answesr witli tlie model aliswers given at tlie elid of the uni t. 1) What are tlie different trends in tlie coalitio~i beliaviour? 2) Are there any co~istitutio~ial provisio~is regarding tlie process of the formation and dissolution of coalition governments? Explain. 23.5 COALITION POLITICS IN INDIA (1947-1967) Indian politics in the period betweeti 1947 to 1967 was coalitional in nature. T his was at tlie level of political parties or political formations. Functionalist politi cal scientists like Rajni Kotliari, Morris-Jones and Myron Wei~ier developed a theoretical mode l for this level in tlie late sixties tlirough the idea of a one-party do~ni~iant system or Congress system. The dominance of Congress was reflected both in terms of tlie ninnber of seats tliat it held in parliament at centre and the governments it fo rmed in tlie states as well as in terms of its formidable organisational strength out side the legislative bodies. Thus in the first three general electio~ls Congress wo~i aro und forty five per cent of tlie votes atid seventy five per cent of the seats in tlie parl iament. The Co~igress barring brief interludes continued to rule in almost all tlie stat es and at centre. The Congress system, argued Morris Jones, reflected 'dominance co-existi ng witli competition but without a trace of alter~iation'. Such a coldssal dominanc e of Co~igress of the political system reduced other parties to marginality. It follows tliat tlie Indian political system during this period could not be un

derstood in accordarice witli tlie standard textbook forniat of government and opposition . It was tlie big Congress versus small and frag~nented forces of opposition at the S tate as well as tlie natio~ial level. Congress succeSsfully defined Maurice Duverger' s lawwhicli expected two party system to emerge in a plurality electoral system by incorporating political competition and consociational arrangemelits within its boundaries and yet holding it together through a delicate nianagenient of factions. Creatin g and sustaining such a broad coalitio~i of factio~is was greatly helped by the colnpl exities and ambiguities of l~idia~i or the formation of society which did not allow polarisatio~i

Coalition Politirs , contradictions that might have fractured such an all-embrac~ng alliance. It wa s also I helped, according to Myron Weiner, by traditional values and roles of conciliati on that I t Congress party astutely took up. In a similar vein, Raj~ii Kothari has also high lighted the colisensual politics based on pluralism, accom~nodatioli and bargaining foll owed by Co~igress party. / / Thus, around a central disproportionately large party of consensus were arranged much similar opposition parties of pressure, which ilnposed a coalitio~ial logic on both the ruling party and the opposition parties and groups. The enonnous organisatio nal size, regional spread, and ideological diversity of the Coligress transformed co ngress I in a loose organisation with ideologically diverse groups. These ideologically a nd 1 1 I regionally divergent groups played the role of opposition in tandem with the o ppositio~i parties with whom they shared homogeneity in terms of ideology arid interests. T he small sire of the oppositioli parties ensured that they could influelice tlie po litical system only by functioning more like indirect pressure groups. As Kothari argues 'Congress system has always been a systeni of coalition multi-group in character , and informed by a coliti~iuous process of internal bargaining and mobility'. The coa lition logic was not olily imposed on the groups inside tlie Congress but on the opposi tioli I parties also. During this period the Governmelital policies came to be decided I nore

I by cross party blocs rather than by inner party voting or a coliverltiolial divi sion lilies of Government and Opposition. I I The coalitiolial nature of Indian politics was evident when tlie Congress leader ship at the centre often 'transferred a decisioli from tlie space within the party to th e space of tlie political system as a whole if they were sure of tlie support of winning coalition'. It was in this manner that Congress crises were solved as Max Zins's study of Coligress reveals. 23.6 EMERGENCE OF COALITION GOVERNMENTS IN INDIA (1967-1977) The 1967 elections witnessed the coalition politics in another for~n, now i~ivol ving the non-congress opposition parties. Opposition parties were able to defeat coligres s in the assen~bly electiolis in six States by joiliilig into an electoral coalition. The econolilic difficulties, the declining legiti~nacy and the fact that Coligress had never re ceived an absolute majority in ternis of votes polled explains the setback to Congress. 1967 electiotls; according to Morris-Jones, led to the emergence of a 'market po lity' leading to a 'pretty regular and continuous defectors market'. Thus the formatio li of power sharing coalitio~i by tlie oppositio~i parties and tlie defection of the c ongress factions led to the formation of non-congress coalition Goverlilnents in nine St ates. However, the coalition technique which worked so well for Congress did exactly t he opposite in case of the oppositio~i parties. This can be explained by the fact t hat the opposition parties with divergent ideologies did benefit electorally from the wi dened support base. However the same factor led to tlie crisis in governance leading t o the failure of coalition governments. Congress, thus was able to collie back to power in most of the States where it h ad lost power in 1967 elections. However, tlie post-1 967 congress followed a new political process which was marked by the replacement of consensual politics by tlie confrontationalist politics towards opposition. 'This liad to do both with tlie 'marketisation' of polity as well as tlie over-cent~.alisatio~i of power in tlie party. The

Co~igress thus adopted a plebiscitary liiode of electoral politics which led to the institutional decline in the party. This explailis tlie inability of the State l eaders of ' congress who were 'nominated' rather than 'elected' in holding the political e quilibria

Party System and Elections in' India in tlie States by creation and manipulation of interest coalitions and factio~ia l politics. Destructio~i of State-level Congress organisations by an over centralised politi cal leadersliip led to tlie eloiergence of genirine conipetitiori to tlie congress a t tile State level. Altliougli the Congress led by lndira Gandlii reached an unprecedented electoral victory in tlie 1971 eleiction it was initially seen as the restoratio~i of the Congress dominance, in retrospect it is obvious tliat tlie apparent continuity of tlie Co ~igress was deceptive. Tlie Congress that Indira,Gandlii led to power in 197 1 was in many w ays a new party that had to negotiate a new terrain of electoral politics marked by tlie presence of a great many new entrants from tlie 'middle' peasant castes and the regional groups into tlie ganie of electoral politics ti~rning it into truly com petitive. It follows tliat Congresg was no longer a single donii~iant party but tlirouglio ut tlie 1970 and 1980's it co~itinuedto be tlie natural party of gover~iance, tlie pole around wliicli electoral conipetition was organised. Thereafter, the success or the fai lure of tlie attenipts by the oppositio~i parties to put up an electoral coalition again st Congress made a decisive difference to tlie electoral outcome. 23.7 EMERGENCE OF COALITION GOVERNMENT AT THE CENTRE (1977-1979) Tlie tliird phase in tlie evolution of coalition politics was niarked by tlie de feat of tlie Co~igress in 1977 parlianientary as well as assembly elections (in as niany as s ix States). Tlie introductio~~ of populist. bureaucratic and authoritarian mode of politics in tlie party had led to tlie emergency imposed by tlie Congress government. Bot li tlie emergelicy and a liastily assellibled coalitio~i of oppositio~i parties were tli e main factors responsible for electoral debacle of Congress both at tlie central and s tate level. Ja~iata Party was fornied after four oppositio~i parties-the Congress (0).tlie J ana Sangli, tlie Bliartiya Lok Dal and tlie Socialist Party merged. Ja~iata Party su bseqiiently entered in a coalitio~i with tlie opposition parties at tlie regional level like Akali Dal

to figlit tlie 1977 General elections on a comnioli election symbol and a single list of contesting candidates. Tlie coalitio~i governnielit led by Morarji Desai could not last its fill1 term as the co~lstituent factions witlii~i tlie party retained tlieir ideological difference s -a legacy of tlieir pre-merger days. With tlie twin objectives take11 during emergency bei ng fillfilled once tlie coalition government was fornied and a~nendnient bills were passed -tlie a~nbitions of its leaders saw tlie split in the party and tlie government fell in 1979. Defections -an offslioot'of tlie marketisation of Indian polity introduced since 1967 elections-from tlie Ja~iata Party led to tlie forniation of a coalitio~i governn ient of Lok Dal and Congress (S) led by Charall Singli with tlie outside support of tlie lef t parties as well as Congress. Tliis coalitional arrangement was again marked by ideologic al incompatibility and it was no surprise that tlie governnient fell witliin three weeks of its formation as Congress withdrew its support. Check Your Progress Exercise 3 Note:i) Use tlie space given below your answer. ii) Clieck your? answer with the model answers given at tlie end of tlie Unit.

Coalition Politics 1) Explain tlie coalitional nature of politics during tlie one party dominant syste m in India. ................................................................................ ........................................ / ................................................................................ ........................................ 2) What was the nature of tlie coalition Governments which were for~iied in tlie states after 1967 assembly elections? ................................................................................ ........................................ 3) Why did not Janata coalitio~i government complete its full term? 23.8 THE DECLINE OF COALITION POLITICS (19801989) The failure of coalition experiment in the form of failure of Janata coalition g overnment to complete its full tertii gave an opportunity to Congress-recovering from a sp lit in 1978- under the leadership of Indira Gandlii to capture power in the 1980 electi ons. Congress received a massive victory in 1984 general elections also. 'rlii~sfor a decade 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 allia nce witli National Conference in J and K and witli the DMK in 1980 and witli AIADMK ill 1984 elections in Tamil Nadu. The left parties-led coalition governments were fo rmed in the States of Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal during this period. It was during this period that the seeds of future coalition politics emerged. C o~igress despite its electoral triumphs in tlie plebiscitory electioris was continuously losing its ideological and institutional base. As sucli it was unable to respond adequately to the demands arid aspirations of the de~nocratically awakened rural social groups wli o had been becoming increasingly aware of tlie significance of their electoral power. Moreover, tlie over centralisation of power in Co~igress led to the heightened level of Ce

ntreState tensions. The ruralisation and regionalisation of Indian politics led to tlie emergence of regional parties whicli were supported by tlie numerically strong and economically powerf ill rich peasant castes. Telugu Desam in Andha Pradesli, Akali Dal in Punjab, AGP in Assam were aniolig the regional parties which ensured a freer competition betwee n political parties and increased alternation of a tendency towards personalised c otitrol of parties and fragmentation of the parties into splinter groups etc. All these factors paved tlie way for the end of the Coligress dominance at tlie State level.

Party System and Elections in India What emerged in tlie States was a bipolarity as along witli tlie regional partie s Congress even now retained a salience in tlie party system. It was because Congr ess continued to command greater popular support that1 any otlier party at the natio nal level and also tliat it was the core around which the party systelii was structu red. That bipolarity at tlie state level did not, however, yield a bipolarity at tlie National level as well as becanie evident from 1989 General elections. 23.9 COALITION GOVERNMENTS AND COALITION POLITICS (FROM 1989) In tlie run-up to tlie 1989 elections a~iotlier hastily assenhled coalition was formed in the form of formation of Janata Dal wliich came into existence as a resi~lt of t he merger of several parties like tlie Janata Party, Lok Dal (A), Lok Dal (B), Jana ta Dal, subseqi~ently fornied an electoral alliance witli tlie parties like DMK, Co~igre ss (S), AGP, CPI, CPI (M) and other small regional parties. This electoral coalition cam e tb be called National Front wliich entered into an agreeliie~it witli tlie BJP o n sharing seats in tlie 1989 parliamentary elections. As the Congress and its allies did n ot stake claim to forni the Government it was tlie National Front led by Janata Dal which was invited by tlie President to form the coalition Government of National Front led by V.P. Singli which was sup orted froni oi~tside by BJP and left parties who did n ot join l' the Government. National Front niinority Goverrinient was tlie first real coalition Government a t tlie Centre as the ~anata Government was a coalition Government by Proxy and Charan Sigh led coalition Government Lok Dal and Congress (S) fell before proving its majority in the Lok Sabha. National Front Government failed to laydown a strong foundatio~i of consensual p olity, based on democratic power sharing at wider level. It suffered from internal cris is because of cliange of leadership in Haryana Janata Dal Goveninient. Tlie externa l crisis built up over tlie co~ifrontation witli the BJP over Ayodliya issue. The intense competition for leadersl~ip within Janta Dal finally led to the split in Janta D al. The

newly formed Janata Dal (S) formed a niinority Governtilent led by Cliandra slie kliar with the outside si~pport of Congress after tlie National Front Govern~iient was defeated in tlie confidence vote in the Lok Sablia after tlie withdrawal of supp ort of BJP. Janata Dal (S) niiriority Governmelit fell as Congress withdrew its support in 1991. Tlie Parlianie~itary elections in 1991 again produced a 'hung' Lok Sablia. Congr ess emerged as tlie largest party but nowhere near the majority mark. With no coalit ions being possible, Co~igress formed a minority Govern~ne~it led by Narasi~nlia Rao. Tlie minority Government displayed a great skill in Parliamentary Manoeuvres in order to stay in power. After effecting a split in the Janata Dal in its favour as well a s victories in the by elections tlie Gover~ime~it was able to secure a majol-ity of its own. \ However, the assenibly elections' between 1993 to 1995 decisively brduglit to an end the one party do~ninant multi-party systeni of an earlier era. Co~igress no long er remained the core aroi~nd wliich tlie party systeni was structured. These electi ons marked the i~ite~isification of tlie process of bipolar consolidation all over tlie Country barring few States like Kerala and West Bellgal where coalitio~i politics still survived. Thus in as many as twelve States, non-Congress Govern~nent ruled by tlie end of 1995. Increasing tendency towards a bipolar polity at tlie State level Icd to a situat io~i tliat a two-party systeni at tlie national level beca~iie improbable. With the effecti ve niarginalisation of tlie Congress from the real arena of co~npetition in U.P. an d Bihar

-the two largest States -it was now obvious that Co~igress on its ow11 could no longer hold its positio~i in tlie centre (both in tlie sense of occupying and de fining tlie middle ground and being most significant) of tlie ltidia~i political system. W i t11 tlie emergence of distinct regional party systems in tlie States sig~ialled tlie rise of parties like Bahujan Samaj Party, Telugu Desam Party, Asoni Gana Pgrisliad, Dravida Munn etra Kazhagam, Akali Dal at tlie regional level, the Co~igress was now one of tlie In ally parties with a position in several of those regional systems. It was no longer a pole against which every political fonnation was defined. Even in those States where tliere was a direct race between the Congress and its rival, tlie Congress was no longe r tlie natural party of governance. The above tendencies were confirmed in tlie par1 iamentary electio~is of 1 996. The BJP made a strong sliowi~ig in tlie Northern and Wester11 States especially in B iliar and U.P. and emerged as tlie largest party in tlie Lok Sabha. Tlie party formed a minority Govern~neiit wliicli barely lasted two weeks before losi~ig vote of con fidence in Lok Sabha. Tlie regional parties i.e., TDP, DMK, AGP and the Tamil Manila Congress in alliance witli Janata Dal fonned National front comprising of the co mmunist parties. The resultant United Front-was able to form a coalition Gover~iment led by H.D.Devegowda first and then by 1.K.Gujral witli tlie outside support of the col igress and the left parties (CPI for the first time in Parliamentary history joined tli e Government). The UF coalition Gover~iinent collapsed after tlie withdrawal of su pport from Congress in 1998. B.IP taking a less011 from its 1996 experience entered illto electoral coalitio~ i witli tlie regional parties like AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, Samata Party in Bihar, Trina~iiool Congress in West Bengal, Akali party in Pulljab etc. Subseque~itly these parties (eighteen in number) for~iied a coalitio~i Gover~iment wliicli lasted barely for one year as AIADMK withdrew its support it1 1999. l'lie 1999 parlia~iie~itary elections,say that the two parties Congress and BJP, had electoral allia~ice witli tlie regional pa rties in such a manner that coalition Gover~i~ne~it beca~iie inevitable to emerge. A comparative study of tlie results of the 1996 electio~is and the 1998 or 1999 elections reveals a rnajor difference between the two. l'lie 'hung' Parliament w liicli emerged after 1996 elections was not just a matter of no single party getting a

majority but rather of no party or a clear alliance of parties being in a positi on to govern. In 1998 and 1999 elections, however, BJP and Congress have show11 that despite no party getting a majority on its own, two 'poles' have become visiblethe Congress and the BJP- within tlie regional ised multi-party system. It is natura l then that both have been gradually accepting tlie imperatives of coalition politics a ,id alliance building. Check Your Progress Exercise 4 Note: i) Use the space give11 below for your answer. ii) Check your answers witli model ariswers give11 at the end of tlie Unit. 1) Wliat factors contributed in the emergence of tlie regional parties? ................................................................................ ........................................ ................................................................................ ........................................ ................................................................................ ........................................ ................................................................................ ....................1................... ................................................................................ ........................................ ................................................................................ ........................................ Coalition I'olitics

Party System and Elections 2) Wliat are the new trendsvisible in tlie coalitio~i politics after 1993- 1995 assernbly in India . elections? 23.10 WORKING OF THE COALITION GOVERNMENTS IN INDIA It has been traditionally, accepted that the principles of collective responsibi lity, ho~noge~ieity and secrecy have bee11 a must for effective fi~nctioning of Gover~iment. Coalition Governtne~its fortiled in India especially at Centre liave been found lacking in this respect. Tlie working of tlie Coal ition Govern~iie~its has been affected by tlie need to secure inter-party Consensus. The lieterogetieity of tlie Coalitio~i par tners in terliis of tlieir social basis and ideologies ofteri has been resultitig into di sagreements between the Cabinet ~iiinisters on political and departmental matters. This has beeti hampering the deliberative atid decision-making process of the Cabinet. The part ies entering into coalition either under tlie umbrella of United Front or National D emocratic Alliance had been confro~ited with a sititation of preserving tlie i~nity of Gov ernment as well as tlieir separated identity as a partner in tlie Coalition. Tlie Coalit ion Governments at centre have been formed, not on the positive basis of ideological or progratiimatic homogeneity but on the negative basis of capturi~ig power (like B JP led coalition Gover~i~iie~it in 1998) or to keep Congress and BJP out of power (like United Front Government in 1996). This factor lias contributed to the lack of efficacy as well as stability of tliese Gover~iments. Tlie presence of regiotial parties it1 tlie Coalition has also led to a perception that the national outlook has often sought to be ov er sliadowed by a regional outlook and also that persolla1 or party gains have ofte n received precedelice over collective ones. The Steering Co~ii~iiittee of the Coalition partners, rather than Cabinet often 'acts as the de-facto deliberative body thus undermining the process of Govertiance. Tlie Governalice also has suffered becau se

of tlie weakened position of the Prime Minister in the coalition Gqvertinients f ormed in the recent years. Prime Minister has been in no positio~i to clioose those as ministers in tlie Council of ministers who do not belong to his own party as the y are chosen by tlieir respective party leaders. Tliis has undermined tlie autliority of the Prime Minister more so as lie feels cotistrained even to disliiiss them without inviting the wratli of the concerned party. In tlie recent past tlie coalition governments liave bee11 formed on the basis o f a comtnon agreement by tlie coalitio~i partners to iniplenielit a Co~iilnon Minirn uni Programme (CMP). However, tlie bickering alllong the coalition partners lias bee n often obstructive to the process of it's implementation. Moreover the very fact that the elections in 1996 atid 1998 threw up unwieldy, unstable and short-lived coal ition Gover~i~nelits was to a great degree responsible for non-implementation of tlie CMP. 23.11 LET US SUM UP l'he coalition politics operates in two ways -one, by the coalition of the polit ical parties outside tlie government; two, formation of tlie goverlirnent by two or m ore political parties. 'The latter is knowh as a coalition government. The basic aim of a coalition governlnelit is to ensure n~ajority control of the legislative assembl y/ parliamentary as well as the iniplemelitation of comnion minimum programme. Coalition

Coalition Politics Gover~i~nents rnay receive support from outside also. Tlie party systeni and the political system in India in tlie first twenty-five years or so after Independen ce was completely dominated by Congress both in the electoral and organisational sense. Congress acting on its historical legacy represented a broad-based social coalit ion. Tlie 'Congress system' was based on coalition in political sense also as it foll owed coalition logic in its relationship with tlie opposition parties in tlie process of governance. The.period from the later half of tlie 1980s onwards witnessed tlie erosio n of the central role of tlie Congress in niai~itaining and restructuring political c onsensus. TIILIS tlie process of political mobilisation and political recruitment heralded the iniitation of a more differentiated structure of party competition. Rapid mobilisatio~ i and politicisatio~i of new regional and social groups resulted in to tlie growth of a new genre of parties and alignments, many of these focusing on individual leaders, w lio were able to identity with specific castes and communities. Tlie 1990s in partic ular witnessed a decisive end to tlie do~iiinant multi-patty systeni of tlie earlier years. It signified a move towards a competitive multi-party systetii both at tlie central and state levels. Tlie General electio~is in 1989 and tlie State assembly electio~is of 19931995 confirmed this trend. Along witli an upsurge of new social groups and ident ities tlie growing regionalisation of tlie national parties (not excluding tlie Congre ss and BJP) also explai~is the for~iiatiori of a large number of parties. Consequently, tliere has I been a blurring of lines between tlie national and state patty system. and the p rocess of 'federalisation' in tlie party system. In this coriiplex and interlocking rel ationship between tlie national arid state patty systems. the change in tlie latter have b een I ilicreasi~igly influencing the former. Tlie coalitio~i politics and tlie coaliti on Governments are related to tlie ongoing process of translbrmation fro111 a single doni inant to a region based multi-party system. TIILIS there has been an emergence of a bipol arity at tlie Centre supported by the regional partics -tlie Congress and tlie BJP bei

ng tlie two 'poles' -in an increasingly regionalised multi-party system. 23.12 SOME USEFUL BOOKS Bogdanor, Veroti, The Blacknfell Eticyclopeditr of Politicd Itis f if trtiotis, B lac kwe l l Reference, Oxford, 1987. ~hatterjec Partlia,, Stcrte rrtirl Politics iri Iritlicr, Oxford U~iiversity Pre ss, New Dellii. 1998. Kariltia Karan, K.P., Coalifioti Govertitrre~~t iri It~cliu, Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Sliimla,1975. Kotliari, Rajn.i, Po1itic.s iri Ir~licr,Orient Longman. Born bay, 1970. 23.13 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS EXERCISES Check Your Progress Exercise 1 1) Coalition means a ilnion of parties. In political sense it the term alliance den otes an alliance or teniporary ilnion of political forces to form tlie government. 2) There are three types of coalition -parliamc~ltary, electoral and governmental. Parliamentary coalition is formed when no single party elljoys tlie niajority to form the government. Electoral coalition is fornied when two or more political parties ~nuti~ally agree to withdraw candidates in an election in order to avoid splitting of votes in tlie constituencies wliere they are strong respectively. T his type of coalition is made when political parties for111 tlie governliient in a s iti~atio~i

Party System, and Elections in India of national eliiergency in a country. In si~cli case the parties Strive to suspe nd tlieir differences for a colnrnon nation cause. Check Your Progress Exercise 2 1) Tliese are: all parties forni a coalition; rnenibers of tlie coalition compet e with each other over tlie allocatio~i of redistribution benefits; tlie co~npetition a molig tlie coalition partners is restricted to a degree; and, competitiveness of tlie coalition partners is rewarded with disproportinally liigli returns in ternis of po litical influence. 2) l'liere are no slrcli provisions, with tlie exception of Gernia~i constitutio n. Check Your Progress Exercise 3 1) During tliis pliase tlie Congress was tlie do~iii~iant party both at the centre and in tlie states. The nature of tlie coalition of that period can be explained in the light of tlie nature of the Congress. According to Rajtii Kotliari it was co~ise nsual based on plural isni, acconi modat ion and bargaining. 2) Tliis period saw tlie formation of tlie coalition of tlie non-Congress Coalition goverliments in nine states. U~ilike tlie coalition of tlie Co~igress system, th is type of coalitioti was for~iied by tlie parties with diverpent ideologies arid si~ppo rt bases. 3) The Janata coalition did not coniplete its terms because of tlie following reaso ns: ideological differences between tlie members of tlie coalition, arid tlie ambiti o~is of leaders of constiti~ent parties. Check Your Progress Exercise 4 I). The ruralisation and regio~ialisation of Indian politics gave rise to tlie e mergence of regional politics. '1-lie regional parties liave supported largely tlie rural rich who have large nunierical strength. 2) Tliese are- elid of tlie one party dominant multi-party system; intesification o

f bipolar consolidatio~i in most part of tlie country; and, emergence of distinct regional parties.