The Nataka (Drama in
Kannada) that unfolded in Karnataka has put the dharma of politics or more precisely coalition politics at an all
time low. It is unfortunate that even nearly sixty years after enacting our
constitution, we are unable to produce strong and committed political parties
which can command majority support and run a stable government for a full five
year term.
Karnataka had a congress chief minister from 2004 to February 2006
though congress was the second largest party (After BJP). The coalition was
broken in 2006 and quickly JD(S) allied with BJP agreeing a 20-20 power sharing
pact. A JD(S) CM was sworn in though he belonged to the neither the single
largest party nor the second largest party.
When the JD(S) disagreed to transfer power in October 2007 as per
the agreement.(Ideology??). There was high drama in the state. Subsequently
after a month of hectic political developments JD(S) decided to realign with
BJP. Now on November 19 they decided to again withdraw support to BJP for
reason best known to them.
Where is the so called ideology in all these developments? A party
(Read JD(S)) shifts stands between congress and BJP which have quite
diametrically opposite ideologies in many aspects. It wobbles even when it is
in alliance. These kinds of movements are completely in contrary to our
democratic philosophy. Part of the blame is of course on the people of
Karnataka for giving such a fractured mandate. But the political parties have
used the people’s mandate to play politics of a very low order.
This is not the first instance of such political movements. We have
had plenty of instances since 1993 in both the centre and state levels. We have
seen shifting stands of AIADMK (with BJP), we have seen how BSP played its
political cards recently. Not to forget are political dynamics in Kerala and Goa . But the one that took place in Karnataka became more
conspicuous as Karnataka is one of the more progressive states in our country
and more importantly the political dynamics was arguably the worst the country
has seen so far.
Where do we go from here is the more important question that we need
to ask ourselves. The country has by and large come to terms with coalition
politics. It’s beyond question that “Coalition politics” is here to stay. But
the country cannot afford to see the political acts that took place in
Karnataka again and again. From political, Economic and moral grounds, such
developments are certainly uncalled for. All political parties in Karnataka had
their own arguments and explanations for the opportunist behavior exhibited by
them. But none of the arguments sound plausible to masses in our nation. Public
opinion has come down heavily on so called political leaders.
Does all this mean that we have to learn to survive with such
political dynamics? Should the country come to terms with such politics? It’s
unfortunate if such a thing happens. But it’s unlikely that these kinds of
politics will eventually crystallize or institutionalize. Our country being young and increasingly becoming “Public-spirited”
should not allow such developments to hamper the process of development that is
heralding resurgence of our country.
A two party system looks ideal to tackle such situation. But we have
all seen how political parties reacted when our former president mooted such an
idea. Some went on to say it is an “Undemocratic” idea. So by and large, the
idea will remain on paper and does not seem to be acceptable to political
parties and civil societies. This is also unlikely to please the courts as
courts have found a powerful tool of “Basic structure of constitution” to
invoke when need arises. It is to be well acknowledged here that in a
democratic set up like ours every person has a right to have an ideology which
consequently manifests into multiple parties. So two party systems is
undemocratic in a certain way.
One possible solution for this can be to do away with post poll
coalitions or post poll alliances. Political parties have no moral ground to
deny this law. Parties committed to ideology cannot vacillate between their
positions. (We have seen how JD(S) has made shrewd moves to take political
mileage between congress and BJP). Our political parties have ideology at least
on paper. So they have to ally with one or the other party which have similar
ideology before going for polls. It’s unthinkable that a political party can
change its ideology at least on paper. A pre poll alliance will also give the
electorate a fair idea of the inherent dynamics and mottos of political
leadership.
To this a law like ‘Anti-defection’ law must be added, wherein the
collating parties have no right to part or defect for the next five years. This
will ensure a fairly stable government with collating parties sharing similar ideology.
This cannot be termed as anti-democratic. The argument is only on
ideological grounds that the parties have evolved on their own without
pressure. Proposal only buttress the
ideology evolved by parties.
However one may argue that, if we get a fractured mandate even under
this law or if there are no pre-poll alliances and what if we end up with a
fractured mandate. This looks unlikely as the electorate will be wise enough to
gauge the political moods (after evaluating the pre-poll alliance). Fractured
mandate looks unlikely. In case if such a thing happens, a re election becomes
inevitable. However the electorate will learn to make their political decisions
better if they witness one or two re elections in one or two states. This will
prove to be effective in a long run in many ways.
Another solution proposed by many is in doing away with the
anti-defection law. This may not solve the problem, but may prop up problems
which we have already witnessed in our post independence history.
In ultimate analysis, all these measures are only external and
coercive on the political parties. In the heart of hearts all Indians will look
forward for a public-spirited, well tempered political leadership. We need
politicians who can work without adding any more laws. But to work being loyal
to their ideology and ultimately to principles enshrined in our constitution.
We shall hope that such a day may come.
