Opinion
Towards A Two-Party System
Short of a miracle, no single party will govern India again unless it is a federal party. So why don't the the present UPA and NDA evolve into truly federal parties?
Elections to five states are over. What do they tell? The Congress won in Pondicherry, was defeated in Kerala, got reduced in Assam, slipped in Bengal, and rode piggy-back to a great victory in Tamil Nadu. The results for Congress therefore appear mixed. But this is illusory. All Congress losses were the gains of its allies. The parties opposing the central government are nowhere in sight. It was therefore a spectacular victory for the UPA combine. To cap this, Mrs Sonia Gandhi swept Rae Bareili with a stunning margin. Her personal standing therefore has never been higher. The moment therefore is propitious for the government to move forward towards stability, coherence and improved governance.

Political leaders too often make a common error. They formulate strategy on the assumption that political arrangements remain static. They do not. They have a dynamic of their own. Politicians ignore this at their own peril. Is Mr Prakash Karat too falling into this common error? Immediately after the polls he was asked on TV about the prospects of CPM becoming the lynchpin of a future Third Front. He said that was a long term possibility very much on the horizon.

Why should the CPM contemplate a future Third Front when the present UPA is working so well for it? The error, one suspects, arises from CPM's surmise that the present arrangement is temporary and that the party can always go back to its original position. This is where the political dynamic needs understanding. A mixture of political compulsion and advantage impelled the UPA arrangement. Now the alliance cannot stand still. Either it will move forward to its logical culmination or slip back and disintegrate. The UPA leaders should reflect. They could with advantage consider out-of-the-box ideas to reach a rewarding culmination of the arrangement.

India desperately needs a national party, preferably two national parties. Demands of governance, of the economy and of foreign policy dictate this. Why cannot the UPA evolve into a national party? Before throwing up hands in horror and ridiculing the suggestion, trends preceding the present political situation might usefully be recalled.

Democratic functioning within political parties ended with the tenure of Pandit Nehru and the stint of Mr Lal Bahadur Shastri. Their democratic functioning kept alive, to a large extent, the devolution of power which is so fundamental to a federal polity. Due to human frailty, expediency, permissiveness regarding norms, or whatever, after these two leaders inner-party democracy all but vanished from Indian politics. This severely eroded federalism. That in turn led inevitably to a proliferation of regional parties. This development impelled truncated national parties to strike opportunist alliances with regional partners for mutual benefit. This untidy, opportunist and unstable arrangement was hailed by politicians as a great step towards federalism. The coalition era had arrived, they said. The use of the term, 'coalition dharma', became popular. There is a grotesque flaw in this perception. Federalism cannot be protected by opportunist coalitions. It can only be safeguarded by disciplined federation.

The UPA leaders might seriously consider making the UPA a federal party. It already has a Common Minimum Programme. That could be enlarged and made a party manifesto with directive principles. Drawing up a party constitution of the federation would be a simple affair. Each party's identity could remain intact at the state level. The franchise in each state would be given to the most dominant partner in the federal party. That partner's writ would run in state assembly elections. Smaller partner-groups in the state, whether national or regional, would have to accept decisions of the majority view as final. In state assembly elections, all candidates would have to contest on one symbol endorsed by the majority. To begin with, dominant state partners of the national federal party might retain their election symbols at the state level. Only after passage of time, and with confidence created in the experiment, might they adopt, if they choose to, the federal party's common parliamentary symbol for use also in assembly elections. The candidates for parliamentary elections from each state would be selected at the state level. However, all candidates of the federal party would contest parliamentary elections on one common symbol. That would remove all threats of defection. It would introduce discipline and coherence at the level of parliamentary functioning. To draw up the constitution of a federal party for achieving coherence at the centre without eroding power at the state level is not a difficult task.

In short, democratic functioning absent from most parties at present can, at least in part, be reclaimed by institutionalizing a federal framework for inner party functioning. The UPA has three remaining years in office. If its leaders recognize national priorities and act with determination, they can create India's first federal political party. Are there any genuine ideological hurdles to render this insurmountable? Each participant would gain from a federal arrangement.

If the UPA were to move in this direction the NDA would be impelled to do the same. The Janata Party in 1977 was the only party apart from Congress to have ever governed India as a single party. That became possible because a fraudulent and dictatorial Emergency had been imposed. The beneficiaries of the Janata Party, who, without conscious intent, were propelled by events to seize power in the centre, squandered their legacy. The party disintegrated. Today the BJP is the largest party that was once part of Janata. Many of its stalwarts are drifting away. The relationship of the party's most senior leaders with the RSS is fractured. The party is falling apart because its ideological beliefs are in sharp conflict with electoral advantage. In short, Hindutva has failed. The party leaders know it. That explains their clumsy efforts to somersault. Mr Advani belatedly discovered virtues in Mohammed Ali Jinnah. RSS Chief Sudarshan discovered many peace-like qualities in Prophet Mohammed. He praised the beneficent nature of true Islam. These abrupt about-turns will not do. The party will have to acknowledge what it gained from the Janata and what it lost when it retraced steps to its origins. Only then would it regain the confidence of allies. They might consider then to federate with it permanently. If the BJP accepts this reality the NDA too like the UPA could realistically attempt becoming a federal party. Were this to happen India would get its two-party democratic system.

It is not unlikely that this idea will be contemptuously dismissed by politicians. Nevertheless it has been put on record. One believes that, short of a miracle, no single party will govern India again unless it is a federal party.


Rajinder Puri can be reached at rajinderpuri@yahoo2000.com

 
Daily Mail
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
May 19, 2006 12:00 AM
7
Arun Mahes writes:

>>Panchayat Raj was intended to get power delegated downstream but lack of party democracy and bureacracy inherited from colonial times hasn't made it very viable.

Panchayat Raj solves only the problem of proximity of power to the polity impacted by it. The critical question of on what basis that power will be exercised is not encouraging. In the villages and hamlets across the subcontinent, it will be caste…. with all its institutionalized violence.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
May 19, 2006 12:00 AM
6
Old Mac says .... "In the U.S., the two-party system works well because there is an agreement on the basic vision for the country."

This fact you mention is the key, and why talking about 2 party system in India is pre-mature (as an aside that is the case with most of Rajinder Puri's articles). US is a "developed" country not just economically but in all other aspects. We are a developing country both economically and all other aspects. In addition the complexity that "India" has a highly developed (though badly architected and evolved) social structure.

In the present, I have a more charitable view that proliferation of parties has been a net gain - this proliferation of parties has in fact helped - first much more federalism and secondly competitiveness helped ensuring a strong EC and hence at least free and fair elections at the federal and state levels.

I don't think the Indian "nation" can be build top-down ... there is just too much of a past .... it has to be built "bottoms-up" and for that as much power delegation happens downstream it is better where we get back to "think local and act local" (and I don't think it is incongruent with globalization - in fact even more important in the age of globalization).

Panchayat Raj was intended to get power delegated downstream but lack of party democracy and bureacracy inherited from colonial times hasn't made it very viable.

I think we ought to be more talking of presidential system with the Rajya Sabha also elected (like the Senate - in fact having equal number of Senator from each state).
Arun Maheshwari
Bangalore, India
May 19, 2006 12:00 AM
5
I support the two-party system. It means a limited but clear choice for the electorate. Second, it renders fringe, sectarian & caste elements (called “factions” in The Federalist Papers) irrelevant outside a party and restrained inside. Third, it forces a basic compromise inside a party while requiring contrast with the other party. Fourth, party members’ petty squabbles are trumped by the focus on gaining and maintaining meaningful power. Fifth, it provides swift accountability if one party is infected with hubris or insanity. Sixth, intra-party politics will be proving grounds for individuals with true leadership potential and preview the management style of the party. Seventh, bad and incompetent apples will get clipped quickly as they damage prospects for power (i.e. Modi and BJP).

In the U.S., the two-party system works well because there is an agreement on the basic vision for the country. Notwithstanding their vituperative rhetoric, the differences are miniscule. They are mostly a matter of degree of policy prescriptions rather than radically different visions for the country. In India, however, there isn’t even a single idea around which the entire country can rally. So, while the two-party system may not solve all the problems, it’s an improvement over the current mess.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
May 18, 2006 12:00 AM
4
The best thing that one can wish would be for the Congress to liberate itself from the Nehru/Gandhi dynasty, and the BJP to liberate itself from the RSS. Then both parties can compete for votes from all communities across the board, which would considerably deflate the vote banks.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
May 18, 2006 12:00 AM
3
It will be good if India had 2 party systems either Congress or B.J.P. The reason for the growth of regional parties in different states is due to the wrong policies of Congress since Independence of India. Because of the high handedness of Congress regional parties like Telugu Desam, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Janata Dal, Janata Party and lot others had come into existence in India. Congress never gave importance to regional leaders of that party, so they started forming their own parties due to insults. For Congress only their supreme dynasty leaders like Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Sanjay, Sonia is important. And that one family expects other congressmen, however big they may be, to do “pooja” in their feet. Although India got freedom from British imperialists but it didn’t get freedom from this highly one profile autocratic family. Congress has destroyed India absolutely by their opportunist policies. B.J.P. and Communist Party are independent in their own creation and both are cadre-based parties and really they will do many good to our country instead of Congress. The NDA lost in 2004 parliamentary elections in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The reason is anti-incumbency and highhandedness of Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu and not due to Gujarat riots. Chandrababu Naidu is a foolish person, only looked after urban people in Andhra leaving rural areas, that is the reason of loss from Andhra and not Gujarat riots is the reason. It will be a difficult task to get 2 party system in India. If Congress gets rid of that one family, then there will be a possibility of realignment and Congress might become more powerful in future, otherwise not.
shivkumar
Mumbai, India
May 17, 2006 12:00 AM
2
Maratha .... don't know whether or not Hindutva failed. I am though from the school of thought that BJP lost Lok Sabha due to Modi/Gujarat. The basis is that they lost their alliance with the DMK due to not getting rid of Modi then. Tamil Nadu made all the difference finally. They didn't think of the worst case because they were too sure of their own success - usually the seeds of failure are sown during success. They won the battle (Gujarat and even there didn't win as many as thought for the Lok Sabha from Gujarat) and lost the War. I know one Hindu philosophy that failed - you pay for your sins in this life not in next ones. The sooner we get out of this "pay for sins in next life" and accept that all accounts get settled right here in this life, a lot of social ills that plague us will go with it :-)
Arun Maheshwari
Bangalore, India
May 17, 2006 12:00 AM
1
Mr Puri's suggestion has merit. The prospects of UPA and NDA becoming national parties may appear bleak now because of sharp ideological differences within the two coalitions, but if they have been able to function as stable coalitions with common programs for lasting periods of time, and if they can be sufficiently pragmatic for the good of the nation, one can consider such an eventuality to be within the bounds of possibility.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY