Subject - Does coalition politics create compulsions that are insurmountable?

J

Subject - Does coalition politics create compulsions that are insurmountable? Does coalition politics create compulsions that are insurmountable? Let’s deconstruct the beast called coalition a bit. For the UPA, which is struggling to stay above the 272 mark, it means turning a blind to eye to what coalition partners do to their ministries. The end result is smaller parties in the coalition create their own fiefdoms – Trinamool Congress’ eagerness to hang on to the railway ministry, the DMK’s insistence on telecom and the NCP demanding the home portfolio in Maharashtra are a case in point. It’s patently unhealthy for general governance, but for the bigger parties surviving in power surely calls for many compromises. Smaller parties have their own operational dynamics which might be at odds with the government these are part of. These state-based parties have to reach out to and pamper their own constituencies in the districts and rural areas. Patil’s morality drive cannot be a case of individual preference. He is obviously catering to the sensibilities of his constituents back home. If Mumbai slips off the radar sometimes, it does not matter. The case of Mamata Banerjee is too clear – railways can wait, it is West Bengal that matters. Crucial ministries allow the parties to dole out favours to keep the vote base happy, and make money to keep the party going. With big parties following their own agenda – they also have to keep their constituents satisfied — and the smaller ones following their own, it is the cohesiveness in the approach to governance that suffers. The days of single-party rule are over. With both the major parties – the Congress and the BJP – gradually losing hold over the states, it’s going to be more complicated in future. With a major share of seats at their command, coalition partners will get more demanding. There will be more compromises, and by extension, more trouble for governance. --