|
Article |
|
INDIAN ELECTIONS: EMERGING TRENDS-I Fahmida Ashraf *I. Indian Parliamentary Democracy The Constitution of India provides for a parliamentary system of government, based on the British model. Since 1947, democratic institutions have been working in India except only for a brief suspension period of 18 months during 1975-77, when Mrs. Indira Gandhi declared Emergency in the country. So far there has been a smooth transfer of power at the Center through 13 general elections. However, while the first nine general elections (1952, 1957, 1962, 1967, 1971, 1977, 1980, 1984 and 1989) were held over a period of about forty (40) years, the last four general elections (1991, 1996, 1998 and 1999) have been held within ten (10) years. The fact that the parliamentary system in India did not collapse over the years has given it an operational legitimacy. However, frequent elections have not been successful in providing stable and effective governments. An Indian political analyst, S. K. Khanna, argues: "We can ignore the erosion in the four major pillars of our democracy, namely, the party system, electoral system, parliamentary system and the administrative system only at the cost of our peril. It would also be foolhardy to deny the need of urgent reforms in our Constitution, electoral and other relevant laws as advocated by eminent constitutional experts".1 He further says, "there is urgent need, therefore, quite apart from its long term necessity to present the agenda for an alternative framework of both governance and democracy and for dealing with the growing virus of corruption, communalism, criminalisation and, worst of all, immorality among those who happen to be in power, all of this affecting the nature of the Indian state".2 A thorough analysis of the working of parliamentary democracy in India, over five decades, highlights some weaknesses in the system which can also be regarded as major reasons for its ineffective working. Some major weaknesses are discussed as follows: 1. Instability syndrome: The emergence of coalition governments at the centre, more specifically during the last decade, has added the instability syndrome to Indian parliamentary democracy. The phenomenon of coalition governments is discussed in a separate section in this paper. According to M. Prasad Singh, an Indian scholar, "the cementing bond of coalitions in India has been negative rather than positive".3 For example, during the period of Congress’s predominance, “non-Congressism” was an issue during elections till 1989. During 1990’s this trend was replaced by “anti-BJPism”. However, this trend has again been replaced, in a short time period, by the need of political alliances to form a government. The trend of unstable coalition governments at the centre has led to the emergence of various debates in India, such as: is there a need for amendments in the Constitution for ensuring a degree of stability to coalition governments; whether Presidential system would be more appropriate; should the President be given the power to form National government; should the speaker of Lok Sabha be given power to work out an alternative government, as in Sweden, Germany (Basic Law) and Denmark; should pre-election alliances be encouraged rather than post-election alliances; should there be steps to reduce the number of political parties; should there be proportional representation, or List system, or single transferable vote system, or multi-member constituencies; and should defections be banned completely? The BJP government has been stressing on the need to review the Constitution. Indian Prime Minister, Mr.Vajpayee, in his speech during a special session of Parliament, on January 28, 2000, proposed “the establishment of a commission to review the Constitution and make recommendations aimed at ensuring political stability at the centre".4 However, the Indian President, K.R. Narayanan, during the same parliamentary session, spoke against the revision of the Constitution. He said " We have to consider whether it is the Constitution that has failed us or whether it is we who have failed the Constitution our experience of instability in government is perhaps not sufficient reason to discard the parliamentary system in favor of the Presidential or any other system".5 The opposition parties in India, including Congress, CPI, CPI (M), are against any change in the Constitution. Despite the opposition, the Vajpayee government on February 1, 2000, announced the formation of a National Commission to review the Constitution of India. As stated by the Indian Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Pramod Mahajan, the Commission is “to examine in the light of the experience of the past 50 years as to how best the Constitution can respond to the changing needs of an efficient, smooth and effective system of governance and scio-economic development of a modern India within the framework of the parliamentary democracy, and to recommend changes, if any, that are required, in the Constitution without interfering with its basic structure or features”.6 The Parliamentary Affairs Minister’s statement shows that apparently BJP has, in view of the general opposition, softened its stand on the question of reviewing the Constitution. Earlier, BJP’s Union Law Minister, Ram Jethmalani, and Union Home Minister, L. K. Advani, had suggested that Presidential system would be suitable for India. The National Commission is to complete its work within a year and its recommendations are to be placed before the parliament. As regards reactions by political parties, such as Congress (I), CPI, CPI(M) on the setting up of the Commission, they have urged for political consensus. An Indian analyst, Mr. A. G. Noorani, writes: “It (BJP) lacks the requisite two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha, despite its allies, and even a simple majority in the Rajya Sabha. Yet it flatly refused to consult the other parties either on the terms of reference or the composition of the commission it set up on February 1 to review the ConstitutionÉThe timing, the tearing hurry and the utter lack of candor reveal an intent to deceive. Nothing is being done about electoral or other reforms, which are urgently needed, and on which proposals and drafts are ready. Constitutional revision is a national undertaking in which all should be on board at the time of the take-off”.7 2. Corrupt Leadership: An analysis of the political leadership that has emerged over the period in India shows that political corruption is increasing. Party leaders, while allotting tickets to members during elections, do not take into account various corruption charges levied against them. The political interest is given preference. As very aptly summarized by an Indian scholar, S.K. Khanna, "Today no political party can honestly claim that it has no criminal elements within its fold. The criminal elements have not entered the august portals of the parliament and state legislatures by accident. Rather, the political parties have been busy wooing criminals on a competitive basis during the last few elections. Today they hold the key to electoral success and grabbing power. No one seems to have the least compunction about it. A former prime minister and several former chief ministers and many more former ministers are facing trial on criminal charges including charges of buying votes of members of parliament to save a minority government. The same is true of several sitting as well as former members of the parliament and state legislatures”.8 For example, during the elections in 1991, Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav of Janata Dal was accused of rigging elections in Bihar.9 Since, because of him, the Janata Dal and its allies won majority seats in Bihar, the accusations were not examined. The Indian Election Commissioner, G.V.G. Krishnamurthy, is on record to have said that “the situation is threatening to degenerate into government of the criminals, for the criminals, by the criminals".10 As has been seen even a dreaded outlaw can get elected to the parliament. Pholan Devi, though representing the oppressed class but legally a renowned bandit, got elected to the parliament. There is no legal bar for such people to contest elections. Within the political parties democratic process for selection of candidates and leaders is not adopted, meaning internal party elections, rather candidates are selected on the basis of vested interests. This practice makes a negative impact on the democratic process in India. As analyzed by S.K. Khanna: “When fair means or bending and stretching of rules proved inadequate to the task, foul means were used. This has given rise to a huge black economy (larger than 40% of GDP) attendant criminalization, wastage of the nation’s scarce resources and diversion of investment into unproductive assets, like gold and real estate. Both the black money and the stretching of practices has led to policy failures, loss of credibility of policy makers and to undercutting of democracy”.11 3. Lack of Effective Opposition: A negative factor of Indian parliamentary democracy has been the absence of a strong and effective opposition. For the first three decades the Congress Party enjoyed monopoly of power. Though opposition parties existed but they were divided, ill-organized and lacked ideological basis and thus were incapable of providing an alternative government. The only example of coordinated effort is that during the Emergency period in 1975-77 the opposition parties formed a new party, the Janata Party, to participate in general elections in March 1977. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh and Lok Dal were the main parties in the alliance. The Janata Party, achieving a landslide victory by reducing Congress’s Lok Sabha seats from 352 to 154, was able to form government at the centre, but internal differences resulted in the disintegration of the party. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh broke away from the Janata party in 1980 and formed the Bharatiya Janata Party. The emergence of coalition governments has also not united the opposition as a bloc. Various political parties form alliances on political basis and not on ideological basis. Thus, because of ideological differences the alliance even when in opposition has not played an effective role. Political parties have also changed alliances during elections. For example the United Front coalition government formed after the 1996 elections had 13 parties. Main parties included Janata Dal, Telugu Desam Parties, Samajwadi Party, Assam Gana Parishad, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam (MDMK), United Republican party of India, and Peasants and Workers Party (PWP). In 1998 general elections the MDMK allied with the Bharatiya Janata Party and PWP participated in the elections as an independent party. During the elections held in 1999, there were only two coalitions, one led by Bharatiya Janata Party and the second led by Congress (I). Therefore, the parties in United Front coalition joined either of the two coalitions or the parties participated as independent parties. 4. Centre-State relations: An analysis of the Indian political system reveals that it is based on "contradictory principles of centralisation and decentralisation".12 India has a highly centralised federal system of government. This factor is discussed in detail in the section “Issues of Decentralisation” in this paper. However, one aspect that may be mentioned here is that the central government has interfered in the working of State governments, irrespective of the fact whether the same party was in power at the centre and the state or otherwise. This is contrary to the spirit of the working of a parliamentary government. For example, the Congress (I) governments at the centre appointed Chief Ministers of its own choice in various states, quite often they were not even members of the state legislature. As examples it may be noted that after elections in 1980 Mr. Vishwanath Pratap Singh, A. R. Antulay and Arjun Singh were appointed Chief Ministers of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, respectively, by the Congress (I) government at the Centre, keeping in view its own interests. Similarly, after the state assembly elections in 1985, the Congress (I) government at the centre influenced the appointments of Chief Ministers. The National Front government formed in 1989 nominated Om Prakash Chautala as Chief Minister of Haryana, under pressures form his father, Mr. Devi Lal, whose support was important for governments stability. This act, later resulted in friction within the Front and led to many resignations by the party ministers. In states where the opposition parties were in power, the Central Government created hurdles and manipulated their dismissals. "This game of toppling Assemblies under the Control of opposition parities assumed serious dimensions in 1977 and 1980 when the Janata government and the Congress (I) Government dissolved nine assemblies each before the expiry of their term".13 As another example in 1984, the N.T. Rama Rao government in Andhra Pradesh, which had majority support, was dismissed without any justification. Thus, such actions are greatly undermining the working of parliamentary system in India. 5. Role of Caste in Indian Political System: The caste system is still a dominant factor of Indian parliamentary system. "It is estimated that the dalits, the tribals, the backward classes and the various cultural and religious minorities and the poorer and exploited sections of women constitute more than 60 % of the Indian population".14 For political gains, caste sentiments have been exploited. One example is that of the Dalits. As a constituency possessing a significant vote bank, one or the other political party woos it. Prof. Morris Jones has rightly observed: “in India politics is more important to castes, and castes are more important to politics than before”. Prof. Roudolphus writes: “within the new context of political democracy caste remains a central element of India’s society even while adapting itself to the values and methods of democratic politics. Indeed it has become one of the chief means by which the Indian masses have been attached to the process of democratic politics”.15 6. Defections: Political defection or floor crossing is another reason of unsuccessful working of parliamentary democracy in India. Subhash C. Kashyap defines political defection as: “covers the change of party affiliation both from the opposition to the government side or vice versa as also changes as between the parties on the same side of the House i.e. between the constituent units of the coalition government or between the different parties sitting on the opposition benches".16 Political defection in India became a serious factor after the fourth general elections in 1967. The Congress (I) could not gain clear-cut majority in many states and the opposition parties, not keeping in view their ideological differences etc, joined hands to form government. "It has been estimated that during a period of five years after the fourth general election over 1050 defections took place".17 Thus, this resulted in frequent break down of ministries in states causing political instability. The Congress government in 1967 appointed a committee, headed by Y.B. Chavan, then Union Home Minister, to study the defection syndrome. The recommendations of the Committee to curb defections could not be implemented as they lacked support of various political parties. The Janata Government, in May 1977, tried to move an Anti-Defection Bill in the parliament. However, it failed because of its differences with the Congress party. Later, the Janata Government lost power because of defections. Attempts have been made by various governments to curb the defection practice, but because of differences among various political parties, such attempts failed. The Rajiv Gandhi government was successful in this regard as through the 52nd amendment, it 'provided that the members of Parliament and State legislatures were liable to be disqualified from membership of the house if they leave the party on the symbol of which they have contested the election'.18 However, this does not include leaving the party or splitting of the party. This loophole has proved detrimental for the coalition governments being formed during the 90’s. For example, in 1991, the National Front government headed by V. P. Singh fell because of the withdrawal of the support by the BJP, though it was not part of the alliance but supported it from outside. Again, the government of BJP and allies in 1998 was ousted due to the defection of Jayalalitha of AIADMK (18 seats in Lok Sabha), one of the alliance partners. The BJP-led alliance lost vote of confidence by one vote and fresh elections were held in 1999. Thus, under the loose political alliances that are being formed, at present, support of each member political party is important. Defection by any one member political party, no matter if it has fewer seats, can prove detrimental to the coalition government. II. Issue of Decentralisation The Indian Republic has been described as 'a Union of States' in the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a federal system but with an inherent unitary character. Part XI: "Relations between the Union and the States" of the Indian Constitution deals with the legislative powers of the centre and the states. It provides for the "Union List", specifying centre’s legislative powers; “State List” specifying states’ legislative powers and a "Concurrent List", specifying matters where both the centre and the state have power to legislate. However, the Constitution provides the central government with some powers whereby the centre may interfere in state's jurisdiction. For example, Article 249 allows the centre to legislate on matters specified in "State List" if “it is necessary or expedient in the national interest"; Article 248 gives 'all residuary powers of legislation' to the centre, meaning the central parliament has exclusive powers to legislate on matters not mentioned in the Concurrent list or State list; Article 356 allows the President to dismiss any state legislature if he is convinced that the state legislature is not working according to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the problems relating to the federal system in India are concerned with the operational aspect of the Constitution, as the Constitution gives excess weightage to the centre at the expense of the states. For almost two decades, one party, the Congress, dominated the Indian political system, both at the centre and the state level. Thus, there was smooth relationship between the centre and the states. However, after 1967, coalition governments emerged in various states, such as, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala etc. This resulted in the development of friction in Indian federal polity. "For the first time, the Congress party's dominant position was destroyed and the Indian political system was exposed to serious strains. A very vocal demand was made by the non-Congress and the SVD-governments in different states for restructuring the Union-State relations and enhancing the autonomy of the states".19 Though, in later years, Congress (I) was able to form governments at the centre and majority of the states, yet regional political parties gained power in the states, such as, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Kerala and West Bengal. Also, in states where the Congress (I) formed government, regional political parties emerged as influential parties, thus diluting Congress (I)’s monopoly. Since 1980s regionalism has been on the rise in India which has resulted in political realignments leading to the rise of non-Congress party coalitions and regional parties in the state legislatures. These developments have created an interest among political parties for encouraging decentralization and for building a genuine federal polity. It was in this context that Mrs. Indira Gandhi established the Sarkaria Commission in June 1983, with a view to "examine the working of the arrangements as may be appropriate within the present constitutional frame-work".20 The Commission submitted its report in 1988. Some important recommendations in the report are: "the establishment of an inter-state council as a forum to discuss federal issues of national importance; reconstitution of the National Development Council so that it would work along side the newly established Inter-state Council on issues of economic planning and development; an informal consultation with the state governments whenever the Union parliament decides to make legislation on an item in the concurrent list; Article 356 to be used very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a measure of last resort, when all available alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a break-down of constitutional machinery in the state".21 The Commission's report was debated among scholars and politicians. However, there was no consensus regarding the implementation of its proposals. An interest among the various political parties for building a genuine federal system still exists. For example, the National Front in its election manifesto of 1989 emphasized that it would "reverse the over centralization, brought about by the ruling party". The United Front government in 1996 issued a policy document known as “Common Minimum Programme (CMP)”. "This document unveiled the United Front’s strategy with respect to a redefinition of federal relations in India".22 The CMP called for the implementation of the Sarkaria Commission recommendations. The United Front government appointed Mr. J.B. Patnaik, Orissa's Chief Minister, to review the Sarkaria Commission report and prepare a paper on recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission in consultation with other Chief Ministers. However, the recommendations submitted in “Patnaik Review” were not released by the United Front government. The BJP in its 1998 election manifesto also promised to implement the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission, to take steps to prevent misuse of Article 356 and to appoint a commission to review the Constitution in the light of experience of the past 50 years. In 1999, the BJP, after forming government under coalition of National Democratic Alliance, has been supporting the need to review the Constitution, centre-state relations and changes in Article 356. In view of the changing nature of Indian polity in the nineties, political parties in India are still supporting the need for reviewing some of the Articles in the Constitution to establish a more federal system in India. However, so far no consensus regarding the nature of changes to be made, has been reached. III. Secularism India has a plural society. Its leaders have been stressing that India is a "Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic". An analysis of 50 years of Indian history shows that a viable Indian nation has not emerged yet. Many reasons can be pointed out, for example, the manner in which constitutional principles were implemented by various governments, nature of electoral compulsions etc. According to Ramakrishna Hegde "no political party is wholly communal or secular and that every party has its share of communalists as well as secularists. We have seen major parties playing the communal and secular cards periodically, according to the needs of electoral politics".23 Mr. Mushirul Hasan in his book, “Legacy of a Divided Nation: India’s Muslims since Independence” writes: "Ideological coherence was lacking in the ruling party as well as the opposition. Secular slogans were reiterated ad nauseam, only to be discarded openly or in more subtle ways. Parties which waxed eloquent about national integration forged unprincipled electoral alliances and in elections selected candidates with the old communal, caste and linguistic considerations in mind".24 The Congress party, propagating secular ideals, dominated Indian political scene for about three decades. An evaluation of its practical performance brings out the fact that its leaders were not able to maintain party’s secular nature. Various Congress governments took often communalism-dominated decisions. Mr. Vallabhai Patel, who had much influence in Congress and was India's first home minister, suspected Muslim loyalty. Mr. Patel removed ‘suspected’ Muslim officials, who decided to stay in India in 1947, from office. He “resisted Nehru's efforts to reserve certain residential areas in Delhi for Muslims, and opposed his suggestion of employing Muslims to deal with Muslim refugees".25 In 1950, Nehru had to concede: "during the last two and a half years or more we have gradually drifted because of the pressure of circumstances towards a communal reaction to the communal problem".26 Various communities have been exploited for gaining political gains or for creating a counter force to the opposition. For example, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, heading Congress (I), after 1977 debacle suspecting the loyalty of Muslims and the Harijans strengthened her power base by wooing the upper-caste Hindu vote. She played the communal card in various states to offset electoral reverses. Later, even Rajiv Gandhi, entangled in the political survival game, was unable to revive the secular image of Congress party. The Narasimha Rao government's failure to protect the Babri Majid was another blow to Congress's so-called secular politics. The analysis of elections held in India at the state and national level shows a gradual increase in the number of political parties being formed on the basis of religion, region, language, caste, and social and economic ideologies, contrary to the democratic norm of political parties being formed on the basis of social, economic and political programmes. Some such major regional parties are, TDP in Andhra Pradesh, AIADMK, TMC and DMK in Tamil Nadu, AGP in Assam, Akali Dal in East Punjab, BSP and Samajwadi party in Uttar Pradesh, Rashtriya Janata Dal and Samata Party in Bihar, Shiv Sena in Maharashtra and HVP in Haryana. It may also be noted that the so-called secular parties, during elections, nominate candidates on communal grounds. If candidates representing other communities, caste etc are given party ticket, it has been so because of political reasons and not ideological reasons. The Bharatiya Janata Party, supporter of Hindutva, has been using the Hindu communal card. The BJP was not successful till 1989 when it gained significantly during local elections. This gave it a boost at the national level as well. It openly acknowledged its links with the RSS and VHP, which clearly showed that it was playing the Hindu card. The BJP, in 1986, exploited the situation which arose due to the Indian Supreme Court's decision regarding the Shah Bano case. The case was related to the question of providing maintenance allowance by the husband to Ms. Shah Bano, who had been divorced. The husband’s stand was that according to the ‘Shariat’ (Muslim Law) he is required to pay maintenance allowance during the period of ‘idaat’ only. However, the Indian Supreme Court upheld the decision of the judicial magistrate for payment of the allowance after the expiry of the ‘idaat’ period. The Supreme Court's decision resulted in resentment among the Muslim Community and Rajiv Gandhi had to rescind the Supreme Court decision in a Lok Sabha session. As it was election year, Rajiv Gandhi was afraid to lose the Muslim votes in view of the Supreme Court’s decision. However, the BJP campaigned for establishment of Hindu state and regarded Rajiv Gandhi's act as taken under a minority group's pressure. It was in this backdrop that BJP was able to increase its vote bank and won 88 seats in 1989 and 123 seats in 1991. Thus, by 1996, the BJP emerged as the largest party in Lok Sabha, though it was not able to form government. The BJP, in its election manifesto of 1998, clearly stated “it will explore all consensual, legal and constitutional means to build a temple at Ayodhya; and abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution". However, since in 1999, it contested election under a pre-poll alliance, National Democratic Alliance (NDA), it had to compromise on its Hindutva policy. The NDA manifesto stated that the alliance would work for “reconciliation with minorities.” However, later events show that BJP is unable to keep its Hindutva policy dormant. The VHP's activities against the Christian Community and the visit of the Pope to India are examples. The BJP government was unable to contain its activities. The Ayodhya issue and the question of building a ‘Mandir’ (Hindu temple) there is another example. The BJP's hidden support to its Hindutva agenda is creating ripples in NDA. In December 1999, during a meeting of the General Council in Chennai, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam of Tamil Nadu categorically stated that DMK "will give no quarter to the BJP or any other political entity in the NDA to pursue its exclusivist or individual agenda".27 The Indian political parties with declaratory secular policies were practically following non-secular policies, but the rise of Bharatiya Janata Party is a real threat even to the declaratory secular image of India. However, the formation of coalition governments is being seen as a development, which would marginalise the Hindutva policy of BJP. Practically, BJP may not succeed in suppressing Hindutva ripples completely, formation of coalition government will keep pressure on BJP for restraining its Hindutva policy in order to save the government. An extreme measure against its Hindutva policy by any one or some of the components of the alliance may result in the holding of new elections. IV. The Decline of Congress party While analyzing various elections in India, an important factor to be noted and studied is the decline in Congress party's popularity graph which resulted in a political vacuum leading to the struggle among various other political parties for filling the gap. One party which has emerged victorious so far, is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). However, BJP has only emerged as the largest party and has failed to form government as a single party. Contrary to this, the Congress ruled India, as a single party forming government, for about three decades. The Congress party had a strong leadership from the beginning, which was able to control inter-party friction and also maintain constant contact with the masses. After the death of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1964, it faced a leadership crisis for a brief period but the Mrs. Indira Gandhi as the strong leader. Within the Party Mrs. Gandhi acquired absolute power as the Party leader. One of the obvious reason for the popularity decline of Congress party is the lack of strong leadership, after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Though during the 1970s, the imposition of Emergency by Mrs. Indira Gandhi resulted in a decline in Congress party's support and from 1972 to 1980, Congress was not in power. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, then re-established Congress Party's support and it formed government in 1980. Mrs. Indira Gandhi's assassination in 1984 created a leadership vacuum within the Congress Party. Many Party members were aspiring to become the Party leader resulting in inner-party groupings. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, son of Mrs. Gandhi, was supported as the leader of the party by the hard-core members, to avoid splitting of the Party. In 1984, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, son of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, won a massive mandate - 415 seats in Lok Sabha - owing to the sympathy wave. Thus, Rajiv Gandhi emerged as a charismatic leader. However, political blunders resulted in the decline of support during the general elections in 1989. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was not able to control the situation in East Punjab and also the law and order situation in the North-Eastern states. Rajiv Gandhi's decision to send the Indian Peace-Keeping Force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka in 1987 and IPKF's failure to suppress the Tamils in Sri Lanka and, most importantly, the Bofor Guns scandal resulted in the defeat of Congress party during the 1989 elections. The Congress could win only 197 seats in the Lok Sabha. The assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi during election campaign in 1991, once again created a leadership crisis within the Congress Party. Congress members such as Arjun Singh, Sharad Pawar, N. D. Tiwari and D. Scindia were strong aspirants for the leadership seat. But none of the above members could have emerged as the uniting factor in the Party. Thus, in order to avoid the breaking-up of the Party, the members elected Mr. Narasimha Rao as the Party President. Mr. Narasimha Rao, therefore, emerged as a consensus party leader. The assassination of Rajiv Gandhi also resulted in a sympathy wave for Congress and it won 232 seats in Lok Sabha and formed government. Mr. Narasimha Rao, though proved to be a weak leader, was able to complete the five years’ term of his government. However, this period was marred with in-fighting among Congressmen resulting in growing distance between the masses and the party leaders, deteriorating law and order situation due to bad governance, and a series of "scams” notably the "stock market scam” in 1993. During the later elections in 1996, 1998 and 1999, Congress party could not perform satisfactorily. Its vote bank has decreased, the major reason being the absence of a strong leadership in the party. There are many members of the party who are aspiring to become the party leader but, due to differences among them, there is a danger that the party may break-up. It is for this reason that core members, to prevent the break-up of the party, are supporting Mrs. Sonia Gandhi as a ‘compromise’ leader. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi appointed an eleven-member committee, headed by former Kerala Chief Minister, Aiyer K. Antony, to analyze Congress's defeat in recent election. The Committee presented its report in December 1999. The report has not been made public. However, reportedly, some of the conclusions in the report are: "in the perception of the party's defeated candidates, office-bearers and workers, the Congress leadership had failed to deliver. It had misread public sentiment, entered into questionable political alliances and mismanaged elections. And although only a handful said so, Sonia's foreign origin was an issue".28 As reported, the committee has made 20 recommendations, "calling for sweeping changes relating to inner-party democracy and poll management. It has yet again skirted the issue of leadership but suggested a drastic overhaul of the party organization - the CWC and the PCCS".29 As regards the differences among party members regarding Sonia Gandhi's leadership because of her foreign origin, the issue is being deliberately brushed aside by the core party members. On the fact that the Antony report has also not raised the issue, Mr. Aiyer Antony, in response to media questions, is reported to have said: "All those who are in the Congress understand that Sonia Gandhi is our trumpcard and just because you in the media say so, we are not going to discard our trumpcard".30 One of the important recommendations made in the Antony report is: "distribution of tickets be decentralized. Contrary to the current leadership allocating tickets in consultation with the PCC Chiefs, the panel has said that 75 percent of tickets be distributed on the recommendations of the district Congress committee. The PCC should have a say in the remaining 20 percent, the CWC in 5 percent". Thus, the report suggests internal party reforms so as to make the party members’ performance more responsible and effective. Also, to maintain democratic values in the party, the report has suggested ideological clarity especially regarding economic issues. The important question is whether the committee's recommendations will be implemented for reforming the Congress party. Senior party leaders are reported to have commented that: "Sonia is in no position to make changes. Nor will the coterie allow her to. Those who regard 10, Janpath as their constituency are not going to permit decentralization of power. Distribution of party tickets and unearned appointments to party positions is where their importance lies". 31 The point that is stressed here is that the party had earlier appointed a task force also in 1999 for the same purpose and the task force’s report was not implemented. However, while receiving the Antony report Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is reported to have stressed, "I am going to take action".32 The rise of BJP is attributed to
the decline of Congress party over the years and also failure of other parties, such as,
Janata Dal and United Front (coalition), to provide a strong government at the centre.
Though the BJP has emerged as the largest party, it has not been able to attract a vote
bank, which would have enabled it to form government as a single party. So far, the
coalition governments that have been formed have not proved to be stable or strong
coalition governments. The coalitions had been formed for political reasons i.e. for the
sake of forming a government and not on the basis of ideological unity. Also previous
coalition governments had been formed as post-election alliances. Only the current
National Democratic Alliance is a pre-poll alliance. Due to ideological divergences, the
coalitions, thus, had been a target of internal differences. It is to be seen whether, and
how far, the present alliance remains in a position to continue; whether India, in future,
will be ruled by political alliances; whether, in view of political instability, the
Congress Party, due to its declaratory secular policies, succeeds in reorganizing its
position and re-emerging as the majority party to form government; or whether a third
political party is formed which emerges as the majority party. The apparent situation
seems to be that, for the time being, there is likely to be no escape from the coalition
syndrome, along with its weaknesses, for the Indian political system. REFERENCES
|