Two events that occurred within the last week juxtaposed two stark realities. And offer two distinct choices for the voter. The first was the congregation of a dozen political strange bedfellows for H.D. Kumaraswamy’s swearing-in, in what presages the formation of a federal front to challenge the BJP. And the second event was the high-visibility blitzkrieg across the media showcasing four years of the Narendra Modi sarkar’s achievements with a massive ad-spend. So the voter is confronted with a fairly clear political menu to choose from between a rag-a-tag coalition in the offing, versus an established monolith in the penultimate year before general elections.
The Karnataka event is a forerunner to feudal satraps uniting in an unwieldy formation, which is akin to a start-up. Such a formation incubates another doomed-to-fail experimental form of governance prone to repeat the historic failures of the Janata Party in 1977, the National Front in 1989 and the United Front of 1996. Because history must act as a ready reckoner to the brevity of rule during those three periods, when political promiscuity plunged the country into inevitable instability. The second event showcasing the achievements of four years of BJP rule poses a choice to assess whether our lives and livelihoods were bettered during the BJP-led government. And even if it was not achche din, is the BJP’s “saaf niyat” motivating enough to vote for Modi 2.0? Because its new tag line — “Saaf niyat, sahi vikas” — is a whittled down version of achche din of 2014 that lacks both optimism and emotional resonance. Yet, the choice before the voter is to invest his/her vote for the next five years in a political bl
ue chip, which has its organisational strengths, being a well-entrenched monolith, and the biggest political party in the world, versus a flimsy start-up?
Post-Karnataka heralds the resurrection of regionalism. Asserting regional supremacy per se is not sinister in itself and is healthy in asserting the federal nature of a heterogeneous polity. Because regional dominance is as vital as is a strong Opposition to maintain checks and balances to central power. Especially when a President or Prime Minister is perceived as assuming “super presidency”, or in India’s case, “super prime ministership”. However, when coalescing is devoid of a strong counter-proposition on economic and governance agenda, it makes for an anarchist formula that is bound to collapse under the weight of its contradictions and lust for power, with multiple claimants for the post of PM.
The Karnataka conundrum presages an ominous trend when a regional party with a limited support base wrests the chief ministership. This could well be replicated at the national level in post-poll power-sharing. Because in pledging support to a party that won just 37 seats in a House of 224, is inversely disproportionate to the mandate. And if such a scenario replicates at the Centre in 2019, we could well have a puppet Prime Minister. In the event of a fractured mandate, hypothetically, it could well make way for even a Tejashwi Yadav to be propped up as PM if his party attains the highest number of seats amongst the federal constituents. And even those opposed to Mr Modi would admit that’s a scary prospect. The federal formula of power-sharing will be just that: you and I the gullible, vote for X, but who could be coronated PM could be a leader whose party possibly won by the lower end of just two-digit seats in a House of 545. Would such a disproportionate ascension be reflective of the will of the people?
Besides, each of the 12 aspirants that will likely come together under the federal front are not only dynastic, but most have disproportionate asset cases pending against them.
Any which way, 2019 will see two sets of coalitions pitted against each other. The ideal scenario is for the BJP to mend fences with aggrieved, alienated, or on-the-cusp allies like the Shiv Sena, Akali Dal and the JD(U), as also forge new pre-poll alliances. In the eventuality of fractured mandates, pre-poll coalitions hold a semblance of credibility over post-poll alliances, provided they are ideologically coherent. Because the voter then makes an informed choice knowing the set of parties he is voting for. As against that, post-electoral alliances “ultra vires” the mandate of the people, (a Latin phrase that best describes “that beyond the powers”), who would have voted differently had the alliance been announced before the elections. It is therefore imperative a presidential order removes ambiguities and reiterates pre-electoral formations get preference over post-poll alliances in the event of a fractured verdict in the general elections. Because once the voter has cast his mandate, democratic choices go
out of his hands and are thereafter determined amongst the 550 members of Parliament, which makes government formation more opaque and exclusivist.
The recent Centre for the Study of Developing Societies “mood of the nation” survey leaves the ruling party little reason for complacency. All said and done, should the anti-Modi forces gain momentum and achieve a high “index of opposition unity”, the BJP cannot rest on its half-achieved laurels. Because only should Modicare rollout in time; the GoI net higher GST collections by year end, and the goal of “har gareeb ko ghar, toilet, bijli aur cooking gas” come to fruition, can it swing sceptics back in their favour. So the next six months is a crucial period of consolidation and delivery for the BJP. Because formation of “waves” occur roughly three months prior to elections, and peak by the last lap of electioneering. Ultimately, political arithmetic will be determined by the success of the economy and prevailing sentiments around end-2018, overriding concerns of Opposition chemistry, should the Modi think tank even remotely succeed in reigniting the euphoria of 2014 by expediting delivery on flagship schemes, accelerating domestic investment and job growth?
