India’s political landscape has long been dominated by coalition politics. This happened because of the rise of regional parties, particularly in the country’s south, and later by the increasing influence of politics based on caste. Now, scores of political parties are contesting the elections and neither of the two national parties — Congress and the BJP — is expected to get more than one-third of the 543 seats in the Lok Sabha.
There are both pros and cons to this development. The emergence of numerous regional and caste parties has provided a voice to the people and ensured relative political stability. But there are growing concerns that the multiplication of parties is at the cost of a cogent national vision.
As India goes to the polls, what should voters prioritise? Diversity or unification? Broad representation or a national vision?
I’m an American who emigrated from India almost three decades ago.
India, the seventh largest country in area and the second largest in population is also the world’s largest democracy. It is also one of the younger democracies that is only 62 years old, and is still maturing. Her landmass is about as much as the continent of Europe and she is as much, if not more, diverse.
The ‘Idea of India’ has helped her sustain herself despite all odds and being in a rather turbulent neighborhood. This ‘idea’ of ‘unity among diversity’, a paraphrasing of the Latin ‘E Pluribus Unum’ – the motto of the US – is truer here than anywhere else.
Having lived in the US for about 30 years, it is interesting to notice several similarities between a mature and a young democracy. Let me explain.
The US has a Federal system of government, and except for foreign affairs, taxation and defense, almost everything else is decided ‘locally’ at the state level, which in India is termed regional. This is despite the fact that there are only two major political parties that are ‘national’.
In the US, like in India, people vote for pocketbook issues. While there is no promise of providing 25-35 kilos of rice at Rs. 2-3 per kilo, there is always a promise of cutting taxes. Even Mr. Obama has proposed cutting taxes for “95% of Americans”.
The regionalist fervor is alive and well in the US, and that’s why we have ‘blue’ (Democrat leaning) and ‘red’ (Republican leaning) states. Mr. Obama has transcended this pattern by appealing to the red-state crowds as a moderate, turning may states ‘purple’, where the ‘red’ people vote ‘blue’.
This is evident in the fact that the entire Northeast region of the US has no Republican in the House or the Senate, except for the two Senators from Maine; the people decide locally on their candidate for office regardless of the parties represented.
When we examine the US political system, we look at a mature and a rather homogenous population when compared to India. Though there is a lot of diversity in the US, the immigrants have kind of ‘seeped’ in over the last few centuries and have homogenized themselves along the way.
Consider India, where this diversity is several millennia old. In fact, until the British ‘united’ the whole South Asian continent into one country, India was never a one whole. Even the Brits left islands of princely states autonomous. In the over 4000 year history of the subcontinent, the only ones who came close to having large swaths of land under one tutelage were the Mauyras and the Mughals, but they lasted – like the British – only a couple of centuries or so and failed to rule the entire subcontinent.
In essence, to have this huge land and people come forward as one is simply a miracle. The eligible voters in India (740 million) are about two and a half times the entire population of the US (300 million); those who actually cast their votes (about 400 million) still outnumber the American population. The history of India, which is the same as that of the subcontinent, proves that if you have the right circumstances, you can defy the Westphalian concept of a nation-state that many believe is essential to have democracy endure.
In addition, India has a truly independent Election Commission, whereas in the US it is co-chaired by a Republican and a Democrat and hence not an independent body. This is one of the reasons why no third political party has a (fighting) chance to assume any stature. So when Senator Specter wanted to leave the Republicans, he had no choice but to turn to Democrats.
Given this milieu, it is not at all surprising that regional parties are becoming more relevant in India’s political landscape, and flexing their muscle.
Even in the US, the Republicans and Democrats differ in their ideology to reflect their constituencies. The Republican senators from Maine are way liberal than their party platforms, while the Democratic senator from Nebraska is far conservative than his party’s.
In India, which has a Parliamentary system, there is no dearth of political parties. Like individual entrepreneurs, they start small, within a state, and then grow regionally. Ms. Mayawati’s BSP is a good example. The DMK and the AIDMK in Tamil Nadu have already risen to prominence on a similar class of electorate at almost the opposite end of the nation. It wouldn’t be a surprise if parties like BSP and DMK/AIDMK form an alliance and eventually merge.
I believe that this trend will continue as the democracy in India matures. The needs of India are different than those of the US, and the process will so evolve. As it does, the world will notice. If people from several different ethnic stocks, languages, cultures, religions and cuisine can stand together as one, why can’t others? Europe is already trying this magic with a Common Market. Why should the Iraqis follow Dr. Biden’s prescription of three autonomous regions, one each for the Kurds, the Shias and Sunnis?
I am not against democracy.
But democracy has to be two sided coin,economic democracy and political democracy.
In India most of the time it is only political democracy.
It has been too slow in India to translate into meaningful economic changes in one’s life time.
In the meantime generations of people parish in hunger,unemployment,extreme deprivation while the rich keep becomming richer.
Unless there is a economic democracy, only political democracy is a hog wash.
You cant convice a hungry man that freedom of speech all he needs.
There should be bread on the table and a place where to work.
Very good blog. There are defenitely pros and cons. Pros being, every regional issue is addressed at the highest level. People have a feeling of being represented. But on the flip side each issue takes more time to resolve because there is no clear majority for any party and there are issues from different sources. but somehow it works fine. defenitely we need some discipline and transperency in the government. politicians should be held accountable for their actions.
The pros and cons of multiparty democracy were well enunciated by the comments before mine – I would like to add that no country can have a single monolithic community of people (there is always some difference in prayer, customs, accents). If the country does not break up to try to make purer individual pieces then, multiparty democracy is the only way for the people to coexist healthily, in spite of frequent stresses.
Last, Dawn needs to be saluted for its efforts over the past 5 plus years to give unbiased news to its readers vis a vis India. I recollect in the late 90s and early 2000s when most Pak papers appeared more of army mouthpieces than unbiased news disseminators..
“Unity in diversity” is the best description of India, but any form of dominance by any culture, language or religion will lead to its disintegration. I am comes from a hindu family in kerala and culturally I am closer a muslim from kerala than a hindu in Utterpradesh.
Indian elections are a farse.
Democracy is the worst form of government. Thats why the US is a republic and not a democracy.
Democracy = Two Fox and a Chicken deciding whats for dinner.
India is much closer to a democracy. Its dysfunctional.
What India needs is a China like Government to get anywhere. Once the 500 Million living in abject poverty and lifted out of their misery, then we have have franchisement of votes to everyone.
Even the US did not allow everyone to vote. Only landowningMen could vote for a very long time.
South Korea too did something similar.
While, the emergence of new political parties and ‘leaders’ (really rulers) reflects the welcome development of a new set of aspirations in India’s regionally marginalized and lower caste groups, on the whole the actions of the state once in control of these parties has not reflected these aspirations.
Also it must be noted that various groups remain marginalized in India despite its relatively liberal political system, because they just dont have the numbers and are not part of the national consciousness. Kashmir, some NE states and the tribal belt of central India are examples. There have to be some changes in India’s political and representative setup to accommodate the exigencies of these groups. Otherwise the instability will continue.
On one hand I appreciate the regional parties for empowering its respective regions, but on the other hand we now lack a cohesive Indian nationalist agenda by any major national party.
I think any leader who can capture the imagination of a Indian nationalist agenda instead of a north Indian, south Indian, east Indian or west Indian agenda will surely sweep the next election.
India is in need of broad Indian nationalist agenda.
I wish we have democracy like this in Pakistan.
Having spent 4 decades in India, the largest democracy and a decade in the US, the greatest democracy, I am amazed what India has achieved in terms of stability and growth. While US has been struggling to solve it own issues like racism, sexism, corruption etc, India has been doing so with its own version, like poverty, caste, religious conflicts etc. However, despite the immense diversity (25+ languages,5+ major religions,myriad social customs), India had elected women and minorities as prime ministers, chief ministers and presidents on their merits, and has actually been able to inspire other nations to join its territory (Sikkim). It has shown remarkable statesmanship in handling Bangladesh crisis in 1971, and has remained a stable nation in spite of turbulence in all its neighboring countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh and Srilanka).
Democracy in a young third-world poor country with world’s second largest population had little chance to survive when a strong and stable superpower like the Soviet Union collapsed. Indian’s leaders, despite there corrupt and chaotic ways, must be doing something good in keeping the nation together. Otherwise, India wouldn’t be a rising superpower today and an envy (also a model) for the aspiring underdogs.
As compare to other nation with same 60 years age…today I think Indian people and army has done great job to save democracy,
Yes true system has many problems with still there is no other solution ,democracy is the best…
India’s democracy helped over years to maintain some kind of balance among its multitudes. Since there is this minimum basic consensus or understanding among the diversified population on the core democratic principles, there is always scope for shared social evolution, even though the pace of which depends again on a number of other factors.
I was hoping to read the usual biased Pakistani opinions rubbishing India. Very disappointed! I may be an Indian but I like to charge up my adrenalin by reading some hate-filled Pakistani comments. Are you censoring?
There is nothing wrong in having political representation for every section of India, Unity in Diversity has been our manthra for past several years, thanks to congress
our neighbouring countries needs to learn from us, how important it is to bring every minority into mainstream politics and give them a chance to be part of national politics
a vigorous churning is going on in india for last 20/30 years. it is good for the indian democracy and its people. it will develop a balance between diversity and unity, progress and inclusiveness. it will decide a balanced internal policy as well as foreign policy which will serve the country better.
As someone has said that democracy is messy form of government. Every one has the right to speak and all must listen. India’s strength is her democracy allowing people of diverse language, religion, social condition and political persuation call themselves Indian. India is a true definition of El Pluribus Unum-: One from Many. That is an amazing achievement for this young nation despite the communal unrests. Matured democracies like the USA are still struggling with their social, political and economic agendas. India like them will remain as work in progress.
For my Pakistani freinds, let me tell you a story. Some years I was serving as the CEO of a multi-specialty physician practice group in a southern American city. One day a patient came to see me and keep referring to a physician as my brother. I knew I did not have a brother practcing in the group. Finally, I realized that she was referring to a physician of Pakistan origin who obviously to her looked like me. That evening I told that incident to my wife who is an American. She commented that it was interesting that an American thought we were brothers. There is a morale in the story.
India has a larger Muslim population than every other Muslim country except Inonesia.Many Muslims enjoy free and fair elections. In such vast country with so much diversity and 100 crore plus population a few un-pleasant things are bound to happen. We are faced with divisive politics of Congress party. They have divided the society on basis of religion and sub castes in Islam, and sub-castes and sects in Christianity, languages, castes in Hindu religion, regional, economic disparities.
Despite the horrible caste system, democracy has kept India united because every dalit or chamar knows that the best chance for him to be empowered is to get elected and then he can also steal as much from the government as his higher caste counterpart. Democracy is an equal-opportunity looting license.
Having said so, let me mention my moment of epiphany. I used to be very critical of our political leadership branding them venal and corrupt. But after the break-up of Pakistan and break-up of USSR and then of Yugoslavia — I suddenly realized that even though India is much more diverse and poorer, we have managed to remain intact. So our political leaders must have done something right.
Although democracy makes decision making difficult, it also mellows state repression, too. We had (and still have) serious insurgencies. But the government never sent planes and helicopters to bomb or let loose army repression on Sikhs, or Nagas, or Kashmiris or Maoists. That has helped India to overcome several national crisis.
Democracy (and vote politics) also ensures quick government response at the time of natural disasters like droughts, floods, hurricanes, tsunami or earthquake. That keeps serious unrest at check at the aftermath of disasters.
The corruption is there — but that may be the lubricant that keeps such an unwieldy machine running.
Democracy, or the realization that the party has to get to people to get votes, also helped keep the state secular. I have no doubt that if the muslims had no votes (or far fewer votes), BJP would have ensured to marginalize Indian muslims farther and would have fragmented the society (and the country) in the process.
It is a tragedy for both India and Pakistan that we lost Benazir. She was fearless, was well respected in India too, and had the power to pull Pakistan with her in the path of democracy. Zardari, on the other hand comes out as a sly as Zia but lacking in courage or conviction.
Sir
The era of coalition govts. in the country has no doubt brought about a sense of responsiblity to every community in our plural society. The coming of age of regional parties in the national coalition, though makes a different type of cocktail, but it does provide a new taste to the flavour of nationhood. Besides the presence of a main national party as a pivot to the governanace, the presence of grass root level leaders, like Lalu Prasad, Mayawati, Deve Gowda brings a sense of satisfaction to the minorities, dalits and to every caste in the country. The governance of the country in itself is worlds another wonder, if we look at the diversity and size of the country. The presence of every one from Kashmir to Kanya kumari in the ruling set up not only helps to hold the country to gether but brings in a sense of belonging to the country and thus every section of the society is taken care of its needs and developement at the grass root level. Yes, the best among all the participants provide a bank of intelligence and intellect that helps the country to evolve new policioes and find a new place for the country in world. That is why the country is achieving so much in all the fields of sports, science , IT and economics. The variety of religions and faiths complete all the colours needed to form a beautiful rain bow.
Problems of a state or community can only be resolved by diversifications as these small parties understand the local issues which cannot be solved by state govts and requires federal govt actions.I believe diversification is much closer to real democracy where a coalition govt provides max representation for the country
I think regional parties are for good. If we have a look at USA , biparty system comes to an impasse incase both parites are more or less equally bad(or good). Multi-parties give better permutation and combination.
Thus regional issues are respected and adressed in better way.
India is more diversified than the continent Europe. Having democracy for a country of our size and diversity must have been a night mare for the great leaders of our nation when they decided to go republic by 1950. I am sure many expect around the world were sure about our failure. I am so pleased that things went wonderfully over the year again and again.
Democracy is the worst form of government they say but there is nothing better they agree! One of the problems is that nothing pleases everyone at any given point. In democracy we build a consensus on what we want and how we want and implement it through resolutions in parliament or assembly.
In coalition government, this passing of resolution becomes even more complicated and some of the coalition partners (especially the smaller once) can exert undue pressure on Government for certain omissions or commissions. This can be good and bad too.
One of the good examples of coalition politics had been the formation of BJP led NDA government. BJP which is a right-wing Hindu party could not carry out its making a temple on the babari mosque site, removal of article 370, having a uniform civil code etc. because their coalition partners were strongly oppose to most of its agenda. So this resulted in keeping our country secular and avoided disharmony.
The bad example is the current UPA government, which for almost 4.5 years was supported by the left parties from outside the government. Therefore the government could not carry out the process of economic and other reforms. It was the shear talent of PM Dr. Man Mohan Singh, The Finance Minister Mr. P. Chitambram and the Dy. Commissioner Dr. Montek Singh Aluwalia who could still achieve a GDP growth of 8-9% for four of the five years. Just imagine what would had been our growth rate had the UPA government carried out the various reforms like the public sector disinvestment, the labour reforms, the financial and banking sector reforms, opening of economy for greater FDI and competition.
So there are pros and there cons to coalition government. Though there may be more cons than pros as the government becomes slow in decision making, a lot of energy is lost in building up consensus and there is an element of uncertainty and instability built in such government.
India’ multiparty system ensures anybody can rise to form a party , thus equal participation . Parties are scrambling to get issues to impress voters . Voters have also matured over this period . Multiparty system ensures people’s exact representation so no hidden grouses are there . The flip side is that it makes decision-making very-very difficult , major decisions are put off for years sometimes decades affecting economical growth etc . But overall it has served India well given the poor economic situation , educational levels prevailing in majority of Indian population . A billionaire is worth exactly what a beggar is worth – ONE VOTE ONLY .
National Vision in India is aptly summarized in the phrase “Unity in Diversity”. Hence broad based emergence of regional parties is a good thing. Although it may look highly fragmented, having one’s voice heard and once the distinct identity recognized in the national vision is something that is going to strengthen the country. The more we encourage diversity in India the stronger it will be.
The real democratic approach always had played a vital role in mainstreaming marginalised black communities in power politics arena. unfortunately we Pakistani had always tried to hide reality and had never recognized the excluded black indigenous marginalised communities as we are stuck with as self imposed ideology of Muslim Umma and Pakistani nation.
The low castes like Lorhi-sarmastani in Balochistan, Kisbgar in NWFP, Mussali and other menial castes in Punjab and Scheduled Hindu castes in Sindh are not visible in ruling groups of landowning castes in Pakistan.