Pawar vs Manmohan: The fallacy of coalition dharma

When compulsions and convenience remain the touchstone of Indian politics at all levels, is it logical to expect coalition partners to live within the vague concept of coalition dharma? One theoretical answer is, unlikely. Another, on the strength of Indian experience, especially recent, is quote the impossible. It is so because by intent, purpose and nature, coalitions are all about being in power, and if not in power, ascending to it. Sometimes, it is being in its proximity. Electoral corruption, the general malaise of corruption fuelled by simple greed, drive these aspirations. It is so, whether it is individuals or political parties. That also explains why people denied ticket become Independents. Take for instance Mulayam Singh Yadav and his Samajwadi Party. Though supporters of the UPA-II, it did not require them to contest elections in Uttar Pradesh as partners sharing seats among them. It meant competing against the other to enlarge their bases, retain support of the cadres, and win a state. Or appear to be a party with its own mind and vision. [caption id=“attachment_252346” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Pawar was not upset because his NCP was singled out by Manmohan, when he said coalition politics had compulsions. He hated being clubbed with other parties.”]  [/caption] So it is also when, for instance, it comes to politics at the state level, as was seen recently in Maharashtra. Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) wanted to be in power in the local city government of Nashik and extended support to its bitterest rival, the Shiv Sena, in Thane. When Sena failed to reciprocate and its hopes were dashed, the MNS aligned with the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) to torture the rival by keeping it on the razor’s edge everywhere. Political coalitions, therefore, can be best described as competitive intimacy which serves the purpose of gratification for the moment – which in this case, is power, share in power or getting close to power, the three carrying nuanced differences. Power-sharing means pelf. Power itself means more of it, without restraint. Being close to power means a few crumbs and a bit of insurance for who knows, one of the partners may hear a different drummer and bring the close-to-power party into reckoning. Like, when Mamata Bannerjee baulked on the question of railway fares, the Samajwadi Party (SP), the recent foe in Uttar Pradesh which smeared egg on Congress, especially Rahul Gandhi, stepped in. So did Mayawati, now entirely out of picture in Uttar Pradesh; she has a lot to keep things under wraps. They may stand up for the railway budget. They also sank their past views on anti-terrorism mechanisms which the Centre unilaterally moved ahead with, out of sight. So then, why does Sharad Pawar suddenly pipe up in Mumbai proclaiming his anguish at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s remarks that coalition arrangements were stalling decision-making? Pawar was not upset because his NCP was singled out – the usually mum, without-a-flicker-on-his face Manmohan Singh had only generalised about a coalition’s limitations. He hated being clubbed with other parties, though it would always be supportive of UPA. Come to think of it, his own party’s elite in Maharashtra, the only strong base he has, also have been speaking of coalition as a hurdle, inviting no wrap on its knuckles. But that was enough to cause Pawar to go public. Why? Because, when there was a kind of flux in the arrangements in Delhi, he wanted to remind the Congress that NCP was a coalition partner. It had never walked out on issues, always voted with the ruling alliance and yet, was clubbed with other parties which appeared only temperamental. Mamata Bannerjee had spoken of needing izzat within the coalition. Pawar was upset at not being acknowledged as a loyal partner. Going by these, it means that allegiance to the partner is only for the purposes of keeping up the promises made for a specific oath. Alliance in Delhi need not necessarily imply a similar loyalty at the states’ level. The NCP-Congress alliance in Mumbai could at time come under stress, its major actors bad mouth each other, accuse each other of transgressing the boundaries of political decency and then swallow all the pride and sit together to run the state. That also explains why the political parties in alliance in one sphere compete in another, as SP and Congress did in Uttar Pradesh. As also they recently did in the civic and zilla parishad elections in Maharashtra. They contested severally where it mattered, and together where the arithmetic told them the need for such teaming up was warranted. They fought together in Mumbai; in Pune, they did not. The bricks and mortar of a political party’s superstructure comprise the local leadership, which in UP were ignored by the Congress with disastrous consequences. The assumption there was Rahul Gandhi’s presumed overarching influence with voters would deliver the seats. That is why when local bodies elections take place, parties in coalition compete against each other, even bitterly, as they did for the zilla parishads in Maharashtra. But the fealty required in Mumbai was not the loyalty that governed the race to capture power, in this case it was the chairmanship of these bodies. They, more particularly, NCP joined hands with Shiv Sena, or as happened in Nashik civic body, remained neutral to enable MNS, to secure control. NCP, which won more seats (526) in 27 zilla parishads than Congress did (458), just ignored the political morality it talked of with respect to PM’s sweeping generalisations. Local elections are where each party builds and strengthens its sinews which come in handy when the fights are for bigger stakes like the state assemblies or the Lok Sabha. Without keeping the cadre on an energising trip, which can happen if they were not to compete locally, parties would find them useless later. Each political person engaged in the election process, except the voter, has to feel he matters. His loss does not matter; he emerges as a person of some reckoning which does enormous good to his status in the local community. That is why, given these nuanced approaches at each tier of politics, the so-called coalition dharma is hokum. What matters is each political party’s growth, and in between two elections, compromise which keeps them in power. Nothing else, really.