At the inaugural session in Delhi of the recently concluded international conference on federal systems, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lamented that “narrow political considerations can distort national vision”. The issue the PM raised is a larger one than may at first appear to be the case. It is about Centre-state relations in a multi-party democracy. Dr Singh had gone on to imply that the processes of decision-making — keeping national interests in mind — become extremely complicated when regional forces have their own narrow political considerations. Perhaps the PM had the Indo-US deal in mind when he said all this, but his frustration was quite evident.

There is, no doubt, truth in what he said. However, if we look back over the past 60 years, instances abound when so-called national parties, which have a base in a number of states, have displayed a narrow vision and a petty outlook. Covering the entire political spectrum, different parties at different times have shamelessly played the caste or community card or — while in power at the Centre — dethroned legitimate governments on flimsy grounds, generally to pander to vote-bank politics. They have also committed various acts or pursued policies that have been neither fair nor consistent with the national interest. Thus the charge made by the PM, while true, applies equally to all parties, barring none. While the pot can call the kettle black, it is dangerous to throw stones if one lives in a glasshouse.

It should be noted that the present coalition is led by the Congress, which on its own has only about 140 seats in the Lok Sabha. The coalition was forged, or cobbled, precisely because no single party could form the government with a majority of its own. Parties, regional or national in character, have their own ideologies. The formation of a coalition in the post-election phase does not mean that the constituent parties surrender their ideologies or special interests and agree to follow, mutatis mutandis, all the objectives of the coalition leader. All that the coalition partners commit themselves to doing is to agree on a common minimum programme, which presumably is not in direct conflict with the aims and objectives of any partner. Just because parties have joined a coalition will not necessarily mean that they surrender their entire personalities to the coalition leader. By the same token, a party with 140-odd seats cannot expect to usher in major policy changes, in disregard of the considerations of the other coalition partners, not to speak of the opposition! To have unfettered ability to push through major policy measures, it is a requirement of democracy that a party should have absolute majority. Unfortunately this is not the case now. It will, therefore, be inappropriate for the Congress to blame its coalition partners. After all, what is seen as “reform” by one party may not be seen as such by all the others, whether they are partners or not.

... contd.