But the second question concerns multi-party democracies with ‘national parties dominating the scene’. This was the situation during the governments that ruled the Centre in 1991-1996 and 1998-2004. A national party —Congress or BJP — dominated the multi-party coalition and managed federal relations. Of course the Centre’s power to change governments in the states had to be modified since coalition partners ruled in some states, but the parties outside the ruling coalition continued to receive the Kerala treatment.

The PM mentions national parties taking a ‘national view on policy issues’ and this is very true. While they may differ on the secular/communal issue, they agree on defence and economic issues. Regional parties have no stake in national economic growth and care not much about defence. This point is evident from the common programme the coalition partners agree upon — which is usually confined to bread and butter issues and not national or foreign policy ones.

But the problem here is not of having non-national parties in the ruling coalition but the strength of the national party therein. With 182 seats, the BJP could lay down the line to its partners although it did soft-pedal the mandir issue. With 145 seats, the Congress cannot call the shots in the UPA. This matter was reflected in the PM’s next question. He asked whether in the case of a multi-party model with parties that have varying national reach and many with limited sub-national reach in the coalition, ‘the unity of purpose which nation-states have to often demonstrate’ will be provided.

... contd.