Kirit S Parikh- Coalition 2004: how to stabilise it

Extending the anti-defection law to coalitions could be one way

We are heading for a coalition government. Coalition governments headed by Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, V P Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Deve Gowda, Inder Gujral and the first two governments by Atal Bihari Vajpayee have all been shortlived.

The only two minority governments that have survived for nearly the full term are the ones headed by Narsimha Rao and Vajpayee's National Democratic Alliance coalition. These two survived because the leading party had a substantial strength and the coalition was large enough so that no single party could have brought the government down. Unfortunately the Congress party led government we are about to have is not likely to have a dominant party but it has the opportunity to put up a large coalition.

What are the costs of instability?

The premature fall of a government is preceded by weeks of political manoeuvring and accompanied by months of uncertainty. During this period, government suffers a paralysis and even routine decisions are postponed. Initiation of new policies or policy reforms is unthinkable. It creates uncertainty concerning government policies since policies may be changed by the new government.

The costs to the Indian economy of short-lived governments and their fall are very high. The uncertainty leads to postponement of investment decisions, both by domestic investors as well as foreign investors. Foreign direct investment gets postponed too.

The paralysis of governmental decision-making also delays public investment. Naturally, one would expect economic growth to slow down. The economic impact can be quite sizeable as is reflected in our experience.

Thus the fall in the annual GDP growth rate over the growth rate of the previous year was 10.7 percentage points during 1979-80 when the Morarji Desai and Charan Singh governments fell, 4.6 per cent in 1991-92 when the V P Singh and Chandra Shekar governments fell, 2.8 per cent in 1996-97 when the Deve Gowda government fell.

These numbers are large, but not surprising. A three-month postponement of half of total investment means 16 per cent fall in investment. This could easily result in lowering of growth rate by 1 percentage point. In today's terms, this is an income loss of roughly Rs 15,000 crore. If the political uncertainty lasts longer, the loss would be higher.

This is the immediate loss. When its future effects are accounted for, the value of the loss would be many times more. Hopefully the new government would be more stable and we would not have to bear this cost.

The recent elections have shown that government better be sensitive to the needs of Bharat and the common man in urban India and pay attention to health, education and bijli-paani-sadak. Yet the experience of Digvijay Singh in Madhya Pradesh should caution politicians that without growth, improvement in health and education does not translate into increase in welfare and votes. Chandra Babu's experience in Andhra Pradesh teaches us that economic development without an emphasis on health and education does not lead to inclusive growth. And voters don't like that.

While coalition governments have proved to be expensive, we have to recognise that coalitions are here to stay. Even if a new election is held now, we will most likely end up with a coalition government, as no party seems likely to get an absolute majority. Another cycle of horse trading will take place and new alliances will be made, leading to marriages of convenience.

A government of strange bed-fellows will result. After the novelty wears off, or insults are perceived by a hyper-sensitive partner, the marriage will fall apart. And a new cycle will begin.

We have to stop this. But how? But how? It is sometimes suggested that a presidential form of government like the one in the US can provide stability. Under such a system the whole country would directly elect a prime minister who would then appoint his own cabinet. The cabinet members don't even have to be elected members of the parliament. The laws however, have to be passed by the parliament which balances prime minister's power and constitutes a countervailing force.

The question of coalition governments does not arise in this system and a stable government obtains. However, in such a system one can find a situation in which the prime minister can be completely paralysed by a hostile parliament. One would be stuck with a stable but ineffective government for five years. In any case, a new constitution will take a long time to draft and adopt.

Another option often suggested is that of proportional representation with a high threshold vote as is practiced, for example, in Germany. Under this scheme, the number of seats won by each party in the parliament would depend on the total votes received by the party in the country, taken as a percentage of total votes cast in the country for all qualifying parties.

However, to get any seat at all, the party must qualify by securing more than a minimum per cent, say 5 per cent, of the total votes cast. Any party that gets less than 5 per cent of votes does not get any seat. Such a system would favour national parties and would eliminate small parties.

In our multilingual, multi-cultural society, many small and special sections of the society would lose their political power. They may feel unrepresented and might get alienated from the nation. For us this can be risky. Also, such a change would call for a constitutional amendment and the many small parties and states may oppose it.

I repeat a simple solution to the problem I had suggested in 1999. We should amend the anti-defection act and make it applicable not just to a party but any coalition that agrees to form a government. The previous President has already established a precedent of collecting written statements of support from the leaders of all political parties supporting a coalition government. So what constitutes a coalition can be unambiguously determined.

Under the anti-defection act, when some elected members of parliament leave the party under whose banner they were elected, they are required to resign from their seats in the parliament too, unless it can be considered as a split in the party.

When the number of defecting persons is 30 per cent or more of the total number of elected MPs of the party, it is considered a split, and they are not required to resign. The law thus provides stability to a party and was enacted to deal with the degradation that was brought about by "Aayarams" and "Gayarams". The law has worked well and that problem has not plagued our polity since. The provision for a split is required because one must provide disagreement on issues of fundamental importance. It encourages discussion within a party and intra-party democracy.

We now need to deal with the menace of "Aayee Party" and "Gayee Party". Extending the anti-defection law to coalitions could be quite effective. The coalition government would not be then susceptible to pressures from every small party as the second Vajpayee government was. At the same time, the provision of a split, under which 30 per cent of members of parliament constituting the coalition can leave the party without having to resign from the parliament, would ensure that the dominant party would not ride roughshod over the smaller parties in the coalition.

This would stabilise coalition governments. Surely, it would also make it difficult to form coalitions. This may not be a bad thing. It would force parties to articulate a common programme in detail and with care. The parties would also think twice before entering a coalition. They would extract their pound of flesh in advance. Yet, once joined together, divorce is not easy. It is a five-year contract marriage from which there is no easy escape.

What happens if some members of one of the coalition parties split from their own party? They could form a new party but the new party will be required to be a member of the coalition. This would make the elected members of a party think carefully before agreeing to join a coalition.

Can we bring about such a change in the anti-defection act? Who would support such an amendment? Naturally, the larger national parties have an interest in bringing about such a change. The Congress and the BJP should get together to pass such an act before going into the polls. The Left parties which pride themselves on their principled politics should also join them.

It may be even possible to argue that the present anti-defection act in fact, applies to a coalition as a whole, in which case, the AIADMK members should have been required to resign from Parliament.

kirit@irade.res.in

(The writer is professor emeritus and former director, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai and chairman, Integrated Research and Action for Development, Delhi)