The 'World Largest Republic' In Crisis

Governance and democracy, which should be complimentary, have become antithetical to each other. There is an uncomfortable fact which we are unwilling to confront. And that is that our young republic is facing a systemic crisis. This crisis is not about an individual. It is not about any one party. It is not about one international economic slowdown. And, it is not a crisis which will be necessarily resolved by the next general elections, or the ones after that. 
    
The crisis that we are in is that two fundamental pillars of our republic, governance and democracy, which should be complimentary, have become antithetical to each other. This was not a situation envisaged by our Constitution makers. Their presumption was that democratic elections would throw up a party, or a combination of parties, which on the basis of a stable majority would govern effectively in order to give back to the people what they had promised. 
    
However, for more than a decade and a half now, we have a situation where more often than not a coalition of over 20 disparate parties somehow cobble together a government with a wafer-thin or, at best, precarious majority. The result is that all energies go into day-to-day political management and survival, with almost none left for serious governance. In such a situation, which is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, even the rare decisions that are taken focus on the short-term populist option, and not on finding enduring solutions to foundational problems. 
    
This state of politics also transforms the opposition. Instead of being a constructive critic of government in the interests of the people, it becomes predatory, opposing proposals and policies not on merit but on their potential to embarrass or topple the government. The vital interregnum between two elections is thus largely a period of wasted opportunity, where suboptimal governance plays out in inverse proportion to the barren heat and din of political acrimony and manipulation. 
    
Who is the loser? Quite obviously the long lamented voter. We cannot do away with democracy because without it governance will become authoritarian. Equally, we cannot have democracy which yields a serious deficit in governance imperatives. We need both democracy and governance. How can we make this possible? 
    
This is the question which is at the core of the crisis of our republic. The problem is not the proliferation of parties. In many ways, this has led to the democratisation of national politics, substituting the sway of one banyan party by the vibrancy of diverse opinions representing the entire spectrum of the nation. The problem is how to make this democratic house with so many constituents an effectively governing whole. 
    
I have attempted a possible answer. Suppose we amend our laws to make it compulsory for all coalitions to announce their constituents prior to the elections, as also their prime ministerial candidate should they win. Suppose further, we make it mandatory for such a preannounced coalition to carefully work out a compact, workmanlike Governance Agenda. This agenda will be different from party manifestoes, which promise everything under the sun. The Election Commission can provide a prototype document, which sets out the elements this agenda should incorporate. 
    
A voter is entitled to know these things, but is clearly being taken for a ride. At present, he neither knows who the leader will be, nor whether the party he voted for will not join the party he opposes, nor the precise governance objectives which rival coalitions are offering. 
    
Suppose next, we prevent the constituents of the winning pre-announced coalition, who have all pledged to fulfil a common Governance Agenda, from withdrawing support for a minimum period of three years. This would not be different to the anti-defection law, which in one sense circumscribes absolute democratic freedom, but was brought in to allow democracy to function with stability and rectitude. 
    
It would also be far more respectful of the democratic wishes of the voter, who votes in order to get a government that can fulfil the promises it has made. After three years of mandatory political stability, parties could decide if they want to break rank. But, if they join any fresh coalition, or the opposition, the new government would also have a compulsory lock-in period of the balance period of two years, and all the constituents would have to announce a common Governance Agenda. 
    
The question can arise: What if no coalition gets a majority? In this event, independents and unattached parties would be free to join any coalition provided they too accept the common Governance Agenda and agree to the lock-in period. Parties which have pledged to be part of any pre-announced coalition will not be allowed to switch sides after the elections. It is time to get some ethics and principles into our polity. If no coalition manages to win a majority, it would be better to go in for fresh elections, than to witness the opportunistic and debasing horse-trading of the past. 
    
Governance and democracy must be complimentary to each other. There could be better solutions to the one i have proposed. But the blunt truth is that we must find a solution. We cannot afford to lose any more time. The people of India will not wait anymore.