Early signs of bipolar trend at national level

B.R.P. BHASKAR
IANS

The story of how the electorate belied political prophesies and made smooth government formation possible after the Lok Sabha elections deserves close scrutiny because it contains early intimations of a new trend.

Even the best scenario visualised by pollsters had left the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), widely acknowledged as the frontrunner, far short of a simple majority in the 545-member house. Some experts suggested the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a close runner-up, might be in a better position than the UPA to attract support from other parties and raise the tally to 273, needed to chalk up a majority.

As it happened, the UPA was only 10 short of the magic figure. This shortfall was small enough to be made up without placating Prakash Karat, Mayawati, J. Jayalalithaa, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad, not to mention Nitish Kumar, who too turned up at the auction room.

The voters had so exercised their franchise that the so-called third and fourth fronts were left with no bargaining power at all. The worst sufferers were the reunited Yadavs, who had adopted a strategy calculated to enhance their capability by limiting the Congress party's strength.

This is not the first time that the Indian electorate has demonstrated an uncanny ability to brush aside political gibberish and arrive at the best possible verdict in the circumstances. Millions of voters, taking independent decisions in the privacy of their minds, had given expression to a common will when they voted out Indira Gandhi's emergency regime in 1977. They displayed the same determination again when, sickened by the Janata Party squabbles, they recalled Indira Gandhi.

The 1977 and 1980 verdicts can be explained in terms of a wide swing of the pendulum. The Congress party's vote share had dropped from 43.68 percent in 1971 to 34.52 percent in 1977, sweeping it out of office. It climbed to 42.69 percent in 1980 and the party was back in power.

There was no big swing this time. Provisional figures released by the Election Commission show that the Congress party's share increased slightly from 26.53 percent to 28.55 percent and the BJP's declined slightly from 22.16 percent to 18.80 percent. These changes may be sufficient to explain the rise in the Congress' strength from 145 to 206 and the fall in the BJP's from 138 to 116, but not to understand the way the electorate resolved the national conundrum.

It was the rise of regional parties and the vaulting ambitions of their leaders which had raised fears that government formation might not be easy. There was no appreciable change in the popularity of the national parties and the regional parties. In 2004, the national parties (those recognized as such by the Election Commission) together commanded 62.89 percent of the votes. This time their share was 62.32 percent.

The combined vote of the Congress and the BJP declined from 48.69 percent to 47.35 percent. The decline was too small for the Left parties to realise their pet dream of keeping both of them out of power. Communist Party of India (CPI) general secretary A.B. Bardhan's forecast that the Congress and the BJP together would not win even 250 seats went awry. Actually they increased their combined strength from 283 to 312.

The electorate made government formation easy by eliminating the bargaining capacity of the ambitious leaders of the smaller parties. It rebuffed the sponsors of the Third Front, who wanted to hold the major national parties at bay. The Communist Party of India-Marxist lost 27 seats and the CPI six.

The voters meted out harsh punishment to the Yadavs who had cynically indulged in a game of self-aggrandizement. The Rashtriya Janata Dal of Lalu Prasad lost 20 seats and the Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav lost 13 seats. Their ally, Lok Janshakti Party of Ram Vilas Paswan, lost all its four seats.

The election results provide early intimations of a bipolar trend. A tendency towards a bipolar polity is already in evidence in several states. It is the emergence of diverse forces in the different states that has made coalitions at the centre inevitable.

The parties which aligned themselves with either of the major national parties did well. Those ranged on the side of the Congress benefited the most. The Trinamool Congress in West Bengal made a whopping gain of 17 seats. Going by the winner-takes-all pattern witnessed in Tamil Nadu in recent years, Jayalalithaa's AIADMK should have made a clean sweep this time. Anticipating such a development, the well-known electoral weather cocks, Vaiko's Marumalarchi DMK and S. Ramadoss' PMK switched to her side. The results were disastrous: while the PMK lost all its six seats, the MDMK managed to save one of its four seats.

Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's poll eve vacillation notwithstanding, the Janata Dal-United, BJP's partner in the NDA, fared well in Bihar. The only Third Front party to buck the bipolar trend was Orissa's Biju Janata Dal.

Assembly elections confirm bipolar trend in India

By B.R.P. BHASKAR
Comment
Indo Asian News Service

Contrary to the fond hopes of Third Front promoters, the Indian polity is moving towards a two-party system. Those who have their eyes focused on the national stage may have missed it, but the results of the just concluded assembly elections confirm the bipolar trend.

All the five states where elections were held were already well on their way to a two-party system with the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) figuring as the contenders for power in Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The Congress and the Mizo National Front clashed in Mizoram.

In Delhi, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, the ruling party held on to power though with reduced majorities in the assembly. In Rajasthan and Mizoram, the party in power and the main opposition changed places. Nowhere did a third party come within striking distance of power.

One aspect of the election results which has received much media attention is the impressive performance of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in the four Hindi belt states. The party, which contested almost all the seats in these states, earned a rich dividend in the form of more votes as well as more seats.

Provisional figures indicate that the BSP's vote share registered significant increases in all the states: from 4 percent to 8 percent in Rajasthan, from 4 to 6 percent in Chhattisgarh, from 6 to 9 percent in Madhya Pradesh and from 6 percent to 14 percent in Delhi. The gains are no doubt remarkable. However, they do not represent an immediate threat to the BJP or Congress as neither seems to have suffered significant erosion of support.

The Congress' vote share dropped from about 48 percent in 2003 to about 41 percent in Delhi and the BJP's from 43 percent to 39 percent in Madhya Pradesh and from 39 percent to 36 percent in Rajasthan. These swings are attributable to the burden of incumbency they carried in these states. In Chhattisgarh, the BJP bucked the anti-incumbency factor and increased its vote from 39 percent to 41 percent.

The Congress improved its position marginally in Madhya Pradesh (from 32 to 33 percent), Rajasthan (from 36 to 37 percent) and Chhattisgarh (from 37 to 38 percent). So did the BJP in Delhi where its vote rose from 35 to 37 percent.

Such is the electoral arithmetic that while the two top players together command more than 70 percent of the votes polled, the polity will remain essentially bipolar. The BSP will have to cut into the votes of the Congress and the BJP in a big way before it can upset the two-party system that has come into vogue in these states.

This is not to suggest that the BSP's performance is a flash in the pan. The Congress and the BJP will do well to see it as a convincing demonstration of its capacity to grow beyond the borders of Uttar Pradesh.

The BSP has two distinct advantages. One is that it is now the No. 1 party in the most populous state. The other is that in Mayawati it has a charismatic leader, who is widely recognised as prime ministerial material.

Uttar Pradesh's electoral history testifies to the tortuous course of multiparty politics. In 1985, the Congress was still the leading party in that state, with a 39 percent vote share, as against its immediate challengers, Janata Dal's 21 percent and the BJP's 10 percent. Thereafter, the Janata Dal, the BJP and the Samajwadi Party rose to the top and fell, one after another, before the BSP became the largest party.

It took the BSP - which entered the election arena as an unrecognised party in 1989 and bagged less than 10 percent of the votes - six elections spread over 18 years to achieve primacy. While the BSP (30.43 percent) and the Samajwadi Party (25.43 percent) are way above the BJP (16.97 percent) and the Congress (8.61 percent), it is too early to conclude that Uttar Pradesh has become a bipolar polity.

Outside the Hindi belt too, the two-party system is gaining ground. However, the parties in contention are not the same as in these states. In Andhra Pradesh, a national party and a regional party are the contenders for power. In Tamil Nadu, it is two regional parties that vie for power.

Kerala has a bipolar polity, but it is not two parties, but two fronts that seek power. The doggedness with which the Congress and the Communist Party of India-Marxist, the leading players, have pursued coalition politics appears to have blocked the evolution of a two-party system in the state.

The bewildering variety that has come up at the state level in the wake of the Congress party's decline has made coalition governments at the centre inevitable. Even as we accept this fact realistically, it is necessary to take note of the dangers inherent in the present situation, which allows small parties with limited agendas to exercise authority on a scale beyond their ken. The big parties, which had to yield to the blackmail tactics of such parties, must order their priorities in such a way that the bipolar trend gains strength in the long run.

Lessons to draw from the Assembly election results

The State Assembly elections, which a section of the media projected as a semi-final, have ended in a draw of sorts. While it has thrown up enough material for the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, the major contenders for power at the national level, to make exaggerated claims, a close look reveals a slight advantage to the former over the latter.

Of the five States, where elections have been completed, three were under the BJP, one under the Congress and the fifth under a regional party.
The BJP retained Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and the Congress held on to Delhi State, overcoming the much touted anti-incumbency factor. The Congress actually bettered its position by taking Rajasthan from the BJP and Mizoram from the Mizo National Front.

The Congress win in three States suggests that the party has been able to break the chain of reverses that has dogged it since it came to power at the Centre in 2004 under the banner of the United Progressive Alliance. The Delhi triumph has special significance inasmuch as it gives the party a third successive term in office in that small but important State.

The outcome of the elections in all the States confirms the trend towards a two-party system, which has been in evidence in many States in recent years. In Delhi and the Hindi States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, two national parties are in contention. In Mizoram, the contending forces are a national party and a regional party.

For two reasons, it is risky to draw any conclusions from these Assembly election results about the prospects of the Third Front, which the Left wants to put together at the national level by bringing together disparate elements like Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party and J. Jayalalithaa’s All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. One is that Assembly results are not a reliable indicator of voter preference in parliamentary polls, as the BJP discovered in 2004. The other is that the potential Third Front partners are all bit players in these States.
The BSP, which is already the biggest party in Uttar Pradesh, has convincingly demonstrated its ability to grow. However, it has still a long way to go before it can climb to the top pushing the Congress or the BJP to the third place in the other Hindi States.

The BJP initially gave the impression that it will not make the Mumbai terror strike a campaign issue but quickly reverted to its narrow, partisan path. This, however, did not prevent the Congress from giving a good account of itself in the States which went to the polls subsequently. Significantly, both urban Delhi and rural Rajasthan rebuffed the BJP bid to derive political capital out of cross-border terrorism.

When the third alternative emerges

With Prime Minister Manmohan Singh proving that he commands majority in the Lok Sabha, the government has earned the right to go ahead with the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement. However, the odour left behind by the tactics employed by government supporters to win the confidence vote and by its opponents to defeat it will not die down quickly. The Left parties, which had withdrawn support to the government on the issue of the nuclear deal, were as keen to defeat the motion as the government was to carry it through. In the beginning, the Bharatiya Janata Party, the main opposition, demonstrated the same zeal too. However, when the possibility of a third front in the form of Mayawati emerged in the distant horizon, its enthusiasm cooled considerably.

At no stage did the confidence vote turn into a struggle between the ruling United Progressive Alliance and its national alternative, the National Democratic Alliance. The main combatants were two parties which are not in either combination, Mulayam Singh”s Samajwadi Party (SP) and Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). For them it was an extension of the power struggle in Uttar Pradesh.

Mayawati is a leader who could see on the sky what Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat saw on the tree. Even as the Left kept repeating that it would withdraw its support to the government, she went ahead and did it. That, too, on the issue of the nuclear deal. Like the Left, the SP and the BSP had extended support to the UPA to prevent the BJP’s return to power. Mulayam Singh, who had been nicknamed Maulana after he garnered Muslim support on a large scale, could not have gone with the BJP. Mayawati, who had become Chief Minister of UP twice earlier with BJP support, had no difficulty in joining hands with that party. But even with its support, the BJP would still have been too far from a parliamentary majority.

The Congress, which drew up a common minimum programme with the Left, did not establish a special relationship with the SP or the BSP. After the bid by former CPI-M general secretary Harkishen Singh Surjeet to bring the SP close to the Congress failed, the relationship between the two parties was not even very friendly. Sonia Gandhi had given indications of the Congress party’s interest in forging ties with the BSP in different ways including sending flowers to Mayawati but there was no favourable response. What kept the Left, the SP and the BSP on the same side for more than four years was the hopeless situation created by the results of the last Lok Sabha elections. It is the approach of fresh elections that has compelled them to review their stands.

The fact is that all parts including the Left are in a hopeless situation. To secure its base in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura, the CPI-M has to abandon the Congress. The question before the SP and the BSP is how they can safeguard their position in UP. In that State, following a continuous decline, the Congress party is now in the fourth position. At different stages, Mulayam Singh’s party and the BJP emerged as the alternative to the Congress but they could not retain that position. It is the consequent change in political equations that has led to Mayawati’s emergence as the Queen of the Third Front and prompted Prakash Karat to go to Lucknow to seek her darshan.

UP sends the largest contingent of 80 members to the Lok Sabha. Kanshi Ram had founded the BSP aiming to seize power by bringing Dalits, backward classes and minorities under one flag. It could not take away backward classes from Mulayam Singh, who is a Yadav. For some years now the SP and the BSP have been in competition for Muslim support. Unlike in other States, Brahmins have considerable numerical strength in UP. The success of her efforts to woo them was one of the factors that enabled the BSP to come to power on its own in the last Assembly elections there.

The SP needs an ally badly to prevent Mayawati from repeating her Assembly poll Assembly poll performance in the Lok Sabha elections. It is not easy for Mulayam Singh, who has been a strong opponent of the Sangh Parivar from his Janata Dal days, to make friends with the BJP. An alliance with the Left will not help as it has no base in the Hindi States. In the circumstances, he cannot rely on any party other than the Congress. That was why he came forward to save the government within minutes of the Left withdrawing its support, ignoring a public warning by CPI-M Politburo member MK Pandhe about Muslim reaction. His conscience-keeper Amar Singh girded up his loins and jumped into the arena.

All speeches by leaders during the debate on the confidence motion were election perorations. Although the government has been able to demonstrate majority support, it is unlikely that the Congress will attempt to carry on until the end of the current Lok Sabha on its strength. The reason is that Mulayam Singh, like Prakash Karat, will be a troublesome ally. Amar Singh is a new generation politician who maintains close links with the captains of industry and other vested interests. Karat troubled the government with demands which were mostly related to party ideology. Mulayam Singh and Amar Singh are not travelling with ideological baggage. Their demands are likely to be related to the needs of their friends.

Whether the elections are early or late, there is no reason to assume that the next Lok Sabha will be very different from the present one. The only party that seems to have the ability to improve its position is the BSP. The BJP’s hopes rest on the anti-incumbency factor that the Congress has to contend with. There are several States where the Congress and the BJP are in virtual direct conflict. Most of them are under BJP rule. As such, the anti-incumbency factor may hit too to some extent. Most opposition parties consider the price rise, which has imposed a heavy burden on the people, a good election issue. This, too, may not yield the expected results. In Kerala, even as it puts the Congress in the dock for the petrol price hike, the Left will have to answer for the increase in bus fares and electricity rates.

The CPI-M reckons that it can get out of the present hopeless situation if the dream of a third alternative is realized. It was the undivided CPI that loomed large as the national alternative after the first general elections. In the 1960s, it lost that position. Later, one after another, the Swatantra Party, the Janata Party and the BJP arose. The BJP is a party with inherent weaknesses. The possibility of another party rising to take its place cannot be ruled out. But the Left parties, individually and collectively, lack the ability to occupy that space today. The policies and programmes followed by the CPI-M, which became the main flag-bearer of the Left after the CPI, played a big part in the emergence of a right-wing alternative at the national level. If the attempt to promote a third alternative under Mayawati’s leadership succeeds, the concept of Left alternative will recede farther. At the same time the Dalit empowerment resulting from it, howsoever limited, may lead to beneficial changes.
Based on column ‘Nerkkazhcha’ appearing in Kerala Kaumudi dated July 24, 2008.

The Third Alternative the Communist parties are seeking

The Communist Party of India, at its Hyderabad session, laid stress on two ideas: one, Communist unity; two, third alternative. Neither of the two is possible without the involvement of the CPI (M). The party immediately declared that Communist unity was not on its agenda. However, it showed the green flag for the third alternative. The political resolution the CPI (M) adopted at Coimbatore included the third alternative in its task list. General Secretary Prakash Karat said work on it would begin immediately after the conference.

Third Alternative is not a new idea. A government without the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party has been the Communists’ long-cherished desire. At one stage Harkishen Singh Surjeet’s efforts in that regard as party general secretary appeared to be succeeding. But the alternatives that emerged were short-lived. They survived even for a short while only because the Congress or the BJP supported them from outside.

The Communist parties claim that what is now envisaged is a third alternative, not a third front as in the past, and that this is not related to elections at all. Howsoever hard party theoreticians may try it will not be possible to build up the third alternative, being cobbled together hurriedly after the bugles have sounded for the elections, into a path leading to revolution. It cannot have any objective beyond securing at the Centre a government more amenable to their influence.

There is no party in the country today which has enough popular support to secure an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha. Everybody knows that this situation arose because of the continuous decline in the strength of the Congress. It has another reason, too, which we do not ordinarily remember. This is the failure of the Communist movement to develop into a national alternative. The undivided CPI had widespread influence in the country at the time of the first general elections. It became the main Opposition in the first Lok Sabha with 18 seats from seven States. Andhra contributed the largest number (seven) of seats. It retained the position in 1957 with 27 seats from eight States. It got four seats from Bombay and three from Andhra at that time. It was aided by the support of the peasant and labour movements and progressive-minded individuals. Later the party split and the influence of the two splinters shrank geographically.

Today the Communist parties can win Lok Sabha seats on their own strength only in three States. In all three places, the Left has upper hand primarily because of the strength of the CPI (M). In West Bengal and Tripura that party has the capacity even to come to power without the help of other parties. This has created in its rank and file as well as in the other Left parties the impression that its stand before and after the split was correct. This impression and the circumstances in which the CPI (M) took its stand deserve close scrutiny.

Looking beyond the smokescreen raised by polemics, it can be seen that what happened here was a reflection of the schism in the international Communist movement. It was as natural for those who took China’s side to take an anti-Congress stance as it was for those who opted for those who stood with the Soviet Union to take a pro-Congress position. The friendship with the Congress made the CPI an associate of the Emergency regime. When the people swept aside that government, the CPI absolved itself of the sin by confessing before the CPI (M).

The firm anti-Congress stand no doubt helped the CPI (M) to make big strides in Bengal and Kerala. But these regional gains were made by sacrificing the opportunity to grow into a national alternative. While Communist influence got limited to Bengalis and Malayalis, parties which were not in existence when the CPI was the main Opposition overtook the Left and forged ahead among other sections of the people.

It was the anti-Congressism that the BJP and the CPI (M) shared which made possible the V. P. Singh government, which stands out among the non-Congress regimes. In the prevailing circumstances the backdoor alliance between them was a necessity. But it is difficult to regard the rise of the Sangh Parivar and the Yadav parties during that period was inevitable. The contribution that the CPI (M) one-point programme of anti-Congressism made to the rise of religious and caste powers was by no means small. In paving the way for the rise of Hindutva forces, did not the CPI (M) commit a political crime no less grave than the CPI did in propping up the Congress?

The basis of the positions taken by the two parties in the division in the international movement has also collapsed. The Soviet Union’s fall and China’s switch to the path of capitalist development have exposed the weaknesses in the ideological stance taken by the two countries as well as their backers.

Since neither the Congress nor the BJP is in a position to secure an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha, coalition rule at the Centre is inevitable. Last time these parties together secured 275 seats in the 545-member house. They can be kept out of power only if both decline further. That certainly is a possibility. But if either or both of them decline, the benefit will go not to the Left but to small national and regional parties. It was the ability to keep them together that elevated Surjit to the level of kingmaker at one time. When they were ready to join hands with the BJP he lost that position. It must not be forgotten that it was the same anti-Congressism that had compelled the CPI (M) to enter into a clandestine relationship with the BJP that persuaded small parties with secular traditions to cooperate openly with it.

If the Communist parties give up thoughts of making small gains in the elections and sincerely desire to work for national level advancement of the Left, what must come on their agenda first is not third alternative but Left alternative. An alternative concept that rejects Communist unity contains no nobler idea than electoral gain.
Based on Malayalam article appearing in “Nerkkazhcha” column of Kerala Kaumudi dated April 3, 2008