Coalition Politics in India

The first non-Congress governments at the Union, formed by combinations of parties, which demonstrated both that an alternative was possible and how quickly a coalition of parties with little in common can break.

The era of coalitions. From the end of the 1980s to the middle of the 2010s no single party won a majority in the House of the People, and every Union government was a coalition or a minority government dependent on support. Two long-lived alliances governed for a decade each, which is the strongest evidence that coalitions can be stable.

A return to single-party majorities at the Union, while alliances continued to be maintained and while many States continued to be governed by coalitions.

The right lesson from that sequence is that coalition and single-party government alternate with the state of party competition, and that India has experienced both repeatedly. An answer that treats coalition government as a permanent feature or as a temporary aberration is wrong in the same way.

What makes a coalition work

A common minimum programme. A written statement of what the coalition will do, confining the government to the ground the partners agree on and leaving the rest aside. This is the single most important device Indian coalitions have developed.

A coordination mechanism. A committee of the partners meeting regularly, which is where disputes are settled before they reach the House.

A distribution of offices that the partners regard as fair, which in practice means portfolios in proportion to seats.

A leader acceptable to all partners, which is why coalitions often produce a Prime Minister or Chief Minister who was nobody's first choice.

Restraint on the largest party, which must forgo policies it would otherwise pursue, and which is the price of office.

What makes them fail

Absence of a shared programme, so that every issue is renegotiated.

Withdrawal by a partner, which where the majority is thin brings the government down.

Outside support, which gives a party influence without responsibility.

Disputes about portfolios, which are about power rather than policy and are the commonest immediate cause of a breakdown.

Competition between partners in the same State, since parties that are allies at the Union are frequently opponents in a State, which is a specifically Indian difficulty.

The arguments about coalitions

In favour.

They represent more people. A government of several parties commands the support of a larger share of the electorate than a single party with a plurality.

They restrain the largest party. Policies that could not survive negotiation are dropped, which is a check that a majority government does not face.

They strengthen federalism. Regional parties in a Union coalition carry State concerns into national decisions in a way nothing else does, and much of India's federal practice was developed in the coalition era.

They produce consultation. Because nothing passes without agreement, more people are consulted and more interests are accommodated.

Against.

Instability, where a government can fall on the withdrawal of one partner.

Policy paralysis, where necessary but contentious measures are avoided because a partner objects.

Bargaining power out of proportion to size, since a small party holding the balance can extract far more than its votes warrant.

Accountability is blurred. When a coalition fails, no party is clearly responsible, and the voter cannot direct the blame.

Post-poll coalitions lack a mandate, since the voter never chose the combination.

A worked example

After an election, party A has 130 seats, B has 70, C has 40, D has 25 and independents 15, in a house of 280 with a majority at 141.

The arithmetic. A cannot govern alone. A plus C is 170, A plus D is 155, and B plus C plus D is 135, which needs the independents.

What the arithmetic does to D. D has 25 seats and can supply a majority to A, so it can demand portfolios and policy concessions far beyond what 25 seats out of 280 would suggest. That is the disproportionate bargaining power objection, in numbers.

What C can demand. More, because it can also make a majority with B if the independents come along, so it has an alternative.

What a common minimum programme does. It fixes in advance what the coalition will and will not do, so that D cannot reopen every question. It is the answer to the paralysis objection, and it is why Indian coalitions adopted it.

And what the Tenth Schedule does. It secures the coalition against defection by individual members, so the arrangement can be broken only by a party withdrawing as a party, which is public and attributable. That is the stability the anti-defection law delivered, and it is why coalitions after 1985 were more durable than those before it.

Distinctions that carry marks

What coalition politics is NOT

It is not a sign of a failing democracy. It is the normal condition of parliamentary systems in multi-party societies, and India has had stable coalitions lasting full terms.

It is not the same as a minority government, which survives on issue by issue support without a formed coalition.

It is not confined to the Union. Coalition politics in India began in the States and continues there.

It has not been ended by the return of single-party majorities. Alliances have been maintained even where a single party has a majority, and States continue to be governed by coalitions.

Quick revision

1. Why they happen: articles 75(3) and 164(2) require collective responsibility and continuous confidence; first past the post does not manufacture a majority where competition is multi-cornered and support regionally concentrated; and India's diversity produces regional and sectional parties.
2. Kinds: pre-poll alliance, post-poll coalition, outside support, and the minority government which is not a coalition at all.
3. Phases: dominance at the Union with coalitions first appearing in the States; the first non-Congress Union governments; the era of coalitions from the late 1980s to the mid 2010s, including two alliances that governed for a decade each; and a return to single-party majorities with alliances maintained.
4. What makes them work: a common minimum programme, a coordination committee, a fair distribution of portfolios, an acceptable leader, and restraint on the largest party.
5. What makes them fail: no shared programme, withdrawal by a partner, outside support, portfolio disputes, and partners who compete against each other in a State.
6. For: wider representation, restraint on the largest party, stronger federalism, and consultation. Against: instability, paralysis, disproportionate bargaining power, blurred accountability, and the absent mandate of a post-poll combination.
7. The Tenth Schedule made coalitions more durable, because the arrangement can now be broken only by a party acting as a party, which is public and attributable.

Test yourself

1. Why does coalition government arise in India? Because articles 75(3) and 164(2) make the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the House, so a government must command a majority continuously, and where no single party has one several must combine. First past the post manufactures majorities only where competition is between two parties; where it is multi-cornered and support is regionally concentrated it produces neither a majority nor proportionality. And India's divisions of language, religion, caste and region produce parties whose support is regional or sectional and which can win seats without approaching a majority.

2. Distinguish the kinds of coalition. A pre-poll alliance is formed before the election with seats distributed among partners and often a common programme and declared leader, so the voter knew the combination and its claim to a mandate is strong. A post-poll coalition is assembled after the results, and the standing objection is that the voter never chose it. Outside support is where a party sustains the government by voting with it without joining the Council of Ministers, which gives influence without responsibility and is the least stable arrangement. A minority government is not a coalition at all but survives on issue by issue support.

3. What devices make Indian coalitions work? A common minimum programme, a written statement of what the coalition will do, which confines the government to agreed ground and prevents every question being reopened; this is the most important device Indian coalitions developed. A coordination committee of the partners, meeting regularly, which settles disputes before they reach the House. A distribution of portfolios the partners regard as fair, usually in proportion to seats. A leader acceptable to all, which often means somebody who was nobody's first choice. And restraint by the largest party, which is the price of office.

4. State the arguments for and against coalition government. For: it represents a larger share of the electorate than a single party with a plurality; it restrains the largest party, since policies that cannot survive negotiation are dropped; it strengthens federalism by carrying regional parties and State concerns into national decisions; and it produces consultation, since nothing passes without agreement. Against: instability, since withdrawal by one partner can bring the government down; policy paralysis on contentious measures; bargaining power out of all proportion to size for a party holding the balance; blurred accountability, since no party is clearly responsible for failure; and the absence of a mandate where the combination was assembled after the poll.

5. How did the Tenth Schedule affect coalitions? It made them substantially more durable. Before 1985 a coalition could be broken by individual legislators crossing the floor, so any government with a thin majority was continuously vulnerable to inducement of its own members. After 1985 a member who votes against the party's direction on a confidence motion is liable to disqualification, so the arrangement can be broken only by a partner withdrawing as a party, which is a public act attributable to an identifiable body. That is why coalitions in the era after the Amendment lasted longer than those before it.