P Kharel

In countries where democratic mechanisms have yet to consolidate their institutions, political events are highly unpredictable, what with power equations shifting gear without the slightest hint. Rugs are pulled from under the feet so abruptly that all but the core team in the game are not in the know until an event occurs. All this because of overpowering ambitions and the lure of positions can compromise principles and promises in the twinkling an eye.
Over the decades, South Asia has witnessed many ups and downs in the political course of member countries in the world’s most populous region. Some are positively welcome and others less than so. One of the latest events in that category was in India’s state of Maharashtra last fortnight. In hot pursuit of the chief minister’s chair in that country’s financial capital, an ugly game of casting the nets to lure newly elected representatives to muster the required majority support in the assembly when the November elections tossed up a hung assembly.

Principles compromised
By far the single-largest party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was expected to form a new government with outgoing Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis at the head of in partnership with the long-time coalition partner Shiva Sena. But things soured when the Sena leaders wanted the chief ministership. As uncertainty mounted, two other parties joined hands with the Sena’s powerful Uddhav Thakeray.
In combination, the three groups in the assembly would have had a clear majority. However, a group of dissidents broke away from the veteran leader Sharad Pawar’s NCP and announced support for BJP. Fadnavis was sown in premier but resigned three days later when most of the breakaway group members returned to Pawar’s embrace, and BJP was left agape in the opposition benches.
Hectic activity, including horse trading, created an ugly suspense, underscoring some of the serious shortcomings in a country that likes to be termed “the largest democracy”, referring to its population size and regular multiparty electoral exercises. Several decades of electoral democracy have not yet delivered principled politics in many countries, much to the deep disappointment of the vast majority of unorganised voters.
India has the best record of holding general elections in South Asia since its independence in 1947. Nationwide emergency rule has been clamped only once but for two and a half years in 1975-77 on account of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s dictatorial desire to prolong her stay in power when a court verdict annulled her election.
The antics and whims spun by the ruling party against the opposition and dissident voices over and above outright misuse of power demonstrated a horror story that makes the Congress members cringe in acute embarrassment. Newspapers were banned or harassed gravely in the rest of South Asia at one time or the other. Although newspapers were not banned in India, the practice of tormenting media owners through tax officers and intelligence agencies does not come as rare.
Regarding the record of party system, India probably has comparatively a better record than the rest in the region. Parties were banned in Nepal for almost 30 years before being restored in 1990. Bhutan did not have a proper constitution until two decades ago and political parties were not allowed to operate. Today, things are slightly better. Parties and most newspapers were banned in Bangladesh within the first three years of independence from Pakistan in 1972. The situation improved in the mid-1970s and after.
Today, political parties function all over South Asia, and hence no longer a novelty. International agencies might give Bhutan an above-average status when it comes to corruption check, media freedom and what they call “gross happiness” but no country in the region is prepared to tick it as the most democratic and diplomatically the most successful. The discrepancy in the benchmark set by funding agencies is conspicuous—even questionable.
Horse trading is still rife in the 21st century India, even if not with the frequency witnessed in the 1970s and 1980s when Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi were in the prime minister’s chair at the centre. Conspiring to create splits in parties that ruled some states was a regular exercise. After years of nationwide criticism of the malpractice, a new law was introduced to check it. Under it, any breakaway group in a party requires at least 40 of the elected representatives, failing which means loss of seat and fresh polls.
Should a 40 per cent of the elected representatives of a political party plan to ditch the larger faction in their organisation and the part leader gets wind of it, one or two are expelled, thus pre-empting the impending split. For such expulsion would deprive the rebellious faction of the required seat percentage to ditch the party but retain their seats in the representative body.
When the Congress party was roundly defeated by a hurriedly formed Janata Party in the immediate aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s notorious Emergency excesses, there were hopes that a positively new political culture would develop. But those hopes were dashed on account of the intra-Janata Party squabbles. The various parties that joined to create the Janata Party continued to act as if they were independent entities. Hence, despite a landslide majority, the party collapsed.
A veteran leader like Charan Singh fell to the Congress pledge to support him if he split from the Janata Party. “My lifetime dream to become prime minister has been fulfilled,” he announced even when his was a minority government that eventually failed to successfully prove majority support in parliament. The inevitable snap polls returned Indira Gandhi to power.

History repeats
Nearly 12 years later, history repeated itself. This time Chandra Shekhar broke away from Prime Minister VP Singh’s Janata Dal with less than 15 per cent of the total parliamentarians with him. Rajiv Gandhi withdrew his support on a ridiculously flimsy ground that two junior security personnel in civil clothes were posted outside his residence to “spy upon” him and his family.
Political jaywalking in many electoral and semi-democracies are far too many in the post-World War II years to enumerate in this write-up. They reflect unprincipled compromises and opportunistic exercises. Too many such practices erode party credibility and risk questioning the very polity in operation in a given society.