India’s democratic journey has always been tumultuous, but the lead-up to this year’s Lok Sabha elections marked an unprecedented phase of political fluidity. With a shared ambition to unseat the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a motley coalition of national and regional parties formed the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDI). Ideological adversaries apparently set aside deep-seated rivalries to present a united front. Yet, the alliance’s fragility was exposed soon after the elections, as cracks began to emerge, with several leaders questioning Congress’s ability to lead. Nitish Kumar and the Janata Dal (United), instrumental in forming INDI, reverted to the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), underscoring the volatility of political loyalties.
This chaos is not new. Parties like the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) have frequently switched sides between the BJP and its opponents. Maharashtra reflects a similar churn: the Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP)—both erstwhile BJP allies—are now splintered over whether to ally with the BJP or the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA). With MVA’s survival uncertain, further realignments loom large. To critics, such shifts exemplify opportunism, but these developments may signal something deeper: the early rumblings of a transformation toward a mature two-party system.
Toward Political Consolidation
Globally, democratic evolution often leads to fewer political parties, with two or three dominant forces shaping the narrative. The United States, with its Republicans and Democrats, and the United Kingdom, defined by Labour and the Conservatives, exemplify this trend. Even in multiparty systems like Canada or Germany, the political arena revolves around a few central players.
India’s federal structure and its diversity present unique challenges to this trajectory. The country hosts six recognized national parties and 58 regional ones, with alliances like the NDA and INDI each comprising around 30 members. Such proliferation is unsustainable. The BJP’s meteoric rise—from two parliamentary seats in the 1980s to a decade-long majority—positions it as a pole in this evolving landscape. However, the contours of the opposing force remain uncertain, hinging on factors that resonate uniquely within India’s political and social context.
While political ideologies like left, right, and centre define parties globally, their meanings differ across nations. In developed economies, the discourse often revolves around taxation, government intervention, and social issues. The United States, for instance, debates the extent of taxation, welfare spending, and contentious topics like abortion and climate change. Immigration and foreign policy also dominate discussions in Western democracies.
In India, however, the narrative diverges significantly. The fundamental question is one of unity: What unites such a linguistically and culturally diverse nation as a single sovereign entity? Language, a unifying force in countries like France or Germany, fails to serve this purpose in India. Nor can the Constitution, formulated post-Independence, fulfil this role. The answer lies in articulating a vision that underscores India’s uniqueness, setting it apart as a cohesive yet pluralistic society.
India’s political parties, barring exceptions like the BJP and the Left, are often family-run enterprises. Their longevity hinges on the dynasty at the helm. Yet, the limitations of this model are becoming evident. Internal power struggles within dynasties, as seen in parties like the NCP, risk their survival. Without a charismatic family figure, many such parties lack distinctiveness, further questioning their relevance. The sustainability of dynastic politics—or the lack thereof—will be a decisive factor in shaping India’s political landscape.
India’s political discourse is also rife with contradictions. Most parties promise a slew of freebies—cash transfers, free electricity, and rations—while failing to address the fiscal strain they impose. With a narrow tax base, sustaining such largesse without derailing economic growth is untenable. Similarly, reservation policies, in place for over 75 years, face increasing demands despite limited evidence of their efficacy. Economic development and urbanization might gradually blur caste divides, but political ambivalence on such issues only sharpens them.
To command lasting influence, parties must move beyond populism, articulating coherent strategies to balance welfare with fiscal prudence. Straddling contradictory positions may win short-term electoral gains but risks undermining credibility in the long run.
Issues like economic development, poverty alleviation, and inflation control remain critical, but they are baseline expectations of any government. These will not define political narratives. Instead, questions of national identity, the role of dynasties and approaches to welfare and caste reservations will determine the emergence of dominant players.
Much like industries that witness consolidation after initial proliferation, India’s democracy appears poised for a similar evolution. As in the private sector, where mergers and acquisitions weed out unsustainable enterprises, India’s electorate is likely to demand greater clarity and accountability from political parties.
The BJP, with its national reach and ideological coherence, occupies a strong position. However, the opposition’s response will shape the eventual dynamics. Whether INDI or another coalition evolves into a cohesive force, India’s political future will hinge on whether parties can transcend short-term gains and articulate a vision that resonates with a diverse and aspirational electorate.
India’s trajectory toward becoming a consolidated democracy is both a challenge and an opportunity. What emerges from the current turbulence will define the nation’s political ethos for decades to come.
(The author works with Tata Group and is a keen political observer.
Views personal.)
Comments