Monday, May 25, 2009

MANDATE 2009: TRIUMPH OF NEO-NEHRUISM

 

            On 16th May 2009, Dr. Manmohan Singh became the only incumbent Prime Minister sans Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru to win second consecutive term after completing full 5 years in office.  Continuation of Congress dominated alliance in the government reminds one of the Nehru era in more than one way. Stability and development were the issues on which people preferred Congress over other parties in the post-independence years. It was seen as a major force against Hindu and Muslim communalism as Nehru’s commitment to secularism was unquestionable. The umbrella character of its organization brought under it majority of people from almost all castes and religions as no one wanted to miss the opportunity to progress. These were the reasons enough for comprehensive Congress victories in first 3 general elections under Nehru’s premiership. He neither required radical economic agenda nor passionate appeals of social justice to garner support of the masses.

            Dr. Singh’s 5-years tenure somehow succeeded in generating similar impression about the ruling combine among the masses. His government enjoyed relative stability, except the brief turmoil over confidence vote on nuclear deal at the fag end of the term, thanks to the solid support of 61 Left MPs. The previous governments since 1989 were comparatively more unstable, including the NDA regime, as uncertainty always prevailed over the confidence of completing full tenure. The mandate of 2004 was to forge broader unity against communal forces, which had been duly respected in last five years. The Congress unexpectedly showed less vacillation over the communal issues as was evident from its adherence to Sethusamudram project in spite of saffron bogey of destroying mythical Ram Sethu. Also, it took up the issue of deprivation of Muslim community and turned the BJP’s arguments on its head about minority appeasement. It also created the impression that inclusive growth rather than sectarian interests has been its purpose of governance. It wisely adopted conciliatory approach towards left’s principled opposition to financial liberalization. Congress never took the left head on over these issues, thus, denying the latter credit of saving Indian economy when many capitalist systems in the world face the crisis. As a result, it was Dr. Manmohan Singh and his team that received praises for delicately balancing the economy and viewed as hope for preventing any collapse in the future.

            Significant increase in Congress seats in the Parliament is also the result of renewed approach towards party functioning that brought fresh air into the organizational machinery. Credit for this undoubtedly goes to steadfast leadership of Sonia Gandhi. Once dismissed as political novice, she has now emerged as tallest political leader of her generation. Congress has succeeded in regaining confidence of poor and middle classes as its leaders kept on harping upon the pro-poor and pro-farmer approach of UPA government. The programs like NREGA and loan waiver scheme came handy for convincing propaganda during the electioneering.   The party calibrated its approach in such a fashion that the pro-poor appeal never turned against rich or becoming rich. Sonia has developed the skill of connecting with masses in the same terms as her mother-in-law used to do in her heydays. Realizing that it was the poor people who constituted Indira Gandhi’s real political strength, Sonia has focused on connecting the Congress organization with them. However, it was perhaps the only imitation on her part of India’s former Prime Minister. Rest of her functioning as High-Command is dramatically different from the iron lady of the past, and even from her husband. They are aimed at reclaiming the Nehruvian legacy of Congress as democratic umbrella organization.

            Various thoughtful decisions by Ms. Gandhi over the years have benefitted the Congress in the long term. Division of party and government was the first major change introduced by her, which has been total departure from the practice of Indira-Rajiv period. A team of powerful general secretaries like Rahul Gandhi, Digvijay Singh, Virappa Moily, Ashok Gahlot etc remained out of central government and concentrated on organizational functioning. Ms. Gandhi never hesitated to send the influential leaders to state level affairs despite their reluctance as was evident from Gulam Nabi Azad’s posting in J&K and making Pranab Mukherjee West Bengal PCC chief. This way, she not only exerted the superiority but also signaled displeasure against coterie politics. Neglect of veteran like Arjun Singh further made clear her preference to dynamic performance over sycophancy. Today Congress has various leaders at the national level who are generally accepted as good at governance like Dr. Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, P. Chidambaram, A. K. Anthony etc. This approach has resulted into Congress projecting itself as team of capable leaders in the government and the party, a shift from over- centralized politics of 1970s and 1980s.

            More significantly, Congress is back to the Nehruvian days when many state leaders were popular enough to win elections on their own. They have been given free hand and stability by the High-command, which has yielded significant returns. The examples in sight are Y.S. Rajshekhara Reddy in Andhra, Ashok Gahlot in Rajsthan, Sheila Dixit in Delhi, Bhoopender Hooda in Haryana and Tarun Gogoi in Assam. This decentralization of functioning has helped the party in ensuring proper division of labor and responsibility. The last, but not the least, change brought in by Ms. Gandhi was packing the old generation of Congressmen to Raj Bhavans of different states, thus providing opportunity to generation next in the Congress. Many of the influential leaders of the Indira-Rajiv era, who are alive today, are appointed as Governor like N. D. Tiwaree, Balram Jakhar, Prabha Rau etc. Octogenarian leader like Karunakaran was forced to sit at home calmly, while irritants like Bhajan Lal, Buta Singh and Natwar Singh were compelled to leave the party. This opened up space for Rahul Gandhi’s younger team to prove its potential.

            The steady approach to blossom Rahul into leadership role is much similar to Nehru’s method towards Indira, wherein she was made to learn the basics of politics for years. This has also paid in its own way as criticism of promoting dynastic rule became ineffective and people were impressed with the hard work undertaken by Gandhi-duo to usher another term for Dr. Manmohan Singh. Congressmen must understand that the mandate is also for providing opportunity to non-Gandhi person to govern the country. Any attempts by coterie and sycophants to turn back the clock will surely be disliked by the people. Sonia and Rahul must guard themselves from such phenomena.

            There are few more important things the Congress must reflect upon. Despite significant increase in number of seats, Congress received only 2% more votes than 2004 even when it has contested more parliamentary seats. It is still far behind the 49% vote share won under Rajiv Gandhi in 1984. There had been division of opposition votes in states of A.P. Tamil Nadu, Haryana and Maharashtra that benefitted Congress. Focused and committed regional players like JD-U in Bihar and BJD in Orissa are still difficult nuts to crack. While this mandate is interpreted as vote for development and secularism, any neglect of issues concerning social justice can prove costly. Similarly, the communal politics takes no time to bounce back once given opportunity. The communal parties thrive in the conditions of unemployment, stiff price rise and any events arousing fear of national insecurity and disintegration. If Congress dreams of winning handsome majority five years later, these are the areas it can not afford to neglect. It must keep in mind that Indian electorate is inclined to punish arrogance, corruption and complacency. Return to the discourse of India soon becoming a superpower without electricity at every home, education to each child, health care for all, job security for workers, employment opportunities for youth, care of elderly persons and profitable farming for farmers; will invite people’s wrath. Maturity and thoughtfulness shown by Congress’ top leadership in recent past is an assurance with this regard, however, its history rooted in class politics raises an alarm. After all, the legendary Nehru also sacrificed his visionary wisdom to keep in tact alliance of the ‘haves’ in support of Congress while masses were merely shown mirage of socialist future.   

 

Monday, May 18, 2009

ELECTION 2009: SUMMARY OF THE CAMPAIGN TRAILS

(It was written on the eve of election results. Due to technical difficulty, I am posting it two days after the election outcome.)

With the last ballot on 13th May in 86 constituencies that went to poll in the fifth phase of the general elections for the 15th Lok Sabha, the two month long political mega-event has reached its penultimate stage. It becomes imperative to look into political phenomena as it unfolded during campaigning, people who hogged limelight and perceptions about the entire exercise. Once election results are out, these matters will be discussed through the prism of outcome, risking the objectivity.

Momentum of development plank, which Congress claimed to have generated after the last round of Assembly elections, did not sustain for long as the ruling party preferred to engage principal opposition on the issue of weak and strong Prime Minister. The Congress troika of Manmohan Singh-Sonia Gandhi-Rahul Gandhi launched counter-attack on L. K. Advani over his communal politics and erstwhile NDA’s failed approach to tackle terrorism. Congress cleverly killed two birds in one stone as its offensive made the BJP’s main attack on UPA government ineffective while the real issues of development, livelihood and security never surfaced in the debate between country’s two major political parties. For the first time, Indian voters witnessed the political avatar of incumbent Prime Minister as he was fielded by the Congress strategist to attack the right and the left alike. Congress also made it clear that it would not replace Dr. Manmohan Singh as Prime Ministerial candidate. Why should it spring up another leader in the rank which can risk eventual take over of the party by its first family’s generation next? Meantime, Dr. Singh did a favor to Indian democracy by casting his vote in Assam where he is enrolled as voter. Even though he acknowledged his inability to cast vote in the Assam assembly elections two years back, no one remembers whether he ever voted for the 14th Lok Sabha in 2004.

BJP’s desperation for issues to corner the ruling establishment was evident from a fact that in the mid of the campaign it focused on question of bringing back the black money stocked in Swiss Bank by some influential Indians. The issue was initially raised by left parties, which has also been mentioned in CPI-M’s manifesto. Left parties immediately pointed out BJP’s double standard on the issue when it showed how erstwhile NDA government opened up new routes to sneak away black currency in foreign banks. Realizing the appeal of the cause, Congress played safe by pledging to take steps to recover smuggled money. Political parties’ posturing over the issue resulted in emergence of consensus on the need to bring illegally transported money back in the country. Civil society’s pressure and Left’s concerted efforts on this issue, in deed, can help in achieving concrete results once new government takes the charge. While Congress attempted to maintain distance from charges of shielding corrupt people; CBI’s decision to let off Quatrorchi, an accused in the Bofors case, put the party in the dock. Impact of it on the electorate is, however, questionable given the oldness of the case.


Stripped of concrete issues, BJP ultimately championed the case of Varun Gandhi, who vitiated the electioneering with hate speeches against Muslims. The right-wing party banked upon the possibility of communal polarization to boost its prospects in parts of Uttar Pradesh, if not in the entire country. Nationwide condemnation of Varun Gandhi’s vitriolic attack against Muslim community proved the point that merely belonging to Gandhi family would not usher upon you the leadership status; rather, it should be firmly supplemented by respect for all religions and people as well as sobriety in behavior. In sharp contrast, Priyanka Gandhi scored a political point in dignified and graceful manner when she advised her cousin to read and understand Gita. She also silenced Narendra Modi over his criticism that Congress has grown old, hence burdensome on the country. Priyanka’s brief but smart innings during the campaign once again led to speculation of her becoming full time active in politics. On the other hand, Rahul Gandhi has posed himself to fully control the Congress affairs under guidance from her mother. Compared to last general elections, when he was confined to campaigning in his own constituency; this time the scion of Gandhi dynasty moved throughout the country addressing about 110 public meetings. His acceptability within party, rather the latter’s reliance on him, is beyond doubt. His ability to convert popularity and acceptability into votes for Congress will be tested when the EVMs will speak about the mood of the electorate. The challenge before Rahul Gandhi is to improve Congress tally significantly from the time when late Narsimha Rao resigned from Party President’s post, leaving behind demoralized organization with 135 Lok Sabha members. The mother-son duo has successfully enthused the grand old party since 1997 onwards; however, the quantum jump in its electoral strength remains a day dream.


In the entire election campaigning, BJP lacked the stewardship; thus impressing upon observers, the tallness of A. B. Vajpayee amongst saffron leaders. His successor completely lacked charm and liveliness, the attributes that successfully worked for the former Prime Minister to convert the crowd into valuable votes. BJP attempted to repeat history by creating an aura of decisiveness around Mr. Advani, while contradicting the same by projecting him as liberal in comparison to Narendra Modi. Ironically, BJP’s gigantic exercise to portray Advani as great leader destined to lift India’s fortunes resulted into increased acceptability of Narendra Modi within BJP’s fold. Gujrat Chief Minister also made most of the opportunity in his state, although his riot-stinted past refused to get off his back elsewhere. Outside Gujrat, it was the less charismatic ground level leaders who sustained the momentum for BJP. B. S. Yediurappa in Karnataka, Raman Singh in Chattisgarh, Shivraj Chauhan in Madhya Pradesh, Gopinath Munde in Maharashtra and such leaders in few other states would eventually pull the BJP tally close to the 2004 mark. Dominance of state politics is coming to the rescue of the saffron party, which has failed to set an appealing agenda at the national level. Thus, the saffron party will remain in the reckoning in the future despite its sulking image among the political pundits. This impression of declining force gains currency as a result of total ineffectiveness of BJP’s core agenda before the people. Its allies too are sailing with it due to state level advantages and would act as check on it in case it forms the government at the centre.


The overall posturing by the political parties during electioneering shows tilt towards rhetoric of Left to the Centre policies. While, Congress leadership harped upon its pro-poor projects like NREGA and accused the BJP-led NDA of being pro-rich, the later publicly admitted its folly of pitching the ‘India Shining’ campaign in 2004 general elections. BSP leader Ms. Mayawati also brought into focus the economic disparities in the country and blamed it for Congress rule since independence. She proudly claimed that her party does not run on the money received from rich industrialists but on the basis of donations collected by party workers throughout the country. She also promised to ensure reservation for economically deprived within the upper castes. BSP is making a robust effort countrywide to make Mayawati next Prime Minister on the plank of Dalit Ki Beti. The left parties as usual reiterated its commitment for pro-worker, pro-farmer economic policies while its allies in some of the states banked upon populist measures like cheap rice, free TV sets and cash transfer schemes. If words of the leaders from all political parties are taken seriously, the next government, no matter of which combination, should not make an attempt for further liberalization of country’s economy. The Left parties cobbled together alliances with regional players in few important states and pitted for emergence of strong Third Front in post-electoral scenario. The initial sarcasm about formation of Third Front soon converted into serious attacks on such possibilities by both the Congress and the BJP. Emergence of such possibility also created waves in UPA and NDA as the smaller parties looked for an opportunity to break free from their national partners.

Surprisingly, the volcanic developments in Pakistan found little mention and rabidly anti-Islamabad parties like BJP-Shiv Sena did not try to capitalize on the eminent danger to India from the potential resurgence of Taliban in the neighborhood. Is it a sign of Indian polity coming to an age vis-à-vis dealing with Pakistan and responding to threats emanating from it? Or is it an expose of the cluelessness of Indian political parties over unprecedented developments across the western border? On the other hand, the left campaign was aptly focused on its opposition to strategic ties with the United States, including the nuclear deal, wherein it tried to put the UPA government in the dock. The Congress, however, opted for silence over the issue. It did not champion the reasons and causes for entering into nuclear deal except Dr. Manmohan Singh’s reply to the Left in couple of meetings. Plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka has been the central issue in Tamil Nadu, where there were no contrasting opinions on it. Each of the political formations accused the other of shading false tears and promised to make efforts to ease the situation in northern Sri Lanka.


Apart from the agendas and issues that the parties tried to project at the national level, performance of respective state governments remained the focal point of campaigning in most of the states. It was obvious for the states of A.P. and Orissa, where assembly elections were held simultaneously. However, several other Chief Ministers, for example Nitish Kumar in Bihar, V. S. Achyutanandan in Kerala, Yediurappa in Karnataka and Bhoopinder Singh Hooda in Haryana also took the election as referendum on their respective government’s performance. In few states, the local issues and new leaders too dominated the campaign to the extent of influencing voters’ decision. Prominent among them are Raj Thackrey’s anti-north Indian stand, demands for separate Telangana and Gorakhaland, cine-star Chiranjivee’s political launching in A.P. are some of the prominent local matters emerged in the electioneering this season. Election results will reveal which of these factors dominate the mindset of Indian voters. The results can also throw up surprises and new trends as they have done for more than once in Indian politics.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

FINAL PROJECTION: 2009

STATE

TOTAL

CONG+

BJP+

TF

FF

Rest

U.P.

80

13

12

40

15

--------

M’RASHTRA

48

26

20

01

------

01

W.B.

42

12

-----

30

------

--------

A.P.

42

12

-------

-------

--------

BIHAR

40

02

30

--------

08

--------

TN+

40

09

--------

31

-------

--------

M.P.

29

09

20

-------

-------

--------

K’TAKA

28

06

18

04

------

--------

GUJRAT

26

06

20

------

-------

------

R’STHAN

25

18

06

01

------

-------

ORISSA

21

10

01

10

------

-------

KERALA

20

12

------

08

-------

-------

PUNJAB+

14

08

05

01

-----

-------

JHARKHAND

14

02

12

-------

--------

-------

ASSAM

14

03

10

01

-------

-------

CHATTISGARH

11

02

09

-------

------

------

HARYANA

10

04

05(2+3)

01

------

DELHI

07

06

01

-----

------

------

J&K

06

04

01

-------

------

01

U’KHAND

05

02

03

-------

------

-------

H.P.

04

01

03

------

-------

-------

GOA

02

02

00

-----

------

------

TRIPURA

02

---

-------

02

------

-----

AR.P.

02

02

----

------

------

-------

OTHER

11

06

02

-----

-----

03

TOTAL

543

177 (152+25)

178 (135+43)

160

23

05

POST 16TH MAY POSSIBILITIES

CONG GOVT 1 = 177 + 23 + 010 (BJD) + OTHERS = 210+

CONG GOVT 2 = 172 + 23 + 010 + 027 (AIADMK)= 232+

CONG GOVT 3 = 172 + 08 + 010 + 027 + 042 (BSP) = 259+

BJP GOVT 1= 178 + 042(AIADMK)+010 (BJD) + Others= 230+

BJP GOVT 2= 178 + 042+010+024(TDP)+042(BSP) = 292 +

TF GOVT 1 = 160 + SUPPORTED BY CONG ALL(177) = 337+

Congress = 152

BJP = 135

BSP = 042

LF = 049

AIADMK= 027

JD-U = 020

NCP = 012

TDP = 024

BJD = 010

FF = 023

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Third Front: A Political Necessity

Left parties’ alliances with various regional parties in different states in the run up to the 15th Lok Sabha and BSP’s indications to enter into post poll co-operation with the total sum of these alliances once again triggered the debate about necessity and viability of the national political alliance of parties that are not part of either Congress-led or BJP-led coalitions. However, the Left is refraining from terming the present loosely-knitted coalition of non-Congress, non-BJP parties as the Third Front/Alternative even though the effort is pioneered by its leaders. On the other hand, Left’s coalition partners, rest of the political establishment and media have readily labeled the experiment as Third Front. 

Introduction

The term Third Front is rather new terminology in Indian politics although it looks like an old usage. The requirement of third platform began to be felt only after 1991 since the BJP consolidated its position as the second most powerful pole of Indian polity. 1980s and 1990s witnessed regressive developments in Indian politics as the progressive-socialist opposition to Congress’ hegemony withered away, with the exception of the Left parties, giving way to emergence of rabidly right wing forces. Since independence; until the collapse and disintegration of the Janata Party in 1980, the polity was divided into Congress and Anti-Congress platform; the latter being conceptualized by great socialist thinker and leader Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia. The 1977 Janata Party government was put together by Jayprakash Narayan utilizing Lohiya’s concept of anti-Congressism. The Janata Government enjoyed the majority on its own. The 1989 anti-Congress government was result of V.P. Singh’s charismatic leadership of the time that brought together all the socialists under one umbrella. The V.P. Singh government named and popularly called at that time as National Front government. Both these non-Congress regimes were not considered as Third Front governments because of BJP’s relatively (at least in electoral terms) weak position in the Indian politics. While Janata government did not require Left’s support for survival, the V.P. Singh government received outside support from the Left on one hand and BJP on the other hand. The Left’s tactic was to oust the bourgeoisie-landlord Congress from the government and also to keep BJP away from the actual reins of power. The reason for BJP’s non participation in the V.P. Singh government was its dependability on the Left for survival, whereas the erstwhile Jan Sangh had no hesitation in participation in the Janata Party government a decade earlier. The Left did not play crucial role either in the formation of Janata Party in 1977 or Janata Dal-led National Front in 1989. Both these phenomena occurred with its own dynamics without direct interference from the Left. 

The Left And The Third Front

Complete disintegration of Indian socialist camp into several fractions in mid-1990s resulted into posing the responsibility of providing secular alternative to the BJP and the Congress on the shoulders of the Left. Constrained by its limited presence nationwide, the Left has since been trying to forge an alliance of regional parties as an alternative to two dominant parties. Thus, the Left cobbled together the United Front after 1996 parliamentary elections as opposed to Congress and BJP. Since then the Left has been at the centre of efforts to form any non-Congress, non-BJP alternative at the centre. Since 1990s, the left parties, particularly the CPM, have time and again insisted upon and attempted to form the ‘Third Alternative’ as opposed to both the Congress and the BJP. The left has also been maintaining that any such political alliance should be firmly based on alternative economic policies to reverse the neo-liberal shift in Indian economy since 1991. 

Socio-Political Necessity Of Alternative Platform

The debate about necessity of the Third Front is dominated by two arguments. The opponents of any such experiment are deeply influenced by and confined to the liberal bourgeois democracy as practiced in the United States and the United Kingdom. In each of these advanced capitalist countries the democratic process produced two-party political system. The proponents for replication of it in India conveniently forget that the bi-polar system in either the US or the UK was not constitutionally designed but result of prolonged socio-political processes in those countries. The changes in those societies in the future can lead to fragmentation of political parties; while, the contrary can also happen, wherein, only one party becomes all powerful exerting its political hegemony through democratic process. There are other developed capitalist countries that practice multiple party systems with two or more coalitions in place. 

In India, the Left champions need of Third Alternative as there have been hardly any differences between Congress and BJP as far as policies on economy, external affairs and federalism are concerned. Under such situation, according to the Left, change of government does not result in paradigm shift in government policies as it usually happens in the US and the UK. Therefore, the Left aspires to build a policy based alternative to Congress and BJP by aligning with regional parties and any other party willing to share the similar view point. Since parliamentary tactics have acquired very important role in Left’s overall approach to bring in the change in the society, it has to evolve methods to shift the course of centre’s policies according to its own ideological framework. Limited influence of Left on Indian population, which has been restricted to certain pockets in the country, asks for forging broad alliances with some of the political parties. This would help the Left in not only exerting influence in the matters of policy makings but also to keep its ideological agenda very much alive at the national level. 

In the Indian context, an alternative platform becomes more essential for the democratic representation of various regional aspirations and social identities. India is at the crossroad as various communities are realizing the deprivations they have suffered and are aspiring for better economic and social status. Both the prominent political parties are politically least accommodative to diversity and aspirations of the deprived. Lack of any alternative platform will only result in exaggerating centrifugal tendencies in different parts and communities within the country. The ever shrinking place of Congress on one hand and BJP’s inability to further expand its base substantially (of course, Karnataka is a major exception) demonstrate that these parties have failed to gain confidence of people in different states and of various communities. Their failure has resulted into fragmentation of polity, while the alternative platform has the potential to bind various political forces together on agreed agenda for governance. The Indian polity has never been static but ever evolving in last 60 years. It has come a way ahead in accepting the coalition governments from the earlier form of single party government. In the same way, it can further evolve in the tri-polar direction. In deed, there are several political formations, strongly backed by social forces, which are not inclined towards Congress or BJP. These forces form backbone of the potential Third Front at the national level. 

Non-Congress, Non-BJP Governments In Perspective

It is important to look into experiences from failures of 1977, 1989 and 1996 experiments before embarking on a renewed journey for realization of the Third Front. Earlier the two non-Congress governments came to power around strong personalities like Jayprakash Narayan and V.P. Singh. The political organizations they represented had the national level presence. Moreover, they ride the waves against Congress on issues like emergency and corruption respectively. All these factors were absent in 1996 when the United Front government was put in place. Total disenchantment of electorate with the Narsimha Rao led Congress government sprang up the most diverse result since independence. Unacceptability of BJP’s core political agenda for rest of the political parties created a stage for the formation of United Front government with an outside support from the Congress. Not only that these regimes were of short tenures but also each of these political formations couldn’t sustain after fall of the respective governments. The Janata Party government, even though was in majority, collapsed as a result of ideological contradictions inherent in its formation. On the other hand, the V.P. Singh government and the United Front governments could not complete the term as they never had the majority on their own on the floor of the Lok Sabha. These memories of failures still haunt the political spectrum. The political formations that led these respective governments fell apart each time they lost trust vote in Parliament. This was result of lack of programmatic and tactical understanding among the components as well as the need of political survival, under the given political situation, for many of the political players that hampered continuation of unity among those forces. 

Concerns About Third Front’s Viability

In this context, the two foremost questions that arise are whether any eventual Third Front government can complete its full term in the office and whether its components politically remain together even if the government falls. In the present scenario, formation of government at the centre seems to be an impossible task without accommodating the Third Front unless either Congress or BJP rides any wave, which is currently invisible to one and all. Nonetheless, the new formation at the centre will again be of short tenure as a result of hung parliament, which is in the offing. It is merely a tactical question whether to set up a minority Third Front government at the centre. For a matter of fact, staking a claim to form the government will, in deed, help in formulating the policy framework for the Third Front as it will also attract many other potential partners to be part of it or to align with it. On the other hand, it is strategically crucial to devise the ways to consolidate the Third Front’s political mechanism based on alternative policy framework. In this context, everyone who is not aligned to BJP or Congress can not be part of the Third Front even though such forces can be part of the Third Front-led government. As Indian polity has traversed from the days of single party rule to instituting the coalitions under the leadership of any national level party, now it has to further explore the ways to rationalize concept of the government with two or more centre of powers agreed to come together on common minimum programme. In a diverse and developing society like India, the polity can not be static but will keep on changing within the framework of parliamentary democracy unless and until interests of all the sections of the society get represented equitably. In fact, such flexibility ensures survival of and further acceptance of democracy with the people. 

Role of BSP

From this perspective, the Left’s alliances with regional parties and other smaller parties have the potential to form the Third Front. At the same time, there should be no illusions about bringing the BSP within the gambit of the Third Front in the near future. The BSP can only be post-electoral partner of the Third Front in its bid to form the anti-BJP, non-Congress government at the centre. In deed, outside such a government and particularly during the elections, the Left and the BSP will continue to vie for the alternative space to Congress and BJP in different states, thus making them competitors until the BSP reaches its saturation point of expansion. The natural question is why BSP should enter in such an understanding with the Left-led Third Front on a long term basis. In the past, BSP has entered with power-sharing arrangement with the BJP thrice, pre-election alliance with the SP once and seat sharing arrangement with the Congress in 1996. None of these adjustments resulted into its long term alliance with any of these political parties as class character of BSP stands out against those of Congress, BJP and SP. BSP’s support base overwhelmingly consists of Dalits, the most backward castes and the poor among the other castes, particularly the Brahmins. On the contrary, BJP’s main support comes from Brahmin and non-Brahmin upper castes, and middle castes that constitute petty bourgeoisie in the U.P. The SP represents the powerful OBCs, Muslims and some of the non-Brahmin upper castes like Rajput. The Muslims are aligned with the SP more to defeat the communal forces than to promote its economic interests. The SP in U.P. and RJD in Bihar have long lost the distinction of being forces of social change representing interests of the poor in the society. The powerful OBC castes in both the states with significant land holding now dominate the organization and politics of these parties. As a result, the Muslims in Bihar had deserted the RJD in last assembly elections to vote for the JD (U) and their counterpart in the U.P. are on the way to switch loyalty to BSP in the similar fashion. The BSP requires post-electoral allies to participate in/lead the government and Third Front is much lucrative option for it than the BJP or the Congress.

To Be Or Not To Be?

The present participants in the Third Front, barring the Left, do not represent coherent ideology or pro-poor policy framework. What is important, however, is that many of them represent the poor and downtrodden masses as well as regional aspirations of the people. In this context, role of the Left becomes crucial in terms of providing ideological leadership to the emerging Third Front. The experiment of United Front failed miserably because of three factors; one, lack of coherent ideology in its common minimum programme; two, lack of nationwide organizational presence (if not electoral) and; three, lack of popular non-corrupt leadership at the helm. The Left attempted to insert certain pro-poor measures in the CMP of the UF government; however, it was not a participant in the government to ensure its sincere implementation. Its absence in the government also resulted in UF lacking national perceptive and certain degree of acceptability. Today, the Left is not novice to nitty-gritty of governance, particularly as a result of its role during the UF government and its concrete interventions in almost all the policy matters of UPA government. It has come far away from being merely critic of everything in the establishment to providing policy alternatives on all the important fronts. Its experiences in running the coalition government, albeit in majority, in three states in the era of liberalization come as handy guide to evolving and implementing pro-poor measures. Left has to lead from the front to set in motion an alternative agenda of governance given the pressing need to provide minimum relief to the poor in this country, to address the long pending issues of regional deprivations, to further isolate the communal forces and to resist US-imperialism in the region. 

Conclusion

Participation in the third front government is merely a tactical question which needs consideration from two points of views; one, whether any other non-Congress, non-BJP political party is electorally and ideologically sound to provide leadership to the Third Front government when people are posed to throw up the mandate against both these parties and; two, whether left democratic forces and people at large will gain from such direct intervention. The question becomes primary only in the context of 15th Lok Sabha elections as the Left has other tasks to perform, which will help in enhancing its capacity to intervene also to ideologically strengthen the Third Front. The present efforts to build the Third Front need to be supplemented by consolidating the Left unity in different states like in Bihar. The Left also needs to take up social justice agenda more forcefully linking it to economic policies. There is pressing need to either forge organic links with different people’s movements in the country or evolve different perspective on the issues taken up by these movements. The renewed experiment to install a Third Front government at the centre and a new urge to provide leadership to it will not prove detrimental for the Left in pursuing its larger agenda and increasing sphere of influence in Indian polity and society.