Congress weds BJP?

A coalition government emerges when no single party is able to form a government on its own. It is usually a multi-party government in which several parties combine forces in different ways to achieve both common and individual goals. The grand coalition is a particular type of coalition that has almost the entire spectrum of parties represented in government. The term 8216;grand8217; that qualifies 8216;coalition8217; emphasises magnitude. These could be all-party coalitions or they could be a coalition of two or more of the largest but ideologically competing parties/alliances.

8226;Are there different types of grand coalitions?

Coalition studies make a distinction between three types of grand coalitions. The first type is when grand coalitions are power sharing devices. The governing coalition includes representatives from all major segments of a highly divided society, in terms of ethnic, linguistic or religious groups. Grand coalitions are therefore conflict avoidance and/or regulation devices meant to prevent alienation, encourage cooperation and promote governmental legitimacy. They are meant to be an alternative to the purely majoritarian type of government where some minority groups could be permanently excluded from power. Lebanon, the Netherlands and Switzerland are examples of some countries that have had this particular variety of grand coalitions.

The second type of grand coalition is the crisis variety or the emergency grand coalition. These grand coalitions have formed during periods of national crisis like war or economic difficulty. A number of countries have had a brush with grand coalitions of this variety including the United Kingdom during 1915-16, 1931-40 and 1945 and Canada in 1917.

The third variety of grand coalition is the one that emerges in parliamentary bargaining situations. Grand coalitions emerge when traditional combinations of parties are unwilling or unable to form a government. The coalition makers then decide that they would be better off together in a coalition rather than acceding to the demands of the coalitionable parties or going for fresh elections. Germany in 1966 and in 2005, Israel on many occasions and most lately in January 2005, Iceland in 2007 and Pakistan in 2008 are some examples of grand coalitions of this type.

8226;Which of these types has attracted most attention recently?

The third variety of grand coalitions formed out of parliamentary bargaining is now famous. In the 2005 elections in Germany the two traditional coalitions did not manage an overall majority and after intense negotiations, two rivals, the Christian Democratic Union CDU-Christian Socialist Union CSU and the Social Democratic Party SDP came together to form a grand coalition. Other examples from Europe include the Social Democrats SPOuml; and the People8217;s Party Ouml;VP grand coalition since January 2007 in Austria and the Independence Party and the Social Democratic Alliance since May 2007 in Iceland.

Closer home, in Pakistan the Pakistan Peoples Party and Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz Sharif formed a government earlier this year despite long years of intense conflict and antagonism 8212; an experiment that now seems to be unravelling.

8226;Are grand coalitions more representative and/or desirable?

The first two varieties exist to fulfil certain higher order concerns. The parliamentary bargaining variety of grand coalition is a blatant exemplar of collusive behaviour among competitors and in a market situation they would be dismissed as cartels. They appear to have two perceived advantages. One, they represent a greater majority of the electorate. Two, there are less likely to be policy logjams.

P.A. Sangma8217;s suggestion appears to be based on these two supposed advantages. The greater representation thesis may not hold good as grand coalitions of the third variety are a result of post-electoral bargaining and negotiation. The electorate may have voted for the parties in a grand coalition but not necessarily the grand coalition itself. Preventing policy logjams through grand coalitions could be a solution worse than the problem in as much as it creates a powerless opposition that cannot check the government.

Secondly, if grand coalition experiments continue for a long period, what happens to governmental change? Finally, extreme and fringe parties could tap into the inevitable disenchantment and occupy legitimate opposition space.

8226;What about grand coalitions in India?

Central governments in India have always been representative of India8217;s diversity in the grand coalition variety of the first type. A study of successive cabinets will reveal that there has always been a conscious attempt to balance representation of different groups, in terms of caste, religion, state or language. The formation of federal coalitions since 1989 has accentuated this representative feature more strongly.

There have been suggestions of national governments periodically. Former President R. Venkataraman, its most prominent votary, has held it to be an antidote to instability. His suggestion in the early 1990s was seen by many as an attempt to increase his own influence. In September 2007, endorsing the proposition, eleven members of parliament including Rahul Bajaj and Rajeev Chandrasekhar among others, made an appeal for a national government to avoid mid-term polls.

Sangma8217;s call for a coalition of the BJP-Congress comes in the third category of grand coalitions. It is clearly a product of the circumstances 8212; more specifically the foreign policy and economic stalemate 8212; and attempts to create stability artificially. At the same time, it is a strategic move to open space for other parties 8212; including Sangma8217;s party 8212; which they may not otherwise get.

The writer teaches political science at Panjab University, Chandigarh