Coalition governments and national security The Excelsior 13 Jun 18
India has begun gearing up for 2019. Every nation would await the decision of the world’s largest democracy on who would hold the mantle for the next five years. For India’s enemies or those who have been impacted by the present single government’s hard-line policies, a change at the centre is essential. It would be better with a mixed coalition, with a large representation of regional parties, which could leave the government directionless.
If the recent Karnataka elections and by-polls held across the nation are to become the norm, it would probably be a battle between just two parties, the BJP on one side and all others as a combined force opposing. It is probably the first time that the nation has been so polarised, solely to defeat a single powerful party, led by an orator not seen in India for a long time.
India as a country has witnessed coalition politics only in the last three decades, while Israel has lived with it since its emergence. Choosing Israel as an example has multiple reasons. Both have had a near similar period of independence and face multiple threats and challenges. However, due to size, regional parties dominate in India, not Israel. The growth of Israel, both economically and militarily, would indicate that coalition politics is equally effective and could lead to the growth of the nation, unless the beliefs of the coalition partners are so far apart that national agenda is pulled in different directions. This could happen if regional parties dominate the centre.
If national elections are fought on regional, communal and caste agenda’s, with only two contenders, BJP versus the rest, then regional parties are likely to dominate. Further, if anger against the ruling coalition is amplified by increased NOTA votes, then the impact is the same. If regional parties dominate results in their regions then the bias of the central government would shift inwards, rather than outwards.
The government would be akin to a pot of mixed vegetables. Minister’s from these parties would only look towards their state, rather than the nation. Central Minister’s from regional parties in earlier governments developing new projects only in their own states are examples.
For national security a cohesive government at the centre is imperative.
Each government comes to power with its own beliefs on national security and its implications. Some view national security as essential, while others tend to gloss over it, unless there is a direct threat. It was downplayed by the UPA, because there was no immediate threat facing the nation and there was a strong amalgamation of regional parties within it. Since Doklam and increased tensions with Pak, scenarios have changed. National security can no longer take the back seat. The world has also begun looking at India being a security provider, hence developing capabilities cannot be ignored.
Few governments devoted effort to developing military capabilities, while others have ignored it, aware that threats are still some distance away. Few appointed thinkers and strategists at the helm of national security, seeking to enhance India’s military reach, while others concentrated on economic development, believing economy to have a greater leverage than military power. The background and perception of the leader directed the approach of the government.
Some sought to open dialogue to resolve internal and external issues, while others stuck to their stand, unwilling to budge. Some sought to enhance the military’s outreach by participating in international groupings, while others kept the nation’s military away from the limelight, focussed inwards, rather than outwards.
The difference between a single party dominated government, within a coalition, and a multi-party coalition with regional allies is their outlook to national security. In the present BJP and earlier Congress governments (During the tenures of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi), national security was the prerogative of the head of the government, unaffected by coalition partners. Thus, the government could push its own agenda on national security issues, based on its own beliefs. Pushing the Indian army into Sri Lanka or the present government adopting a hard stance against Pak and sticking to its guns in Doklam are examples.
In case of a coalition government, where partners at the regional level possess enough political clout to impact central decisions, national security is impacted by the quality of leadership of the main political party at the centre. Regional parties seeking control of key ministries including defence, over which it has no genuine interest, except of its importance and budgetary allocations, would impact development of capabilities and enhancement of military power.
Regional parties would demand more funds for development for their own states, rather than on central security projects, as political survival is more important than national security. Hence, the more number of parties which form a part of the coalition including the number of seats which they control, the lesser is the emphasis on national security.
From a national security perspective, the nation may have any government, headed by any political party, however what remains essential is that the main stakeholder party, which in the Indian context is the BJP or Congress, should be strong enough to ensure its agenda on national security remains at the core. If it is almost as weak as its alliance partners, internal political issues would dominate its time, while national security and development of military capabilities would become secondary.
Considering the above, it is evident, that a coalition of almost all parties less the BJP, as is presently emerging, would result in the government being a mix of the ‘good, bad and the ugly’, each having its own local agenda, least concerned with issues at the national level. Most of the parties being local, the desire would remain regaining their hold in respective states. Thus, the nation would lose.
However, for the present set of political leaders, as was on display in Karnataka and earlier in Goa and Meghalaya, it is not who obtains the largest number of seats, but how to keep the main rival away. Shaking hands and playing second fiddle to the devil would be more acceptable than handing over the state to an adversary.
Which way would India vote? Would a single party emerge strong enough to make decisions or would it be controlled by regional parties from the background? The answer may be out in 2019, but before that we need to consider, what would we desire.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army