A coalition's woes

As the election process gets under way, the ruling coalition is confronted with the absence of a wave or an undercurrent in its favour.

in New Delhi

EVERY general election throws up its own agenda, which sets the tone and tenor of the political discourse during and after the election. The last two general elections were fought on the issue of political stability, understood in terms of the longevity of the regime at the Centre. The Bharatiya Janata Party capitalised on the collapse of coalition governments at the Centre in 1998 and 1999 and presented to the nation a much broader coalition of about two dozen parties that would be able to form the government after the elections and promised political stability under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Ironically, as the 14th Lok Sabha elections begin on April 20, political stability is no longer an issue before the electorate. This is despite the fact that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has shrunk in size, with several constituents deserting it in the run-up to the elections. In fact, this has left a question mark over the NDA's numerical strength in Parliament and the stability of the next government if the alliance becomes the frontrunner and forms the government. At the function held in New Delhi on April 8 to mark the release of the NDA's manifesto, the coalition could claim the support of only seven constituents - the BJP, the Shiv Sena, the Janata Dal (United), the Nationalist Trinamul Congress, the Akali Dal, the Biju Janata Dal and the Indian Federal Democratic Party (IFDP). Despite a broad convergence of views on several issues, the NDA could not rope in parties such as the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), who preferred to have seat adjustments with the BJP rather than join the coalition.

The BJP's spin doctors attribute the exit of several constituents from the NDA to "local compulsions" rather than to their frustration with the Vajpayee government. The absence of any threat to the stability of the Vajpayee government since the 1999 elections, they argue, is proof enough of its ability to survive. As the voters are convinced of this ability, the BJP and the NDA no longer have to harp on the issue of stable polity in order to secure a fresh mandate.

In 1999, the NDA promised to take measures to ensure a fixed term of five years for all elected bodies including legislatures. Yet, the coalition had no qualms in seeking the dissolution of the 13th Lok Sabha eight months ahead of its completion of tenure and opt for early polls. In spite of this, the NDA claims in its manifesto to have given India "a stable and purposive government under an able leader".

However, as the first phase of the elections drew nearer, the BJP appeared to be jittery about its prospects. For the first time in the campaign, Vajpayee took recourse to the stability plank, after filing his nomination papers for the Lucknow seat on April 15. He sought a second term for his government to steer the country out of "a state of crisis that might be caused by political instability" after the Lok Sabha elections.

Again, he admitted while addressing a rally at Nagpur on April 17 that a multi-party coalition government was too unwieldy to handle. He said it would be easier for him to govern the country if his party secured a majority. This was in sharp contrast to what he and his party had been claiming all along that even if the party secured a majority, it would still form a coalition government on the basis of a consensual agenda. Although Vajpayee clarified that he did not find it difficult to run the coalition, he said he could serve the nation better if he was not to lead another big coalition. Such contradictory appeals could only suggest a belated realisation that the NDA could fall short of a simple majority in the Lok Sabha and that Vajpayee would again have to depend on unpredictable post-poll allies to sustain his new government.

Although Vajpayee did not elaborate why he felt there might be political instability after the elections, the Lucknow tragedy of April 12 - in which 22 persons died in a stampede during the distribution of saris to mark the birthday celebration of Vajpayee's unofficial election in-charge and BJP leader Lalji Tandon - appeared to have cast a shadow over the BJP's poll prospects elsewhere. He even appealed to his likely opponent, former Union Minister Ram Jethmalani, to withdraw from the contest in Lucknow. Congress(I) spokesperson Kapil Sibal interpreted Vajpayee's appeal as an attempt to influence Jethmalani's free exercise of his electoral right and an offence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act. Jethamalani, who first vacillated over his decision to contest because of a personal problem, chose to remain in the fray. As a damage-control measure, the BJP asked Tandon to quit as the convener of Vajpayee's election management committee.

Vajpayee even threw broad hints that he wanted to retire before the elections but had to postpone retirement in view of the pressure from the party and his colleagues. His claim that there was a clear consensus within the party and the NDA on who would be his successor invited retorts from the Opposition parties. They considered his view as one more proof that he was only a "mukhota" (mask) and that even if elected to power he was not likely to remain as Prime Minister for the next five years. It was left to BJP president M. Venkaiah Naidu to deny this only possible interpretation of Vajpayee's statement. Vajpayee himself did not clarify whether he intended to quit after the elections if voted back to power, and if so, when. The BJP's unique selling point, "Vajpayee versus a question mark", has now lost its sheen with a question mark hanging over Vajpayee's leadership itself, in view of his admission that he has only "postponed" his retirement.

Vajpayee's inclination to retire has coincided with the BJP's gradual ascendancy vis-a-vis the NDA. Having won remarkable victories in the December 2003 Assembly elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the BJP's comfort level has gone up and it is taking its allies for granted. This is reflected in the manner in which the BJP sneaked into the NDA manifesto contentious issues like Ayodhya.

In 1999, the NDA manifesto put a moratorium on contentious issues, which included building of a Ram mandir at Ayodhya, enactment of a uniform civil code, and the abrogation of Article 370 - the core issues that have remained the ideological goals of the BJP for years. In 1999, the BJP did not find it necessary to issue its "Vision Document" to outline its priorities, which could be different from those of the coalition. This time round, the BJP not only felt free to reiterate its commitment to its ideological goals, but also forced the NDA to include the Ayodhya issue in the manifesto and say that it believed in resolving it early and amicably to "strengthen national integration". Having said this, the NDA held that the judiciary's verdict in this matter should be accepted by all and, simultaneously, efforts should be intensified for a negotiated settlement in an atmosphere of mutual trust and goodwill. If, as Defence Minister George Fernandes claimed, there could be no opposition to this promise, there is no credible explanation as to why the allies resisted a similar proposal in 1999. Obviously, the BJP now finds the allies too meek to question the inclusion of its pet themes in the NDA's agenda.

The promise to deprive persons like Congress(I) president Sonia Gandhi their right to occupy high constitutional posts has again been included in the NDA manifesto. But the language has acquired a subtle emphasis that suggests a deep animosity towards the Nehru-Gandhi family. In 1999, the NDA promised to "enact legislation to provide an eligibility criteria that the high offices of state - legislative, executive and judicial - are held only by naturally born Indian citizens". However, through its last five years in office, the government never bothered to initiate even a national debate on the issue, let alone bring forward the promised legislation. The 2004 NDA manifesto says that "legislation will be introduced to ensure that important offices of the Indian state can be occupied only by those who are India's natural citizens by their Indian origin". The words "Indian origin" have been added probably to seek to deprive Sonia Gandhi's children of their right to hold any elected office.

The BJP and Vajpayee are perhaps worried that it may be difficult to sustain the interest of the voter in "brand Vajpayee" in the nearly month-long election process. Besides, the NDA is unsure of the potential of the anti-Sonia Gandhi campaign in influencing the electorate. This explains why Vajpayee himself has been ambivalent on the issue. While he condemned personal attacks against Sonia Gandhi, he was not forthcoming on the stand of the NDA and the BJP on her eligibility to occupy the Prime Minister's post. Apparently, an attack on Sonia Gandhi's leadership credentials would mean elevating her to the status of Vajpayee's rival for the office of Prime Minister, and this he appeared keen to avoid.

An overuse of Vajpayee's persona in these elections has its own risks, as it may alienate a section of voters because of the sheer boredom that it would cause. Similarly, such a belated realisation seems to have influenced the BJP's decision not to harp on the "Feel Good" and "India Shining" factors, which are already being mocked at in much of urban and rural India. Besides, the party could not answer the criticism that the government was wrong in funding the advertisement campaign to promote these themes, which was primarily intended to favour the party in the elections. Yet, the BJP and the rest of the NDA find that they have nothing else but the professed virtues of Vajpayee's leadership to use as their trump card.

APPEARING to make a serious departure from its 1999 manifesto, the NDA has this time felt it necessary to make a specific promise to "continue to strengthen the ideal of secularism enshrined in India's Constitution". Yet, when the Supreme Court indicted the Narendra Modi government in Gujarat for its complicity in the denial of justice to the victims of the Best Bakery violence in Vadodara, BJP spokesperson and Union Minister Arun Jaitley responded that it was no indictment of the Modi government and that the Chief Minister need not quit office. Apparently, both the BJP and Vajpayee find Modi's continuance in office more important to retain or increase its tally of Lok Sabha seats in Gujarat rather than bow to the NDA's promise and pay ethical obeisance to the Supreme Court's judgment. Moreover, the manifesto's claim that there has been a significant reduction in communal and caste violence in the past five years stands exposed in the background of the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The NDA's commitment to give "corruption-free governance at all levels" sounds hollow with the Election Commission's issue of a show-cause notice to the BJP asking it to explain why action should not be taken against it for "breaching" the model code of conduct in the Lucknow sari tragedy. The E.C. said it was prima facie satisfied with the evidence submitted by the Uttar Pradesh government that the BJP "distributed largesse to voters during election time". The E.C. has asked the U.P. government to register a case of bribery and illegal gratification against Lalji Tandon and others involved in organising the function. The E.C. has several options to punish a party for the violation of the code, including withdrawal of its recognition and symbol.

In the absence of credible issues and an alternative political and developmental vision, the challenge of the election campaign is staring the BJP in the face. The NDA, for instance, has projected development, good governance and peace as the issues in this election, but has not bothered to show how its claims are different from the model pursued by the Congress(I) before it came to power. The NDA manifesto claims that its promises of 1999, guaranteeing prosperity and upholding the nation's pride, have largely been met. However, the NDA has shown very little as its achievements in the areas of development, good governance and peace in the past five years.

In a recent interview, Vajpayee remarked that this was perhaps the first election in which people were going to decide on issues without any tension. "There is no desperate cut-throat competition," he said. Going by the trends in the previous general elections, an issue-less and as a consequence a "tension-less" election does not augur well for the BJP, which has always gained from divisive and emotional campaigns.

Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, who concluded his 33-day rath yatra on April 14 at Puri, has claimed to have noticed an unprecedentedly high degree of satisfaction among the voters about the performance of the government. As per the party's statistics, Advani covered 128 Lok Sabha constituencies and made "direct contact" with 12 million people. A normal election is bound to produce varied results across the country and even within States because of various factors. Hence partisan impressions formed by Advani during his rath yatra across the country need not necessarily reflect the NDA's real prospects in the elections.