Bolstering Soft Tyranny: Post-Poll Alliances as a Deterrence to Democracy

This Blog is written By Mr. Kabir Jaiswal Student of National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi & Miss. Soumya Tiwari Student of Indian Law Society, Law College, Pune.

“Democracy’s ceremonial, its feast, its great function, is the elections.”

A famous connotation is given by H.G. Wells exhibits the importance of elections in modern Democracy. Elections are a ‘part and parcel’ of the modern democratic system. It implies that the citizens must have a free will to choose the candidate of their choice and be able to have freedom of expression within the given framework. Party system is an indispensable part of it and the concept of post-poll alliances is incongruous with the essence of democracy. The problem requires us to evaluate the pros and cons of post-poll alliances, the constitutional, legal, conventional view & the role of governors needs to be analyzed in this respect.

The issue questions the Constitutionality of Post poll alliance. In today’s politics, the Coalition government is not an unfamiliar form of government, the existing trend started way back during the Moraji-Desai-regime, and the traces of similar kind of alliance has been seen till now. A coalition can take place in two stages of pre-election alliances or rift between the parties or post-election unions to split political power and operate the state. However, the former-form of the alliance is much preferred, as the electors have a candid say to choose the party they wish to look forward to for the next five years.

The reason behind a coalition government in a nation as diverse as India could not complete its tenure is its social structure, which varies from western countries. In developing nations like India, the coalition government has no common cohesion program of class structure, uniformity of social composition, lack of solidarity, varied opinions, etc. After independence, the hegemony of a single political party was not aligned with natural democratic development. The government of the coalition is the natural result of social structure. Political developments cannot take place in a vacuum. They are the inevitable consequence of social organization and structural coalition. Coalition form of government has become a political necessity in India today, as no single party has obtained a clear mandate. However, the governor's role is of paramount significance in the creation of government. Article 164 of the Constitution states that "the governor shall appoint the CM and other ministers shall be selected by the governor on the advice of the CM and the ministers shall hold office during the tenure of the governor." As a matter of convention, the governor must first invite the largest single party to form the government. But the decision must be "notified" and "based on sound grounds," in order to provide a stable government.

Coalition-government has become the ultimate reality of a pluralistic society. Indian Society which is in dire need of political stabilization-socialization cannot function without a collaborated effort. The constitutional validity was also tested Kihoto Hollohan,1992, where the merger was noted as a better option in the context of maintaining democratic values. Political diversity is the result of social diversity, and in a few countries, our social culture is of dispute, rivalry, and results in a fragmented society. The adverse vote prevails in this scenario. Even though there have been many instances where a need of coalition government was realized, it's the recalcitrant behavior of the government which is making it transitory. In 2003, the 91^st Amendment Act was implemented as a remedy. The minority that disagreed with the merger is left alone as a distinct party. Those who choose to do so lost their initial identification with the merger. These several scenarios point towards an alarming situation that if it is not taken care of, then disastrous implications are not a far-fetched idea for a democracy like India. The practice of legitimizing an alliance of two or more parties defeated at the elections and allowing their coalition to form a government, as was the case in Karnataka, portrays scenarios that urgently call for a closer look. It shows a deceiving picture of our electoral process since those are not considered appropriate for running the nation gets fair means of coming into power. The fact that such coalitions have taken place in Goa-&-Tripura is no justification for their perpetual repetitions of evil and inappropriate techniques can set up a vicious and obstinate convention that can be hard to dislodge. 

Leaving everything aside, the question of the hour is whether there is a way for a government to function in an efficient and independent manner without worrying about the strength and focusing mainly upon the quality of the candidates who are going to be monitored by nearly one-billion-people. 

The existence of anti-defection laws are bliss for democracy since it regulates the legislators do not switch sides as per their convenience. The law was taken into cognizance in 1985 which stated that a minimum of one-third of a party's membership could jointly jump sides but an individual could not. The anti-defection law was implemented to cope with the threat of post-poll party hopping. Until then, in house voting on any matter was at the discretion of the member concerned. However, the election results implied nothing in the matter of forming a government, and the notorious culture of “Aaya-Ram, Gaya-Ram” prevailed. However, The anti-defection the legislation became a piece of mockery since it was considered that, the smaller the party, the simpler it was to manufacture defection without breaking it. 

In the end, it can be said that the democracy in a country like India is facing a hard time since The majority of electors (except who sold their votes) are facing hardships such as visiting polling booths and even those who cast their vote in a hope of an efficient government has to face utter disappointment because of the murky politics whose prior motive has become to capture power. Perhaps the epoch of liberty to defect was less malicious and certainly less detrimental to the country. Therefore, the mandates to save our democracy from lurking organized looters are to rewrite the law, take the hint from the 91st amendment and make party mergers a compulsory prerequisite to justify post-poll-connections staking claim to create a govt. Concluding that adequate representation of public interest in a democracy is of utmost significance. Let the essence of democracy be alive by letting the individuals choose the government even though they may lack in numbers. The constitution obviously set out the manner in which the government should be established in the instances of the Hung-Assembly and gave that right to the Governors. Therefore, the governor should assess which political party or alliance represents the majority on the basis of constitutional regulations, and the political parties should follow his decision.