For the last decade and a half, federal
elections have always resulted in fractured verdicts that necessitated
coalition governments. Coalitional politics permitted the blending of tradition
with modernity of the Indian society, enabling various identities and
sub-identities within it to find democratic expression in the larger political
process. The phenomenon is clearly linked to the rise of regional parties on
agendas that often touch a national chord such as interests of the assertive
backward castes and Dalits or ‘untouchables’.
In recent times, federal coalitional politics
additionally also centered around two poles led by the Indian National Congress
(INC) and the Bharithya Janata Party (BJP) respectively – the main two
national parties. With the UPA led by the INC and the National Democratic
Alliance (NDA) led by the BJP, the role of regional parties within these is
also indicative of a more competitive and polarized party system, wherein
regional parties with one or two seats can virtually bully the national party
leading the coalition.
This situation changed in the last
parliamentary elections of 2009, which saw evidence of a sharp reversal of
fortunes for regional parties. The two national parties, INC and BJP, together
cornered 60% of the seats, leaving regional parties with much diminished
influence to affect federal politics. The INC on its own managed to grab nearly
40% of the seats. This left them still short of absolute parliamentary majority
but conferred them greatly enhanced political clout within the UPA itself. This
increased confidence perhaps explains their boldness to downsize the number of
constituent parties of the UPA. Accordingly, the UPA in its second avatar is
trying to makeover itself by ousting caste based party allies from its
coalition who played an influential role during UPA’s first tenure (2004-2009).
As a result, the UPA, at this juncture,
commands with a wafer thin majority in the lower house of parliament while
reduced to a minority in the upper house. Till a month ago, the UPA managed to
circumvent limitations to its degree of freedom to make legislative changes
through getting other minor parties to lend outside support. All these changed
with the UPA trying to introduce the Women’s Reservation and the Finance Bills
which saw some of these extended allies moving away from the UPA. It also left
some its other minor constituents within the government unhappy and sulking.
The current corruption scandal in the Indian Premier League (IPL), whose
tentacles extend to serving ministers of the UPA cabinet, has also created
fissures within coalition partners.
Taking advantage of the UPA in disarray, the
combined opposition are determined to push through a wide array of cut motions,
including those related to the proposed coal cess. Cut motions are of three
categories: (i). Policy disapproval (ii). Economic (iii). Token
cut. The BJP led NDA is bringing cut motions of the disapproval of policy kind
while the non-NDA opposition is bringing those of a kind that belong to the
latter two categories. Nevertheless, they are likely to join forces to support
each other’s cut motions through engaging in behind and scene floor
coordination strategies. But the danger of a cut motion on a Money Bill is that
if the government loses it, then it has to resign on moral grounds.
With the Indian Met Department predicting a normal
monsoon, food prices from now can be expected to decline even more rapidly.
Accordingly, price rise can no longer be a viewed an issue that can reap good
dividends for the opposition in the event of a snap poll. The bottom line is
that even the opposition does not want to impose fresh elections, fearing the
wrath of the people.
But the opposition can make the government
sweat out in the passing of the Finance Bill. According to Indian Constitution,
the upper house of parliament cannot directly make any amendments
to a Money Bill passed by the lower house and transmitted to it. It however can
recommend amendments that must return to the lower house within 14 days, or
less the Bill is deemed as originally passed by it. But in the case where the
bill is returned with recommendations for amendments, the lower house needs
to vote again to accept the Bill, with or without these amendments.
So the opposition’s best chances of
pressurizing the government to making changes to the Finance Bill is in the
upper house to come up with recommended amendments which forces a revote in the
lower house of Parliament. It sends out a clear message to the electorate that
it disapproves of the Finance Bill in its present form, putting undue pressure
on the ruling coalition to seek a consensus. The opposition can take
inspiration from the following developments during the last month:
a. France Scraps Carbon Tax Law (Read here)
b. Italian Senate calls for re-examination of
Climate Change & IPCC Science(Read here)
c. Enron, who evolved the concept of carbon
trading has been exposed as one of the largest corporate fraud and has now gone
bankrupt. Its place in the carbon trading racket has been taken by Goldman
Sachs which the US government now accuses of fraud. (Read here)
d. Now Bangla Deshi climatologists challenge
IPCC claim that sea level rises will sink their country. More shame for IPCC
and climate alarmist NGOs. (Read here)