Coalition Government and Prime Minister’s Discretion

ROLE of the regional parties is still crucial in the union government, their reduced clout notwithstanding. No sooner were the results of the 15th Lok Sabha elections out than several political commentators jumped to the conclusion that regional parties had been effectively sidelined as the people wanted a stable government. That writing the obituaries of the regional parties was premature is evident from the haggling that began between the Congress leading the UPA and the DMK over the number of ministerial berths allotted to it. Though the differences have been sorted out at the moment, it is difficult to say that the ceasefire is permanent. Legally speaking, there are no regional parties but only national, state and registered parties as recognized by the Election Commission.
State parties have been in existence since pre-independence days and they won 34 seats in the Lok Sabha in the first general election in 1952. In 2004, this number went up to 159 though in the just-concluded election 22 state parties could win 146 seats, 13 less than their tally in 2004. So, number wise the loss is not much, and the gains made by the Congress are at the cost of the BJP and the Left primarily. Technically speaking, there are seven national parties- INC, BJP, CPI, CPI (M), BSP, NCP and RJD. But the NCP, the BSP and the RJD are national parties only notionally. Even the left parties are confined to certain pockets only and the CPI is in the danger of losing its national tag. These seven national parties jointly won 376 seats, but out of them 322 have been bagged by the Congress and the BJP. Thus only 54 seats have gone to the remaining five national parties. In 2004, there were six national parties which won 364 seats. So, it is manifest that in terms of numbers, national parties have not grown jointly, but the Congress has gone up several notches pulverizing the BJP to a considerable extent. Parties like the JD(U), the BJD and the Trinamool Congress have enhanced their tallies tremendously while others like DMK, AIADMK, TDP,RLD and the National Conference have also improved their show.
However, it is, indeed, true that the scintillating performance by the Congress has left less elbow room for its allies to manoeuvre much and hold the government to ransom. But even then the Congress is not immune to blackmail. The kerkuffle with the DMK has just begun and the government needs the crutch of the mercurial Mamta Banerjee who kept breathing down the neck of the Vajpayee government. This raises important constitutional questions about the prerogative of the PM and the principle of the collective responsibility of the government. In India, the post of prime Minister was created by statute unlike in Great Britain where it evolved out of convention. Article 74 if the Indian Constitution clearly lays down, “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the prime minister at the head to aid and advise the president…” Again, Article 75 reads, “The Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the president on the advice of the Prime Minister.”
In a coalition government, this prerogative of the Prime Minister is badly dissipated as it is not the PM but the regional satraps who decide who will represent them in the cabinet and also which departments should they be allotted. Mamta had been eyeing at the Railways for long and has got it. Similarly, Karunanidhi is also demanding not only a certain number of berths but specific portfolios. When Dayanidhi Maran was withdrawn by him from the last government in 2007, Karunanidhi commanded that no one else be given that portfolio and the Prime Minister had to succumb. These nominees of the regional parties act do not as colleagues of the Prime Minister but as factotums of their party bosses diluting the doctrine of collective responsibility. It is internationally established that in a parliamentary democracy the concept of collective responsibility can fructify only if the Prime Minster has a free hand in selecting and dismissing members of his cabinet. Elaborating on its need in the Constituent Assembly, B. R.Ambedkar said, “Supposing you have no Prime Minister, what would really happen? What would happen is that every minister will be subject to the control or influence of the president. It would be perfectly possible for the President who is not ad idem with a particular cabinet, to deal with each minister separately, singly, influence them, and thereby cause disruption in the cabinet. Such a thing is not impossible to imagine. Before collective responsibility was introduced in the British parliament you remember how the English King used to disrupt the British Cabinet. He had what was called a party of King’s Friends both in the cabinet as well as in Parliament. That sort of thing was put to a stop by collective responsibility…Therefore, the Prime Minister is really the keystone of the arch of the cabinet and unless and until we create that office and endow that office with statutory authority to nominate and dismiss ministers there can be no collective responsibility.”
Regional parties can play constructive role by highlighting the issue of regional imbalance, disparity and backwardness. But they do a great disservice by pressuring the Prime minister and making him dysfunctional. Even regional parties can have national perspectives. MIT scholar Adam Ziegfeld makes an apt distinction between regional and regionalist parties. Parties may be regional in the sense that their support base is confined to particular states or regions. But they need not be regionalist in the sense of merely catering for the regional aspirations. (The CPM is a classic example. Ziegfeld estimates that out of 45% vote share accounted for by the regional parties, the regionalist parties accounted for only 13%.