My Report Debate Winner: Single May Not Mingle!

Subhashish Nandi argues for a coalition government by citing negotiation theory.

(Subhashish Nandi is the winner of the My Report Debate. Participants were asked the question: Who do you think should lead India ­– a single party or a coalition?)

Democracy in India is described by her diversity and disparity. Consequently, the Government of India needs to be a deft and a constant negotiator. Mindful of these two key characteristics, I prefer a coalition Government of India to a single party one. I’d argue my stance citing negotiation theory.

A single party government is prone to becoming autocratic, and autocrats tend to be good at reaching distributive win-lose negotiation outcomes and are, arguably, not so comfortable in integrative win-win negotiation situations.

I’ll illustrate how integrative negotiation style works to improve coalitions and alliances. A coalition government has its pulls and pushes, which invariably attempt to attain the balance between being ‘autocratic’ and ‘abdicratic’.

This equilibrium is exactly where those who carry everyone along by persuasion while retaining sufficient control – ie the ‘democratic’ would thrive and adept at reaching a consensus.

Further, such a middle path approach makes coalition governments comparatively more receptive to the aspirations and concerns of every region and every section of society.

Contrast this with a single party regime which could paint everything monochrome, could indulge in favouritism; could pressurise the press; could turn a deaf ear to protests that stakeholders may raise; could bull doze through legislation, and in case of some resistance, apply the constitutional provision of ordinance too!

Often, the outcome is disgruntlement among the aggrieved. So, what do we need to form a coalition government in today’s scenario? Presently, there is no single political party that can brag of being strong, pan-India. Therefore, it’s important to acknowledge this fact objectively, and refrain from one-upmanship.

A cooperative mindset would definitely lead to a stable government lasting its designated full term. The coalition governments formed in 1999, 2004 and 2009 are recent precedents. A stable and receptive government; the public by-and-large happy…what more could one demand?

Well, since The Quint has sought my opinion on what suits India best, I'd go one step further than just a coalition government. I would rather advocate for one of its variants – namely, a ‘coalition national government' – where the Prime Minister of India picks ministers from both the treasury benches as well as the Opposition.

The person perceived as most efficient gets the job. For the sake of argument, say, a Chidambaram for finance; a Gadkari for infrastructure; a Marlena for education etc. It’s similar to a parliamentary standing committee but with an executive mandate. Recall the statesmanlike gesture in 1994 when Prime Minister Narasimha Rao asked Vajpayee, then in the Opposition, to represent India at the UN convention in Geneva was well-received.

This prescription could also minimise instances of our parliament being repeatedly stalled from functioning. Once that happens, India would sprint like a cheetah! Let us trust our parliamentarians to take steps – far sighted and wise. Ah! That reminds me, the owl is considered wise. Did you know a group of owls is called a ‘parliament’ and a group of cheetah is called a ‘coalition’?

(All 'My Report' branded stories are submitted by citizen journalists to The Quint. Though The Quint inquires into the claims/allegations from all parties before publishing, the report and the views expressed above are the citizen journalist's own. The Quint neither endorses, nor is responsible for the same.)