An analysis of 2009 general election and some recommendations for secular
parties.
The following facts suggest a (BSP + Congress + SP) grand-coalition with a 5 to
10 member Executive Council that would have equal power vested in each of the
members of the executive committee. It should include one or more Dalits, Upper
Castes, Muslims, members of UBC (Upper of BC) and members LBC (Lower of BC) as
members of the Executive Council of UP (SCUP) on the pattern of Swiss Executive
Council. If that happens in UP, it may take UP a long way in the direction of
becoming first South Asian Switzerland!
1. From the first table shown below it is clear that currently there four
parties with nearly equal share of votes in UP. Actually in most states there
are two dominant local rivals (X & Y) for power in addition to the two national
rivals: The Congress Party (C) and BJP/RSS (B).
2. From the second table below we should note that most of the time the
party getting largest percentage of votes is beneficiary of disproportionately
larger number of seats, which is characteristic of FPTP election system.
3. From the above two facts it should be clear that for any of the future
elections if B, C, X and Y do not form alliances, the results are likely to be
very unpredicatable, as can be seen from the results of 2009 parliamentary
election: In spite the largest percentage of vote of 27.4%, BSP was third in
the number of seats won. With a similar distribution of seats in any of the
future Assembly elections none of the parties will be able to form a government
all by itself. It is also clear that if any two of the parties form an
alliance, the other two will be forced to form a counter alliance even if they
are ideologically far apart because otherwise the latter two would be wiped off
from the Assembly. This is what happened in Bihar in 1995 state Assembly
election. Janata Dal (Lalu) + Congress wiped off Samata and BJP, which were not
allied to each other. Even though BJP/RSS have been and continue to be hated by
most people as well as parties, Samata felt
forced to join BJP, and the result was a very creditable performance from them
in the 1996 parliamentary election. Samata, currently under the name JD(U),
continue to be in uncomfortable forced alliance in spite of sharp ideological
differences.
4. I am glad to note that the fact and deductions mentioned above were
clear to Behen jee, and hence she has thrown her “unconditional support” behind
the UPA government at the center, in spite of the fact that SP too is
supporting UPA from outside. Thus currently UPA government has outside support
of both of the local rivals BSP as well SP in UP.
5. However, Congress party may be thinking that it is a resurgent party in
ascendancy. If it thinks of going it alone in 2012 state election of UP, that
will be most unfortunate. That is because having seen the uncertainties of 2009
parliamentary election, both of the local rivals will be aggressively looking
for an alliance with one of the major parties. With Congress going it alone,
both BSP and SP will be willing to join the NDA alliance led by BJP. As a
result, NDA will be in a position to extract agreement with one of the two
local rivals favorable to itself. If that happens, and Congress continues to be
in a mood to go it alone, NDA is likely to sweep the election. On the other
hand, if Congress comes to senses and accepts the other party into UPA
alliance, the two sides (UPA and NDA) will be fairly balanced and the outcome
will be hard to predict. Even if NDA does not win, it will continue to be power
to reckon with.
6. The Congress Party has a good many covert supporters of BJP, who are
looking forward to a bipolar situation when UPA and NDA are the only entities
ruling India, with power some times going in the hands of UPA, other times in
the hands of NDA. As such, it will not be inclined to see BJP go off the
horizon. Nonetheless, Congress will never join hands with BJP because then it
will not be able to wave the secular flag and the other two local parties will
join hands, which, together is likely to command support of a good majority of
voters.
7. There are people who say that Congress, with covert oppressors of the
oppressed segments of India, is worse than an overt enemy like BJP/RSS. That an
overt enemy is easier to see and can be eliminated as long as we see it and are
aware that it is a monster. I beg to differ vehemently. This is because, the
overt oppressive policies, attitude and slogans, BJP/RSS is likely to fully
polarize its supporters into powerful monsters. On the other hand, with the
relatively more civil Congress in power, the same group of people is likely to
behave in a more civilized fashion, and have fairly good number of genuine
democrats in favor of truly uplifting the lower segments. Given that we cannot
totally marginalize the powerful BJP party, the oppressed sections of the
society would be better off being in alliance with the milder and more
democratic variety of them like the Congress Party. It will keep most of the
common constituents from becoming howling monstrous
supporters of BJP.
8. In view of the above, best option for the local state level opponents
would be to share power and try to pull Congress into their alliance. If
Congress does join the alliance of the local allies, they will totally
marginalize NDA. Otherwise the Congress itself will be marginalized together
with BJP/RSS. It will be worth keeping in mind that BJP/RSS is the truest enemy
of the oppressed segments of India as well as of India itself. It will be
easier for the local parties to totally marginalize BJP/RSS with the help of
Congress than without the Congress. Thus what I am advocating is a grand
coalition of all parties other than BJP/RSS. If a party like BSP can form
alliance with BJ/RSS, they can certainly form alliance with other more
civilized parties.
9. While BSP as well as SP have both resolved to support UPA from outside
the Indian Government, this is the right time for these parties to start
coalition negotiation. Basically “negotiations” entail seat-sharing formulas or
agreements. Needless to say, in the seat-sharing negotiations each of the
parties try to maximize the number of seats from which they will contest the
elections from. With 27.4% of votes in the parliamentary election against 23.3%
and 18.2% for SP and Congress respectively, BSP would seek to get a lion share
of seats. Congress appeared to be a resurgent party in ascendancy in UP, so its
workers and supporters are going to seek better seat proportion than the
proportion of 18.2 to 27.4. SP would like to claim to be spokesperson for the
whole OBC segments, and would want bigger share of seats than what their vote
share shows. Under these circumstances the negotiations would be tough and
chances of their breakdown would be very
high. Difficulties in reaching an understanding over seat-sharing should be
apparent from the fact that in spite of their genuine intentions to form an
alliance, Congress, RJD and LJP could not reach a mutually acceptable agreement
in Bihar. In UP too Congress and SP failed to reach an agreement. BJP and BJD
could not reach an agreement in Orissa, and so forth.
10. If they could pay a little attention to the situation beyond the
election, about who would be the Chief Minister, perhaps it may help them reach
a seat sharing agreement more easily. If there is going to be a single CM for
the whole of five years after the election, each of them would try its best
come out with the largest number of seats after election. In fact, so much so
that even after some kind of hobbled seat-sharing agreement, they will try to
defeat as many of their other partners as possible so that the former would
emerge as the largest party and hence claimant of Chief Ministerial position.
This can be best resolved with some kind of sharing of Chief Ministerial
position. They could time-share the CM position, as has been done earlier in
UP. It may be hard for someone working as a CM, suddenly to lose the privileges
of an autocratic CM, and reduce himself or herself to the position of a mere
minister. I think it may be easier for someone
to spend the whole five year as a less than autocratic CM in a Chief
Ministerial Council (CMC), with equal power vested in all, and try to run the
State Government in a consensual manner. A Chief Ministerial Collective would
have other advantages like transparency, congeniality and healthier democracy.
11. With just three persons (one each from SC, OBC and OC (Oppressor
Castes)), there is greater chance of coalition wrecking disagreement. Besides,
in the above formula of one each from the three caste groups, a significant
group like Muslims would be left out because they don’t even have a party.
Further, Lower of the Backward Castes (LBC) separate from the Upper of BCs
(UBC) also deserve empowerment. In view of these major subdivisions, the CMC
should consist of 5-10 members, but probably no bigger than 10. They should be
able to pick them (CMC) from inside the Assembly, or from both outside as well
as inside. It may be best for the whole Assembly to cast two votes for two
individuals, declaring the highest vote getters from the five segments: SC,
LBC, UBC, MBC and OC to be winners of the CMC seats. For a bigger than 5-member
CMC, they could allow up to a max of two from each of the social groups
mentioned above. Different states may need different
formulas. Wherever they have Scheduled Tribe (ST) groups, they have to be
included, obviously. If it were not for the Assembly as a whole to decide, a
question would arise as to which party is going to have the right to nominate a
Muslim or LBC individual(s) within the CMC.
12. Once the parties have settled the issue of government formation after
election, they still would have to tackle the question of which party would
contest from how many and which seats. It would be best for them to let the
public decide these things for the parties. Otherwise they would end up trying
to hoodwink each other by threatening to go their own way. Free-list-PR
election would be the way to go for the way for the public to decide the
question of which party would contest from how many and which seats, as
outlined below.
13. Each of the voters could be given five votes to cast for five different
candidates. The candidates may all be from the same party or different ones.
The voters could do so by saving the fliers of five candidates they happen to
like best, or have their names written on a piece of paper, take them to the
polling booth, stuff them into an envelop supplied there, seal it and drop it
into the ballot box. Votes for individuals would also be added to respective
party the candidates are affiliated with. Each party would be assigned a number
of seats (party-quotas) in proportion to the number of votes they collect via
their candidates. One could then make a master-list of all candidates in order
of votes received by the candidates. Off the top of the master-list candidates
may be declared elected from top. As each of the candidates is declared
elected, status of party-quota various other kinds of quotas would also be kept
in mind. As soon as a particular
quota is filled, candidates within that category would be dropped out of the
master-list. Also, as a candidate is declared elected, s/he would be free to
pick a constituency (not taken so far) s/he would like to contest the following
general election from. In this way finally all of the party-quotas as well as
Assembly seats would be allocated to one or the other candidates.
14. There is one little snag in the process described above. Suppose
women’s quota happens to be 33.3%. There is women’s party that received 30% of
the total votes cast, giving it a party-quota of 30% seats. The women’s party
does have women with good number of votes however, its party-quota of 30% is
already filled. Suppose in the other parties no other women receive significant
number of votes (say, none receive more than a fourth of what top women’s party
candidates not yet elected have – that is as if none of these other women
received any votes at all.) In that case, to fill the women’s quota women from
the women’s party should be elected as over hang beyond the total number of
seats supposed to exist in the Assembly. Similar overhang is allowed in German
Reichstag. If a party wins more seats in via FPTP part of their MMP election
than what their PR seat quota allows, the party is allowed to keep the excess
of seats won via FPTP part
or election process.
15. After the free-list-PR process described in the above two paragraphs,
the parties are not left with any scope for negotiation. Everything has been
decided for them by the vote of the public. The public has to feel happy that
nominees of the grand party alliance have been nominated with their votes in a
very transparent manner. They will elect the grand alliance nominees with
overwhelming number of votes in the following main election. The process would
also familiarize public, political leaders and political workers with the fl-PR
process. It will enable them parliamentarians to give fl-PR an educated
consideration as the method for holding the nation’s main general election.
16. Goal of all peace and development loving parties should be
marginalization of BJP. BJP is most inimical towards Dalits, even more than it
is against Muslims or Christians. It is primarily to keep SC/ST/OBC in
subjugated position they attack Muslims and Christians.
17. In view of the last paragraph above, it would make sense for BSP to try
to make friends with SP. This would not only put BSP in a better position to
bargain with Congress as well as SP, it may lead to a grand coalition of BSP,
Congress, SP, and rest of the secular parties all together! If such a coalition
becomes a reality, BJP/RSS would be totally wiped off the map of UP. It would
also improve relationship among their constituents Dalits, OBC, Muslims and the
oppressor castes.
18. Such a coalition would be beneficial for Dalits, as BSP will try to
restrain OBC with the help of Congress, and BSP will try to extract better
terms for SC as well as OBC from the upper castes with the help of SP. As
already stated, (BSP + Congress + SP) grand alliance would be better than (BSP
+ Congress) alliance. This is because simply (BSP + Congress) alliance would
almost certainly force (SP + BJP) alliance, just like (RJD + Congress) alliance
forced (JD(U) & BJP) in Bihar. (SP + BJO) alliance would be of nearly equal
strength to that of (BSP + Congress). This would not only make the election
outcome an uncertainty, it will unite OBC + oppressor castes against Dalits and
Muslims.
19. The above could become a pre-cursor of nation-wide grand-coalition to
uproot communalist BJP/RSS, just as Swiss have a grand coalition of all parties
allied against their racist SVP party. It may force BJP/RSS to give up their
anti-minorities and anti-oppressed caste orientation and attitude.
UP Parliamentary Election 2009
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
SP 23 23.3 28.8
Congress 21 18.2 26.3
BSP 20 27.4 25.0
NDA 15 20.8 18.8
Independents 1 0.5 1.3
Total 80 90.2 100.0
NDA = BJP + RLD
BJP 10 17.5 12.5
RLD 5 3.3 6.3
NDA tot 15 20.8 18.8
Seats won by parties getting largest percentage of votes in UP Assembly
elections from 1991 through 2007
Year Party Seats won votes % % seats won
2007 2 . BSP 206 30.43% 51.12%
2002 7 . SP 143 25.37% 35.48%
1996 2 . BJP 174 32.52% 41.04%
1993 1 . BJP 177 33.30% 41.94%
1991 1 . BJP 221 31.45% 52.74%
UP Parliamentary Election 2009
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
SP 23 23.3 28.8
Congress 21 18.2 26.3
BSP 20 27.4 25.0
NDA 15 20.8 18.8
Independents 1 0.5 1.3
Total 80 90.2 100.0
NDA = BJP + RLD
BJP 10 17.5 12.5
RLD 5 3.3 6.3
NDA tot 15 20.8 18.8
UP Assembly Election 2007
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
1 . BJP 51 16.97% 12.66%
2 . BSP 206 30.43% 51.12%
5 . INC 22 8.61% 5.46%
14 . RLD 10 3.70% 2.48%
17 . SP 97 25.43% 24.07%
Total 386
Ind & others 17
Total seats 403
UP Assembly Election 2002
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
1 . BJP 88 20.08% 21.84%
2 . BSP 98 23.06% 24.32%
5 . INC 25 8.96% 6.20%
7 . SP 143 25.37% 35.48%
Total 354 77.47% 87.84%
Ind & others 49
Total seats 403
UP Assembly Election 1996
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
2 . BJP 174 32.52% 41.04%
5 . INC 33 8.35% 7.78%
8 . BSP 67 19.64% 15.80%
13 . SP 110 21.80% 25.94%
Total 384 82.31%
Ind & others 40
Total seats 424
UP Assembly Election 1993
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
1 . BJP 177 33.30% 41.94%
4 . INC 28 15.08% 6.64%
5 . JD 27 12.33% 6.40%
7 . BSP 67 11.12% 15.88%
64 . SP 109 17.94% 25.83%
Total 408 89.77%
Ind & others 14
Total seats 422
UP Assembly Election 1991
PARTY Seats won votes % % seats won
1 . BJP 221 31.45% 52.74%
5 . INC 46 17.32% 10.98%
6 . JD 92 18.84% 21.96%
8 . JP 34 12.52% 8.11%
10 . BSP 12 9.44% 2.86%
405 89.57%
Ind & others 14
Total seats 419
