Democracy Tottering between Deal and Dialogue

In the context of the recent political upheavals, one common perception has been that those who defected from the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) or the Great Development Front coalition government have allowed themselves to be illuded by self-interest. In the politics based on the plurality of group/sectional interest, it has always been extremely difficult to decide who is at fault. One could offer a common answer to this important question—both of them are at fault. However, the nature of their faults is different. For example, political parties with enormous resources and numbers have the moral responsibility to enlist on the basis of constitutional principles, corresponding party programmes, and the support of relatively smaller political groups. A party that is entrenched in numbers and resources has the added moral responsibility to put up the ruling combination or configuration in order to adhere to larger democratic principles, which will brighten the image of the country in the international field.

These parties, therefore, have the responsibility to take initiative in making smaller groups as equal partners in expanding the scope of democratic principles. Such principles should be the guiding force behind the reconfiguration or reconstruction of the ruling combination. Thus, it is the responsibility of the so-called national parties to refrain from misleading the members to political manoeuvres that tend to compel the members from smaller groups to cross constitutional and procedural boundaries. However, as the editorial comment in the current issue of Economic & Political Weekly suggests, the recent defection move causing the fall of the MVA government in Maharashtra shows that both the party with resources and those who were deceived by such resources have contributed to the violation of both the principle and procedures of constitutional democracy.