Stability – difference between “inside” and “outside”

In 2004, the Congress came to power with 145 seats in the Lok Sabha. It was labeled a weak and unwieldy coalition, susceptible to destabilizing forces. Lots of local fiefs coming together, not for governance but for power and pelf. We had an episode of near-divorce (like half-pregnant), the Left – till then supporting the government from “outside” – trying to pull down the government. The largest opposition party had a mere dozen or so seats less. The government was deemed inherently unstable.

Now, the Congress will be in power, again in a coalition but with 206 seats of its own. The largest opposition party has a full ninety seats less. The coalition will be a little less unwieldy, not merely from the number of parties constituting it but also from the perspective of weaker fissiparous forces; TINA factor operative. Yet the personalities will remain equally volatile. Mamta Banerjee of Trinamool Congress with nineteen seats and perhaps half a dozen ministerial posts. The Left is still “outside”, but barely existing and no one cares whether it is or is not supporting the ruling coalition.

It is under the above situation, every one, including the business lobby, is celebrating this new found “stability”. However, the only substantive difference between the pre- and after poll situation I discern is in the number of seats of the Congress and BJP. The old dispensation plus sixty “outside” seats is unstable whereas new dispensation, where the sixty (in fact sixty one) have been transferred “inside” is stable.

Then, all this talk of instability in governance through regional parties is hogwash.

Raghuram Ekambaram