The rise of regional parties: boon or bane?

The writing on the wall is fairly clear: the days of single-party rule at the centre are over for Indian democracy. Today only a coalition government which can hold its partners together through thick and thin can hope to form a government at the centre. What has given rise to such development is the rise of regional parties which try hard to make their presence felt at the centre as well.

When Indian democracy had its first elections in 1952 there were hardly any regional parties. In fact, it was the Congress party which held its sway over the nation. Even in the sixties the national parties won nearly 90 per cent of seats. That trend has changed considerably today. In the 2004 general elections, regional parties won as many as 43 per cent of the total number of seats and national parties 57 per cent. Today there are 47 regional parties and over 400 smaller parties vying with one another for their share of pie.

It is not at all surprising that today two states are ruled by independent regional parties and in as many as eight states there is an alliance government of regional and national parties. In Tamil Nadu, for example, national parties have hardly a chance. The regional parties have dominated the scene since 1967. Andhra Pradesh was ruled by the Telugu Desham Party between 1983 and 1989 and between 1994 and 2004. Uttar Pradesh has also been ruled by regional parties for greater part of the last two decades. National parties do not seem to make any significant progress in their voters’ share in UP.

Whether such a trend is good for Indian democracy can be debated; but one cannot ignore the fact that in a large democracy smaller parties do have a place and also have a crucial role to play. It is possible that in the larger interest of the Nation, the local aspirations of people can be totally forgotten by national parties. It is here that local and regional parties can bargain hard to get fair representation of local needs.

Recently Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, said that regional parties were responsible for the backwardness of several states and that they lacked a national perspective, much to the ire of many regional parties. What he meant to say, perhaps, was that regional parties indulged more in regionalism rather than having a broader vision of the country. At times it is difficult to draw line between regionalism and nationalism. If a nation is a sum total of multi-cultural, linguistic and ethnic regions, regionalism is a natural fall out and cannot be ignored easily. Though regional parties try to draw greater political mileage out of regional issues, no one can deny the fact that all regions must be given adequate attention.

The other important aspect is that in several instances regional parties eventually grow to become national parties. The present Bharatiya Janatha Party had its origin in the erstwhile Jan Sangh which was a regional party. The Bahujan Samaj Party is contesting independently in all Lok Sabha constituencies in these elections. The Left parties are no longer regional parties as they have their strong presence in several states and are contesting Lok Sabha elections in many states. Even National Congress Party and Samajwadi Party are contesting in several states. While regional parties want to strengthen their base in their core states, they also want to grow nationally as a power to reckon with.

The rise of regional parties can only be attributed to the failure of national parties to give due importance to the regional aspirations of people. While it may be true that regional parties fail to have a national vision and think only of their region, single party rule, as history has shown, can be authoritarian, caring little for the regional issues. It is here that the formation of the Third Front consisting mostly regional parties can make a difference. Combining both national and regional aspirations, though difficult, is not impossible. If they are able to put their sectarian politics behind and concentrate on more pertinent issues that trouble the country, indeed, the Third Front can bring about a breath of fresh air into the Indian democracy.

Media must set trend for lawful protests

It is becoming a trend of sorts. In the last four months we have had four instances of public display of protest. What is unusual about this development is in each of theses cases footwear has been hurled at prominent dignitaries and in two of the four cases involved people from the media.

The first instance took place on December 14, 2008. Muntazar al-Zaidi, an Iraqui journalist for an Egyptian newspaper hurled both his shoes at no less a leader than the then US President, George W. Bush for his alleged attempts to destroy Iraq. Then on February 2, 2009 a 27-year old unnamed person threw his shoe at Chinese premier, Ben Jiabo while the latter was lecturing at Cambridge University.

The third instance happened in India at New Delhi on April 7. Jarnail Singh, a correspondent of Dainik Jagran protested through similar manner at the press conference of Home Minister, P. Chidambaram. His reasons? As a Sikh he was upset, along with scores of Sikh brethren, at CBI giving a clean chit to Jagadeesh Tytler and Sajjan Kumar who allegedly had a hand in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The most recent case of shoe-throwing took place on April 10. A retired schoolteacher hurled a shoe at Congress MP Naveen Jindal while he was campaigning at a rally in Kurukshetra constituency.

While the first two shoe-throwers have been detained and cases filed against them, the latter two have been lucky in this election year to go without any case.

While the validity of the issues for which these people have been protesting is unquestionable, it is the manner in which they have chosen to protest that raises serious questions. It is true that Iraq war, anti-Sikh riots etc. were no minor issues. It is also true that prominent leaders were involved in those mayhem. Despite all that, one cannot indulge in unacceptable protests. It is sad that two cases involved media persons. Media, by definition, cannot resort to raking up passions while reporting. They are called to be objective as far as possible. If this is true, then those taking up the task of reporting have to work against their personal issues and see the larger good of society. Otherwise, they are unfit to be journalists. It amounts to journalists too becoming communal and partisan which will be an unfortunate development. What these journalists will do, without their awareness, is that they will only bring disrepute to their profession and to the whole media fraternity. Media must set trend for lawful protests.

The election time is a challenging time for the media. Newspapers and TV channels can overtly display their support or hatred to certain parties. But if they are to be faithful their profession, media have to watch out and be critical of issues rather than show clandestine support or disregard to any party. Not many media institutions, sadly, succeed in this regard. Fairness would mean, as somebody has rightly said, among other things, “listening to different viewpoints, and incorporating them into journalism.” If objectivity is a hard thing, media persons could at least be fair while reporting and making analysis which is crucial during an election.