1) BACKGROUND: For the first 30 years since Independence, or for 25 years since the first gener al elections in 1952,

the country had experienced only single-party governance a t the centre. In the 1977 general elections post-Emergency, the Centre had its first experienc e of multi-party governance. This did not last long. In the 1980 and 1984 electi ons, a single party was again given the mandate, in the latter with the largest majority that a single party ever had in the Lok Sabha. But that, ironically, wa s also the end of single-party majority, though from 1991 to 1996 a single party was in power, but without a parliamentary majority. Hence, in a way, since the 1989 general elections the country has been experimenting with various shades of multi-party governance. The 13th general elections of 1999 were the first to bring to power a pre-electi on multi-party coalition that stayed on for its full term of five years. The 200 4 general elections saw yet another step towards coalition governance with two m ajor coalitions fighting to come to power. Are coalitions inherently unstable? The experience of West Bengal in the past th ree decades shows that coalition governments can be as stable as single-party go vernments. And Kerala's experience indicates that two coalitions can emerge over a period, providing the possibilities of stability and periodic change. 2) COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY: But a criticism of some substance is that in a parliamentary system of governanc e, coalition regimes tend to weaken the basic principle of the collective respon sibility of the Cabinet (the executive wing) to Parliament (the legislative wing ) because Ministers of the Cabinet turn out to be the nominees of their parties, and not selected by the Prime Minister. The problem becomes more acute when the coalition consists of a large number of small parties as is often the case. The issue is not only the weakening of colle ctive responsibility: often it becomes the basis of absence of ministerial respo nsibility itself. India is a vast and vastly diverse country and that it is unnatural to expect a single political party to accommodate such diversity of language, caste and soci al customs, economic conditions and much more. These factors found their reflect ion in the country's political processes from the early days of Independence. At the level of the States there has always been a diversity of political partie s, and while coalition governments emerged at the Centre only some three decades after Independence, coalitions started functioning in the States from day one. The very first general elections held according to the new Constitution and on t he basis of universal adult franchise resulted in a non-Congress coalition gover nment in what was then PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States' Union). In two other States, Madras (then consisting of most of today's Tamil Nadu, parts of what subsequently became Andhra Pradesh, and the Malabar region of today's Kera la) and Travancore-Cochin, the Congress, which did not win a majority of seats i n the respective State Assemblies, formed governments with the support of minor parties. And, of course, after the 1967 elections many States came to have coali tion governments. The leaders of the powerful regional parties none of them had even 50 members in the Lok Sabha with a strength of 543 seized the opportunity. They prevented the larger of the two national parties (BJP) from coming to power, anointed one amo ng themselves (then a Chief Minister in one of the States) as the Prime Minister to head a coalition called the United Front, and forced the Congress to extend

support from outside. Indeed, while the United Front was in power at the Centre from June 1996 to February 1998, the country had something of a Chief Ministers' Ra j. That was a step forward in this country, which is a federation of States, but it was a learning process too. For, the regional leaders soon realised that a fede ration of States as such cannot function at the Centre. The Centre needed one la rge party with a notional All-India character. Hence when the United Front collaps ed in 1998 and the BJP emerged as the largest single party, but without a majori ty of its own, in subsequent elections the same year, some regional leaders were more than willing to align themselves with that party, which they had shunned t wo years earlier, and become partners in a post-election coalition. Regionalisation can be considered a positive aspect only if it enables the gover nments and, in fact, politics too, to respond to the true aspirations of the peo ple at large. The Akali Dal in Punjab has been based on religious and cultural considerations. The Telugu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh emerged to protect regional aspiration s and sentiments. The Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh and the Rashtriya Janata Dal in Bihar arose in response to Mandalisation. The Bahujan Samajwadi Party in Ut tar Pradesh was meant initially to champion the cause of Dalits. The Communist P arty of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India, mainly in West Bengal and Kerala, have strong ideological moorings. Such diversity is nothing unnatural given the diversity and variety of the count ry. The crucial question is whether regional parties, while being committed to t heir special concerns, are using politics to satisfy the basic needs and promote the basic rights of the people of the region. A major transformation of the pol ity of the country is necessary for this process, which must involve all politic al parties, national and regional. The question is whether parties will become i nclusive in terms of fulfilling the basic needs of all people, responding to the human rights of all people. This is indeed a tall order.