You must Sign In to post a response.
This thread by Jagdish is being converted into an Active GD. The GD closes on 24th April '18.
  • Category: India

    A single political party getting absolute majority is detrimental to our democracy- Active GD.

    We have immense pleasure in converting this thread on a seriously debatable subject into an Active GD.

    India is the largest democratic country in the world. Our democracy never got defeated and it flourished against all odds. Till the end of the eighties, the predominance of one party to rule the country with a good majority of seats was there but the situation changed in the nineties giving space for coalition governments as no party could win the required number of the magic figure of 272+ in the General elections that took place. Even in 1977, the Janata Party led Coalition Government was short lived and the Congress came back to power in 1980 with an absolute majority.

    The 2014 Elections made an impact on Indian political history and made way to the ruling party, which had an absolute majority, to take tough decisions. Now all other political parties are getting together to fight with the big force of the day.

    But our democratic history has shown that tough decisions were taken only when a strong leadership emerged under the umbrella of the majority winning party and at times it appeared to be leading to unilateral decisions.

    In this context, can we say that a government by a single political party with an absolute majority is detrimental to our democracy? Please discuss.

    General guidelines for adherence -

    *Please do not bring in political affiliations but discuss the topic in general in its entirety.

    *Please do not post responses that are not relevant to the GD in this thread.

    *Read and understand the topic properly before coming up with arguments.

    *Please stick to the topic. Do not deviate from the main subject. It is quite natural to draw connections or make references but one must make it a point to get back to the topic of discussion. Any deviation from the main topic that is likely to affect the flow of a discussion is not advisable.

    *Do try to add on or elaborate on points already submitted instead of harping on the same point in different words time and again. It would be better if you distribute your arguments between the responses you intend to post instead of covering up all of them in one go. Please give detailed responses with valid points to support your argument.

    *Do not get personal. Each participant in a debate is free to choose his stand and though one can and has to challenge and try to disprove another's point, it should be limited to the views only and not on a personal level. Let us not discard dignity and decency for the sake of cementing a view.

    Let us have a healthy, active and fruitful discussion. The GD will close on 24th Apr '18.

    Best participants will be selected depending on the number of participants and will be awarded suitably. Other participants will also be considered for cash rewards if found eligible.

    So why wait? Read, think and start penning down your points and arguments. Let the activity begin!

    Note: The editor who is moderating a GD will have the final say (in consultation with the team) in matters of dispute (during discussion) and a point or guidance put forth as a response by the moderator need not be responded to by the participating members.
  • #634202
    I welcome a new GD for the members discussion.
    The topic chosen for the current GD is relevant one. However it needs the deftness and self moderating capacity of the participants to steer the GD in a smooth course without getting tempted to be drawn into sidetracks falling into own personal loyalties and bias.
    I am sure the members are quite capable of conducting a smooth and purposeful GD.
    With that I would like to state that I stand against the topical line of GD>

    I do not believe that a single political party getting absolute majority is detrimental to our democracy, on the contrary it helps to govern with stability and confidence and implement the schemes envisaged and promised by the party at the time of elections.

  • #634205
    I do not support the statement that a single political party getting an absolute majority is detrimental to our democracy.

    Decisions made are not bold when the government is formed with the support of half a dozens of small parties. If bold decisions are made then the ruling party will be endangering their survival.

    If ruling party has a majority then it is quite good for democracy. Also, the substantial pressure that ruling party needs to be faced from the opposition is minimal and when pressure is minimal, democracy will function more efficiently.

  • #634208
    An absolute majority is always good for a democratic country provided that the party getting majority should be having good intentions and if the government functions keeping the fact in mind that democratic government is for the people, by the people and of the people. As long as the ruling party keeps an eye on the upliftment of the poor people and the representatives of the people in the parliament keep the welfare of the society before their personal agenda a single party rule is always better for the country. They can take the decisions without any hesitation and see that they will be passed in the parliament and can be implemented.
    But if the leadership and the party is having a different goal in their mind, the whole purpose will be defeated. Whatever they want to do, they can implement and see that their intentions are fulfilled. So a single party ruling the country with another strong party as the opposition may yield better results.
    Whatever may be the case the entire governance depends on the person who is at the helm of affairs. If a single party is ruling the country and in that party, if there is no democracy again problems will start. So all depends on the person who is leading the government and the party.

    always confident

  • #634216
    In a democratic set up such as we follow, a single party rule can expect to bring in changes. This must accompany a good opposition such that constructive criticisms are made on necessary issues. When a single party rule is welcomed, it is conditional. The party must be functioning democratically. The power should not rest on a single person. Every policy brought in must be as a product of useful and democratic discussions within the ruling party. An autocratic approach should not be there.
    Different persons will be leading different portfolios. Each will have autonomy within that portfolio. At the same time a decision taken within one ministry must go for a discussion among all ministers before brought in the Assebly as a policy. This will help avoiding overlap and complaints of interference in others region.
    In a coalition government this cannot very often happen. Different political parties will have different approaches towards the same issue. This contradictions stop the works and thereby the progress of the country.

    Gold Member ISC

  • #634218
    While I do agree that if a single party gets absolute majority to form the government, then it will be in right position to take the actions to fulfill the promises made during elections. But unfortunately the main big parties like Congress and BJP failed to live up to the expectations of the voters and thus the need was felt for regional parties, who are far better than understanding the needs of the voter and their basics are addressed. So in this circumstances the nation cannot discard the regional parties which have fanned out in different states and they are in fact doing well than the so called national parties. Some of the regional parties with whom National parties are also eager to partner and get benefited are Trinamul in WB, TDP in AP, TRS in Telangana, AIADMK and DMK in Tamil Nadu, JDU in Bihar, JDS in Karnataka and other small parties. So single party getting majority cannot be possible in near future.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #634229
    A very relevant GD thread with elections just round the corner. To understand or even answer this, first, let's see what democracy really means, it means that we rule ourselves via elected leaders, we have the right or freedom to express our views, our agreement or disagreement on basically how the country is run and how the people's welfare are looked after.

    Now, when we read the title of the thread, it sounds true, when we read the contents, it sounds even more true. Yes, an absolute majority of one party can be detrimental.

    Our Indian democracy, is a representative one. We demand our basic needs and quality in life, these are passed on and decided by our representatives, Imagine having one single party that has all the powers and most importantly no body to oppose them.

    A strong meaningful opposition is not practically possible when the opposite party does not have a chance to come to power in the near future because the ruling party is very strong.

    The members of the absoulte majority will initial be very happy and contended, they would do a few things related to public work, fulfil one or two promises given to the people. Then the subversion starts, the subversion of apparent public benefits to real personal benefits.

    The world 'absolute' in the ruling party would be replaced by ' arrogance'. If there is no good leader or party to stand up to the ruling party, it loses the fear of being defeated or questioned about it's performance and ultimately it's survival.

    As time goes by complacency creeps in and the elected leaders and party cardes start singing the tune of the high command and is not in sync with reality. Gradually, the demoraccy suffers, the very prinicples that democarcy stands for, slowly starts to erode. People cannot express themselves wihtout fearing for their lives, the press and media cannot be honest, upright officers in the government machinery become puppets in the hands of the party with absolute majority.

    Like how votes are bought, ruling party can interfere with the judiciary, amend the rules and protocols that have been in place since many years. So, in short, the day we have a party with absolute majority, it would be the beginning of the gradual decline and the ultimate demise of democracy.

  • #634234
    A single party getting absolute majority to rule the country is definitely harmful to the democracy especially in the present selfish politicians and selfish motive political parties. A party with manageable majority to rule the country and a strong opposition which can oppose and question the ruling party at all its misrule is the need of the hour. In democracy a party with a total few hundred votes a head of other political party is the winner. If no one questions the ruling party, the other almost equal number of voters who have voted against the winners have to bear the burnt of ruling party. In the present selfish scenario if a political party gets absolute majority, if no one there in the opposition to question the misdeeds of ruling party then there is no meaning for democracy.

  • #634239
    A single party rule with the strong opposition is the best for a better rule. But in the present day politics whether it is a ruling party or the opposition party everybody wants power. The party in ruling will try to retain its ruling. The party in opposition will always aim for coming to power. They will have their vested interest. So ultimately the common man will continue to suffer. So the main point is how sincere is the person at the helm of affairs is more important and internal democracy within the party is also an important factor. These days in our country the internal democracy is not there. It is almost becoming a one man or two men show. If somebody tries to counter them they will be sidelined or made the scapegoats for some bad happenings and see that they will lose their importance. I don't want to give any examples for this but there are many examples in all the parties and people who are in touch with politics will know this fact.
    always confident

  • #634240
    Supporting my view is the current real situation , we all know that BJP has been strong in many states, won the NE parts of India and even had a slogan of ' Congress Mukth Bharath'. This basically means a single party with absolute majority coming to power in most parts of India. But today, interestingly, Mr.Yeshwnath Sinha, former Union Minister of Finance and external affairs has quit BJP. This senior leader has stated that, he has quit because 'democracy was under threat from the present government.

    Although we cannot prove what's true, the core issue here is one single largest party in power allegedly misusing power to stalling parliament, stalling the no-confidence motion and not keeping up it's promises.

  • #634245
    A coalition formed by major political powers(parties) can and will easily win the elections because of the culmination of agendas, strategies, interests, profits and etc..; But did those coalition parties last long in past?

    What is more detrimental? A single overwhelming majority or the coalition parties accumulating votes? A collaboration only lasts as long as the mutual benefits are fulfilled. When they are not realized, parties would indulge in petty skirmishes and the coalition government would fall. But the same would never be the case of a party winning with majority on its own as the interests and functionality don't collide.

    Hence, I am against the thought that a single party's absolute majority is more detrimental to democracy, because that's what we're supposed to do in the first place.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #634247
    Why I am stressing the present scenario is, the politicians and political parties have certain level of dignity and decorum in their actions and behavior in the past. Parties used to take a win or loss for the party in a spirited and sportive way in the past. But in the present situation, the political parties and politicians have only one agenda 'come to power' by whatever means may be. In the past, Mr.Vajpayee stood against no confidence motion boldly and gave hours long bold reply in the floor of the house. He chose to loose the no confidence motion even though he has to win it by a false means. Where are such a kind of leaders at present? For example in the present scession of Parliament, a party who has perfect majority has not even like to face the no confidence motion thinking that some of its friendly alliance parties go against it and their weaknesses get exposed in the people. So how much difference is there in the behavior of BJP party in the present and past.

    Once a political party get absolute majority their main aim always will be making their party win every where in the country from panchayati elections to parliament to make their rule for ever. They are leaving the welfare of people aside go on planning their election stratagies to win everywhere which is so much harming the true spirit of democracy. Have you ever seen such power hungry and power mongering polticians and political parties in the past? Politicians and political parties becoming monopolies in grabbing power which is a harm to democracy.

  • #634248
    It is not a new aspect of our political parties. There are many instances which we can quote from our past history. Once a party is in power it wants to win all over and they don't want to give the leadership to anybody except their heirs only. I don't want to bring in names of parties here as it is against the rule of GDs. But I, again and again, say all parties in the present day politics are power hunger. They don't want to lose their power. They don't want to lose their grip over the issues. For them the National issues are secondary. So the people at the powerful position in the party and government and their way of working will be crucial.
    Even in a coalition government if there are people who want to question the government, they will not be given any priority. That is why I, again and again, repeat that internal democracy within the party is very important for a good governance.

    always confident

  • #634252
    Mr.Rao, Already I told power hungry and power mongering parties have no agenda only power is their agenda. Then what is the use of people at powerful position and working government? If any party getting absolute majority and one of the person is reason for their parties win the individuals are becoming monarchs in the party? No other member has dare to question him even though they are most seniors in their party. What ever the single person dictate is the rule of the country. Then where is democracy? Some of the examples how democracy flourishing in the absolute majority got party's rule-Introducing demonetization process without discussing in the cabinet, passing bill of foreign electroral funds without any debate in parliament showing electioneering transparency, no debate on budget bill, rejection to facing no confidence motion against democratic norms, keeping away Lokpal bill warned by Supreme court went under ground, womans act bill etc. Do you think people at poweful position without fulfilling the promises given and setting right the power of their party is what we want to see in a democratic functioning government?

  • #634253
    I do support the author that a single political party getting the absolute majority is detrimental to our democracy. A strong opposition is always necessary for a good democracy. If a single party will get the absolute majority the opposition will be weak and it will certainly harm the democracy of the country. It will result in the dictatorship in the country instead of democracy. We can take an example of emergency. It was the best example of the absolute majority in India. Many scholars thought that the third emergency imposed in India was not necessary. A strong opposition always necessary to put forward the problems of people and to put the harmful effects of any policy of the government in front of the people. If there would be a strong opposition then a government will think twice before implementation of any policy. Government is responsible for the parliament but it is only possible if there would be a strong opposition.
    Honesty is the best policy.

  • #634255
    Well, this thread having been converted into a GD topic, I would like to put forth my views here. One of the famous Indian journalists has said that India is not completely a democratic country while its neighbour is not completely under dictatorship. We have witnessed the single party regime in India earlier

    There had been never an instance of complaint of negligence of any state during the regime of NDA and UPA too as the ruling coalition included smaller parties too. During the Congress tenure under Mrs.Gandhi, there appeared to be a friction between Centre and States while leaders like Jyothy Basu, Biju Patnaik and NTR were fighting for their legal rights of their respective states. It was a created impression that it would be ideal for the people to have the same party at the helm of affairs boith in the state and the centre otherwise they would forego some benefits. Same scenario is now happening in the country. The recent rift between the Centre and the state of AP, the ongoing war between Mamata of WB and the centre are few examples to highlight the point of argument. Even the selection of candidates for the constitutional posts would be a common choice in Coalition politics and we had experienced how the selection of Pranab Mukharjee was made out of compulsion for the Presidential post. Abdul Kalam was picked up with a unanimous choice and emerged as a surprising right choice for the post during the NDA under Vajpai. You can't rule out some other candidates had they had absolute majority at that time.

    The appointment of Sarkaria Commission to study the feasibility of exploring better relations between the Centre and the States nis the resultant factor of the friction between the Congress ruled centre and the non-Congress ruled states. Agreed that coalition politics are based on the regional factors and individual interests but giving an absolute majority to a single Party finally becomes performance oriented rule under one personality which depends on how the leader leads the team. Also, there won't be a standby arrangement when the party wins the elections with the face value of one person. What happened in Tamilnadu? Who is the real successor of Ms.Jayalalita? It is a classic example and this one applies for the states too. In many states, having won with absolute majority, some regional party leaders are functioning in an autocratic style and trying to fight with the centre for each and every smaller issue. Thus it is affecting the very basic structure of our democracy and our principles of federalism are in danger. In the present scenario of Indian polity where the elements of regionalism have deeply crept in, it would be better to have the Coalitions in the form of alliances to work collectively for the betterment of the country.


  • #634263
    A single party with absolute majority is both detrimental to our democracy, and also better for our democracy. Why detrimental? Any good or bad decision taken by the ruling party cannot be questioned as it will be approved without any opposition. Why it is better? Good decisions will never be opposed by the opposition.

    So, what should be done? We need to modify the system. Presently any bill that is to be passed successfully needs 51 percent support. The same should be modified as 75 percent of the total members of the parliament or assembly. This will ensure the perfect functioning of our democratic country despite the absolute majority of the ruling party.

    No life without Sun

  • #634266
    In agreement with the topic, let's look into and highlight each issue.

    1.Apathy (party and electorate)

    Once a party has an absolute majority and keeps going strong without worrying about its survival (staying power), a palpable lack of interest in public affairs, the needs for food and water, needs for basic infrastructure would be left status quo without any leader or minister having the genuine interest to improve these issues. As years go by, the electorate also loses interest in the system. If only one party has an absolute majority, then some may give up on the system itself, until a major voice for a change comes up during the next elections. Over a period of time, each party gets used to the system. Get a majority, stay in power, do what they want, reap the benefit for 5 years knowing that it'll lose elections next time and come back after 5 years. For instance like a cycle of Congress,BJP, Congress or DMK, AIDMK, DMK and so on in TamilNadu. If we have a front that is in power, then each one in power and in the opposition will work for the people to improve their own chances during the next elections.

    2.Corruption & Crimes.
    Once a single party has an absolute majority without anyone to question them, it makes way for the unethical leaders and ministers to slowly start doing their inappropriate acts. Looting public money, misallocation of funds for personal use, indulging in crimes (rapes, killings etc). For instance, we had the many scams during the rule of Congress and BJP. At least if there is an alliance, then someone can question these scams and the opposition can lend support to bring this to light and due action can be taken. Take, for instance, the fodder scam of Bihar, Nitish Kumar broke up the alliance with Lalu Yadav, formed an alliance with BJP. and Lalu Yadav is being found guilty, would this be possible if his party had enjoyed full majority? No.

    Even worse is the leaders who are/were involved in crimes are easily acquitted for lack of evidence (for instance Ms.Maya Kodnani, in the Naroda case in 2002).

  • #634268
    I don't know about other countries, but in India opposition negates each and every decision made by the ruling party, even if the decision is in favor of the country. Constructive criticism from the opposition is okay but baseless criticism takes a toll on time and leads us nowhere. Absolute majority means less opposition which means smooth decisions and better implementing of actions. There should always be a small strength of opposition and the absolute majority can only allow it.

  • #634269
    @#634268, Don't you feel it would lead to the dictatorship which certainly affects the democracy. If there would full majority how can you call it damocracy. It would not be a democracy it would be dictatorship.
    Honesty is the best policy.

  • #634271
    Now I will give some examples to show how absolute majority of party which is in rule will affect our democracy:-
    1. Emergency imposed by Congress government in the past is a blot in Indian democracy.
    2. In the present BJP led NDA government BJP is not listening to its partner's suggestions as it got absolute majority on its own. This lead to the departing of TDP, Shivsena and smaller allies from the alliance.
    3. As BJP with its absolute majority at the Center trying to weaken the federal system by vesting more powers to Center is a ploy to weaken State governments run by popular regional parties .
    4. The revenue share system formulated at present by Finance Commission and the Central schemes to be followed by States will suppress the functioning of State governments run by regional parties and favors the same National party to rule at the state level also. So it will affect the federal system of our democracy.
    4. One more undemocratic feature we are seeing in the present BJP led government is, BJP is providing more funds to its ruling states than other States which are ruled by some other parties governments. They are giving funds at wilt to states just before elections to get favor for their party. Any State which is in real need of funds like newly formed A.P. state they are saying there is no money in Central treasury . These are all the undemocratic and partiality standards shown by a party which is ruling the country with absolute majority.
    5. Already hectic caste system is there in Indian politics, to win elections religious division system is also formulated by political parties which is really a shame to democracy.
    6. As BJP has no strength in South Indian States, it is showing a step motherly attitude in distribution of funds by using a formula which favors Northern States is a kind of divisive politics to win elections. All the Southern State governments are opposing strongly at the Center. In the past we have never seen such a division of South and North.
    7. Now the BJP government trying to implement both State and Central elections at the same time to reduce the importance of State governments and their voice to suppress the federal system of our democracy.

  • #634276
    Just now I have seen that this is an active GD. I am feeling interested to humbly submit my opinion which may be awkward. But let me say my views. First, let me discuss some history.

    Since 1952 (the first Lok Sabha election), Congress ruled India till 1977 with absolute majority. Till 1977, Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections were held together. So, in most of the cases, the state governments were also Congress governments except two notable exceptions, the communist government in Kerala under EMS Namboodripad in late 50s and Bangla Congress + communist government in West Bengal. Indira Gandhi dismissed the EMS Government abruptly and communist leaders in Bengal internally sabotaged Bangla Congress-led coalition in West Bengal. Let us not go further on these issues.

    So far as 1977 Lok Sabha election is concerned, it must be told that although it was a so-called coalition government, the ruling Janata party had an absolute majority with 345 seats. The Janata Government fell due to the disintegration of the party (aided by the Congress) and not because of any coalition partner.

    So far as the 2014 election is concerned, it must be clearly stated that presently a coalition Government is in power. The name of the ruling coalition is NDA. BJP is the largest party in the coalition with 280 (earlier 282) MPs, which is incidentally more than the single majority mark. But it should not be denied that the present Government is in actuality a coalition Government.

    With this background history, I will submit the view in my next responses.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #634279
    Can you see how a single party rule is better ?
    Look above. You will find examples of the failures of a single party rule. You'll find the flaws and failures of the BJP rule.
    This exactly is what democracy thrives upon. With a single party rule. ..we can always point out at a government and make sure our requirements are seen in future. Can we expect the same kind of response in NDA?
    When it comes to a coalition government parliamentary democracy fails to keep the administrators in check. There isn't one single figure whom you can blame or credit then.

    But that is possible in a single party rule. If the party performs well this tenure..we the citizens will vote for it again and again strengthening both the rule and the party.
    Mutual benefits of the politicians and people can naturally be attained unlike in a coalition where the mutual benefits are between politicians of different parties.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #634281
    Mr Rama Krishna, My opinion is when there is no democracy in the party itself how can we expect democracy in the country. A person who is sitting in the top position in the party is not able to listen to the other members of the party who are supposed to be the well-wishers of the government, how can we expect him to be democratic in his ruling. When are you not able to make your house happy how can you make your country happy? So the discipline should start of the house not from the street. That is why I mentioned about internal freedom of expression in the party,
    Then it comes to the society. The very purpose of the ruling party is to take care of the country and see that it will have a good progress. For this, if there are constructive suggestions from anyone should be accepted and should be implemented. One should not forget they are there because of the people and they should be taking care of the welfare of the public.
    How does it happen? A good governance? how it comes? a good leader who can understand the points correctly and try for fulfilling their promises keeping the selfish mottos aside. If all these things happen, there is no problem with a single party majority with a strong opposition.
    The elected members of a party should have the freedom. The leader should be selected by down the line but not by the top. Then we can say everything is perfect.

    always confident

  • #634286
    #634281, BJP party in 2014 with the proclaimed image of single person and with the help of other friendly partners contested the election and won. BJP on its own is able to got mandate in its favor. The person who got the success in that triumph become monarch in the party and dictating the terms of the party. Even the top most seniors also have no role in decision making. So how internal democracy prevails? The coalition partners become unimportant and so some of the patrners distant away from BJP. If such parties in which a single person dictates the things how democracy flourish?

  • #634292
    I have never said the present BJP or the previous Congress is a better or the worst party. Every party have their positives and negatives. I don't want to name any party in this discussion as it is a general GD. In the present Government who got success has become monarch. But in some other parties, the people who don't have any political knowledge are becoming monarchs. There are parties where people sitting outside the government dictated the terms. This is not the discussion we want to have here. We want to discuss what are the ideal conditions for having a democratic government.

    always confident

  • #634296
    #63428,As per the GD to exemplify the facts relevant references were made.
    Now I will bring out how a coalition government with different parties will be best to the democratic set up of the country-
    The parties involved in the coalition government will have some common ideologies, programs and stratagies for the common benefit of the people. If one party try to implement something which is not good for the people, the other parties do not give ascent to the program. For example if the government tries to increase petrol, disel, LPG prices which harm the interest of common man, the other partners they say their descent to hike the prices by which the common man gets benefited. But in an absolute majority party rule, if autocratically one person of the party decides without thinking, no one in the party talks in favor of people. So in a coalition government, always for good things only have an ascent from other partners and so there is no question of dominancee by single individual or party. Unlike single party rule, collective responsibility prevails in coalition government which is always good for common man. Unlike in a single party rule a collective decision will be taken for any issue in a democratic way in consultation with all other partners of the government. So the ideas of the coalition government represent the mind set of broader spectrum of people. Policies the government like to implement have greater debate and discussion within the coalition partners which helps in fruitful results and it serves for the welfare of the people. Thus the Coalition governments have greater democratic approach when compared to single party rule.

  • #634303
    We have seen many coalition governments. As mentioned in the above post if the people involved in the governance are really interested in the welfare of the people the governance will be good. But most of the times the top people of each constituent party will try to become head of the government. Otherwise, they fight with each other for important portfolios in the cabinet. Parties coming in and going out, it will become a musical chair game. The continuation of the government for a full term is a very difficult issue in that case.
    always confident

  • #634310
    Continuing from #634266

    3.Harmful Monopoly
    An absolute majority is like a potent aphrodisiac for any leader or political party. This gives them overconfidence that they are invincible(at least till next elections). The true colors of the party, the hidden agenda comes out minority appeasement or suppression, religious overtones, programs for people that they feel is good and not what really is needed.This attitude of indifference that arises can be noticed in settling internal issues, external trade, and diplomatic relations.

    4.Pseudo-dictatorship or authoritative regimen

    This is the one most feared fallout of a party with an absolute majority. What starts off as a democratic process ends up with a party that disregards public sentiments, pays no heed to the voice of the opposition, bypasses legislation and pushes through reforms based on the party's agenda. The leader and the party end up silencing the free press, changing the course of investigations or judiciary and become immune to prosecution or accountability.

  • #634315
    In the first part of my response, I have shown that India witnessed single-party rule till 1989 (contrary to the popular belief that it ended in 1977). But the question of validity of democratic process due to single-party rule never arose at that time. Nobody said that "An absolute majority is like a potent aphrodisiac for any leader or political party" (#634310). So, we have to analyse why such question is coming up now.

    In fact, during the tenure of Jawaharlal Nehru (1947-64), there were many setbacks and questionable decisions which was accepted without much protest. I shudder to think what would happen if these incidents would happen today. Within four months of independence, Nehru took one after another militarily and strategically unsound decisions and handed over 1/3rd of Jammu & Kashmir state to Pakistan. He unnecessarily talked about the plebiscite. He gave special status to the state which is still causing tremendous problem. Nehru handed over Aksai Chin to China. He accepted miltary occupation of Tibet by China. He changed Hindu Marriage Law. He weakened Indian Armed Forces systematically because of his utopian ideas. But nobody questioned Nehru's decision. Nobody said that single-party monopoly is detrimental to the democracy. His daughter Indira Gandhi also took many controversial decisions like bank nationalisation, abolition of privy purse, etc. Nobody said that single-party rule is bad for democracy during her time. Same thing happened during Morarji's Janata regime (demonetisation), Rajib Gandhi also took many controversial decisions.

    But why people are asking questions about single party rule? Why are they saying that it is detrimental to democracy now?

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #634317
    As stated already in my entry post in this GD, I am against the GD title view. I do not see any harm in one party alone getting absolute majority.

    While going through the core arguments of those who side with this GD topic line, I have picked up a few portions from their posts as sample representing their core argument view:

    1. Natrajan (634229) :"The world 'absolute' in the ruling party would be replaced by ' arrogance'. If there is no good leader or party to stand up to the ruling party, it loses the fear of being defeated or questioned about it's performance and ultimately it's survival."

    (2) 634234(Ramakrishna Kadambapatt: "A single party getting absolute majority to rule the country is definitely harmful to the democracy especially in the present selfish politicians and selfish motive political parties."

    (3) Hakimuddin Kuwakhedwala "A strong opposition is always necessary for a good democracy. If a single party will get the absolute majority the opposition will be weak and it will certainly harm the democracy"

    My deduction from them is that they have all misinterpreted the absolute majority as something usurping all the seats leaving nothing to opposition. Their belief is that there will not be an opposition. That is totally ill founded.

    It is in this context that Aditya Mohan has properly analysed and brought out the core point from the GD topic line.He asserts that "I am against the thought that a single party's absolute majority is more detrimental to democracy, because that's what we're supposed to do in the first place." Let us underline the portion "that's what we're supposed to do in the first place".
    Yes, when we are to elect a government we are supposed and expected to elect a team that will govern the country with stability and strength (or state) for the the full term til the next elections.
    An absolute majority is the main principle of a democracy; It is just a bit higher than the mid point as per our election system.

    The word used for not having a single party getting absolute majority is 'HUNG". That expresses the situation when no party gets absolute majority. The country will be just hanging... Do we want our government ,parliament or legislatures to hang and not be stable?

    So absolute majority is the aim a party should stand and fight for. Only splinter parties and independents expect just a few seats. Other wise the aim is to win absolute majority and to govern with strength and stability and steer the country to progress.

    So the fear and worry of those who side the GD topic line is illogical and not envisaged by the people and system.

  • #634323
    Let me proceed with my discussion . In that I may have to contradict or disprove certain assumptions by those who oppose single party majority:
    @634266, it is feared that over a period of time lethargy and disinterest will develop and and party will be just selfish to reap maximum benefit during the term.

    I do not agree with this concept.
    No party likes to commit suicide or wants to dismantle itself after one term. It is an 'ongoing' concept. Each party wants to come back again on saddle. So they will do some gimmicks at least to win the voters. The very recent incident of 'carving out a new religion for minority status' is a perfect example of such a gimmick to stay continued in power.

    I also dispute and disprove that the voters have to be satisfied with alternating two parties in each elections.The people of this country are very alert and vigilant and knows when to bring or when to throw out a party. The very recent example is the formation of Aam Aadmi Party(AAP) and giving them the power to rule in the immediate elections.

    We should not forget that in India, we still believe and prove, the Bahagavt Gita
    that "Yada yada hi dharmasya glaanirbhavati bharata, abhyuththaanam adarmasya'..
    someone fresh will come and take the mantle and lead.

    This country has the potential to demolish the Adharma side and bring back the Dharma. So if the people feel that arrogance or extreme intolerable corruption or some other intolerable bad acts are happening from the ruling side-however powerful and strong they may be- people will simply throw them out in a peaceful manner. History has shown that.

  • #634326
    In the first two parts of my response, I have tried to state that despite having single-party rule till 1989, nobody bothered about the destruction/limiting the democratic values. Indian first saw true coalition in 1989 under the Prime Ministership of Late VP Singh. The experiment was short-lived. Since then, till 1999, no coalition government at central level could rule full term of five years despite scrupulously following the so-called coalition dharma. The first coalition government which ruled full-time is the government of AB Vajpayee. That was possible only because of two BJP stalwarts, viz., Vajpayee and LK Advani. No coalition leaders were of the same stature, so the coalition government survived full-time. But even then, the Government could not fulfill its agenda for development and governance because of various pressure tactics of the smaller partners of the coalition.

    Same thing happened during the UPA regime during 2004-2014. The hapless Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh could not do much on any front due to pulls and pressures of regional and casteist smaller coalition partners as well as various pressures from its own party. India's progress was entirely stopped during UPA-II regime. This is now an established fact. As a result of indecisivem=ness, lack of ability to take strong political and economic decisions and because of corruption, the UPA Government fell in 2014 and NDA Government returned to power with the major partner BJP itself bagging 282 seats itself crossing the magic figure of 273.

    The NDA regime has proved to be decisive and is capable of taking strong political and economic decisions. People may criticise those decisions, but nobody can allege lack of decision-making at the apex-level. Common people of India have liked the ability of the present regime's ability to take swift decision-making.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #634328
    I would speak against the motion, that is, any party gaining absolute majority in an election is NOT detrimental to our democracy. Here are my reasons:
    1. Any party wins majority in an election by votes of common people. This is keeping aside the allegations and conjectures on votes rigging. Then if majority people of our country is voting a party, then isn't it depicting a fair picture of our democracy.
    2. I am against coalition government as such a government is created without public consent. People has no say in a coalition government. They vote an individual party. When these parties fail to gain the magic figure, they go for coalition. It's a compromise on people's belief.
    3. One author mentioned about power hunger. I think single party gaining absolute majority is never an example of power hunger. If that were so, people would have lost belief in that party and voted a better one. I think coalition party is an example of power hunger.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #634330
    #634323, According to general perception people have to elect a stable government. Here the people have two alternatives-one is Congress and the other is BJP. People gave two chances to Congress coalition government as they were impressed by the first term rule under Dr.Manmohan Singh. After second term rule they were vexed with the corruption and scams as there is no other alternative they chose BJP to rule the country. Here unlike Congress party BJP has lot of hidden agendas to strengthen their position in a tactical way. For example Ram Mandir nirman is one tactic they used long back to win the elections and this call is no where now as it don't bring any votes now. Now they are using religious sentiment of Hindutva to create vote bank for them. They created a hype for Gujrat Model in the name of Mr.Modi in social media which helped to reap votes. Actually experts saying Kerala is more well developed than Gujarat in many paramaters. After two years of rule of Mr. Modi's government a lot of frustration sets in and dramatically Mr.Modi announced demonetization to create some sensation in the people which clicked and people believed it. But the final analysis is demonetization is a complete failure. BJP has created an impression in the minds of people demonetization, GST, Jandhan khata will benefit in long run and so they have to be given another chance. They are using some tactical gimmicks to continue their rule by giving anaesthesia to people. Definitely dictotorial attitudes sets in if ruling party is not facing any strong opposition.
    Mr.Partha for Congress party in the past have no hidden agendas like for BJP party to win elections and strengthen their party as there is no opposition is there for them at that time. Whatever they thought good for the country they did. Now why people questioning BJP is they have hidden agendas I mentioned above and I mentioned some more in my previous responses.

  • #634332
    I lately join the discussion to start with my views India have/had seen many types of political arrangements(correlation governments) (by putting aside of various Political parties Ideologies and come together without a single agenda) and we have and had seen the single-party rule at the center. we can't judge whether a single party with absolute majority or correlation party is good for the country because all are failed in this country.

    1)When Congress was the only single party who rule at the center people vexed up the dictator rule of Indira Gandhi and Co... former Chief Minister of A.P and the founder of Telugu Desam party NTR had started National Front unite the opposition parties against Congress but that was also failed.

    3) After that Atal Bihari Vajpayee becomes Prime Minister again we have correlation government with the slogan of Shine India but it also flopped.

    We have seen correlation governments and as well as a single-party government with absolute majority both are failed at the center.According to me, Single party Majority is slightly bit better than the correlation governments because when we take crucial decisions and passing bills in parliament it acts as a catalyst to take correct judgments without any pressures.But what our problem lies not with the single party with the absolute majority the problem lies we are choosing a wrong person with a right decision (that is giving absolutely majority)

    In correlation, we have to face the elections with a short period of time that is not good for the country.

    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #634333
    "Single party is detrimental" supporters are stressing at the point of opposition. According to them a coalition government is having a good chance of getting a little or no opposition. Wouldn't that derail the administrators? Is opposition really a crucial coin here ? If yes, then how can opposition affect absolute rule or a coalition government?

    That is what I would like to discuss upon and see being discussed instead of opinions.
    Opposition should always be strong to ensure the benefit and welfare of the majority.
    But how else can opposition party be projected in both of these rules?
    Let's discuss about that for a while.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #634342
    In #634330, the Member has stated: ''Mr.Partha for Congress party in the past have no hidden agendas like for BJP party to win elections and strengthen their party as there is no opposition is there for them at that time. Whatever they thought good for the country they did. Now why people questioning BJP is they have hidden agendas I mentioned above....''.-----Most probably the author has forgotten that in this GD we are not discussing any party. Moreover, we will also not discuss the author's personal opinion regarding hidden agenda of any party. This GD is not about anyone's personal opinion about any political party.

    Continuing my previous response, we must say that the present regime has taken some strong decisions. Now a debate is going on whether the decisions are good or not, but nobody can blame the present leadership of the country about the lack of decision-taking. Those who work in Government Secretariat can easily understand the difference between the lack of decision-taking of the previous Government and the decision-taking of the present Government.

    In my opinion, this contrast was due to coalition Government. During the previous regime, Dr. Manmohan Singh, a personally honest and very good economist, could not take decisions due to various pulls and pressures of the smaller parties of the UPA. As the Congress did not have the majority, Dr. Singh was forced to hand over important portfolios to incompetent political leaders many of whom were corrupt. Such corrupt leaders (some of which were also within Congress) and so-called 'coalition dharma' did not allow functioning of UPA Government and Dr. Manmohan Singh. As a result, the UPA regime lost terribly in the 2014 election. I feel that people of India understood the follies of coalition politics and voted the UPA out of power because of this understanding.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #634343
    Whenever we have had a single party with the absolute majority we have had problems with the party's ideology that goes against the larger interests of the country.

    If you look at the Congress rule in the past when they had an absolute majority, we have had relentless programs of minority appeasement, large conversions in North East and scams. In fact, the Bofors scandal that rocked India and Sweden was one of the key factors that led to the downfall of Congress in 1989 elections.

    If we consider the present BJP rule, it bulldozed on with the Ram Mandir issue and continued with it relentlessly despite its adverse efforts on communal harmony. The states which do not have BJP rule have had far less support from the center. For instance, UP gets Rs 1.79 from the center for every rupee it contributes. If you look at Karnataka, it gets only 47 paise and Kerala gets even less around 25-30 paise for every rupee that it contributes to the center.

    Take the triple talaq bill had a smooth sailing in Lok Sabha ( BJP had the majority) it had stiff opposition in Rajya Sabha. When we have a majority party wherein every other party in the opposition is a minority ( in terms of true numbers), the opposition is demoralized and has no voice. The problems of the policies and its adverse effects on the people cannot be effectively questioned, it becomes too easy to be effectively silenced.

  • #634345
    Here is an example how democracy working in a single ruled majority party- BJP party in 2014 won its elections with help of its strong holds of some bigger northern states and some seats through its allies from smaller States in South India.It got a solute majority on its own. On seeing its emphatic win in bigger states it is providing northern states and neglecting the states which have any vote bank for it. An example for that is A.P. BJP made many election promises for A.P. in its manifesto but declined to fulfill as it has no use with the state. With its majority it is suppressi ng the elected members to bring to the notice of the parliament. Similarly so many other states also not able to bring to the notice of the parliament. Budget is passed in the din of the house without sparing single minute debate. What democracy is doing with single majority ruled party? The smaller states which have no representation in the government have to suffer with this kind of democracy? Those who are supporting against the GD statement has to respond.

  • #634346
    I will tell One Example of two prime ministerial persons when P.V narshima rao was prime minister of the country he had done lots of economic reforms and liberalization and privatization of Indian economy when he was 40 seats short of absolute majority whereas now the present Prime Minister Modi done nothing for the country with an absolute majority.So what my argument it doesn't depend whether you are an absolute majority or a correlation government it depends upon the person whom you elect.
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #634347
    If you chose a wrong prime ministerial candidate both cases ( single political party getting an absolute majority, correlation government )the outcome or expected result will be the same.
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #634349
    Just as Bhushan put forth the choosing of candidate is much more important than the party. Be a coalition or a single party the candidate standing must be researched upon and his previous contributions must be noted.

    Since 1990s the coalition trend is on rage. Because of the rise of regional politics. Aam aadhmi party for an instance born as an individual party later made many unsuccessful coalitions. Now it has an unclear relationship with congress. Trinamul congress and UPA are other classic examples.

    Joining and breaking parties are tricks of politicians to remain longer on their seats. We as the voters must understand that we must never rely on a temporary coalition government.
    I quote former chief justice of India, Venkatachalaiha, "coalition politics are signs of degeneration of Indian democracy".

    A single party on absolute majority is a rarity to see in India. Let us see what good might come.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #634351
    Prime Minister is elected by the elected members of the party who gets the maximum seats in Lok Sabha. So, we cannot interfere in this matter. It is the decision of the members of the party.
    The coalition is also an obstacle to the democracy as the party demands illegal things for the support of the government. We have witnessed these things in the past. Sometimes their demands cannot be fulfilled and they withdraw their support from the government. They always try to pressurize the government for their support. I am in the favour of one party ruling but not too many seats that can lead to dictatorship. We must understand the role of opposition in the democracy.

    Honesty is the best policy.

  • #634356
    If we go on listing the present and past governments we will get so many examples where the people in the highest position has done which are detrimental to democracy.
    1. The bifurcation of the combined United AP was done in a very unethical way, by closing the doors of the LS and switching off all the TVs and others. Nobody knows how it is decided in the Lokasabha.
    2.The only PM of Andhra Pradesh was given what type of treatment after coming out of the position by his own party is well known to all Indian citizen. His dead body couldn't find a place in Delhi.
    3. The CM of a State was assaulted in presence of all in the airport or railway station by the grandson of the first prime minister of India and the sone of another Prime Minister of India.
    Like this, the list will go as Independent India was in single party majority rule for more years than a coalition government.
    Because of such acts, if we feel single party rule is not good, coalition governments will make the country unstable as they have to concentrate their time more on their existence than the country's welfare. Some party may say we will get out of the coalition, then the government may lose measurement. This will make elections to come very frequently which will have a heavy effect on the cash position of the country.

    always confident

  • #634364
    In fact coalitions are more the result of selfishness and narrowness of parties who lose their pan national or pan-state support, but still somehow want to remain in power. This will make them 'succumb to pressures and do anti-people activities.

    If a single party rule has to please just one person at any level, the coalition has to satisfy all the coalition partners in that level. So whether corruption, nepotism or selfishness-it increases manyfold in a coalition.Governance and welfare measures decrease that much many fold .

    In 634271 the emergency during the seventies is quoted as an example to say against absolute majority for a single party.

    But just recall that the people threw that party out and brought a coalition. But whenthey found that the coalition was a medicine worse than the disease itself, they brought back the same party very soon even before the term was completed. People of this nation has that capacity to rein in any one who tends to show autocratic intentions.
    The same problem is there for a coalition also. Please recall about the brining up of an ordinance just to save one coalition leader from landing in the jails. That was done by a coalition government. The government was so weak that it surrendered to the pressure of a smaller coalition partner, but has to retreat when the masses rose against ruling side and a mass movement was taking shape.

    So even a coalition can be autocratic and they will be compelled to take narrow decisions more often and more selfishly than a majority holding single party.

  • #634368
    When does a single party gets absolute majority? When people overwhelmingly vote and elect that party's candidates from maximum number of constituencies.
    That means people's will and wish is to give that party the decisive mandate to rule the country(or state). Democracy is the prevalence of the will of the majority. Then who are we to deny and defy that?
    So even thinking itself that - a single party getting absolute majority is harmful - is a blasphemy and against the spirit and will of democracy.

    That thinking is based on the wrong notion that the voters of this country are not mature to think and elect a proper government. That is still the residual of the wishful thinking of the Britishers when they had been compelled to leave the country giving us full Independence.

    Instead of doubting we have to salute the decisiveness of the electorate when they vote a single party to a decisive majority to rule the country.

  • #634371
    #634351 I know members of the party who elect the Prime Ministers if the members of the party chose a wrong leader whether it is correlation or Single party with the absolute majority will not yield any fruitful result that is what my argument...
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #634378
    It is OK but we can not do anything in this matter. One more thing only Prime Minister is not responsible for any policy. In our constitution, the collective responsibility is mentioned. It means for any decision good or bad we can not blame only the Prime Minister it the collective responsibility of the cabinet. The decisions are taken in the meeting of the cabinet and the whole cabinet is responsible for the policy of the government.

    Honesty is the best policy.

  • #634383
    As the Cabinet Ministers will agree or nod their head in the policy-making in cabinet meeting but when they come outside they will also raise slogans against the policy or when passing the bill which was accepted by them in cabinet meeting so we can know from this how much freedom is given for the cabinet ministers in the policy-making...
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #634384
    I feel that in India there are two national parties, BJP and Congress. I want to clarify that by using the term national party, I mean those parties which have pan-India presence. Beside these two parties, all other parties (including left parties) are regional parties, caste-based parties and community-based parties. It is quite natural that these regional/caste/community-based parties will try to look after the interest of their own vote-banks. So, when these parties join any coalition and get power, they don't bother about the development of the country. They only think about the narrow, parochial interest of their own vote-banks. So, in case of coalition Governments, the progress of the country doesn't have the main priority. This we have witnessed since 1989 to 2014. The progress of the country halted many a time due to coalition politics.
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #634389
    I feel sorry for the people who still beleive that the single party with the majority is good for the country.
    In theory, yes it should work perfectly, yes ' it is what we have to do in the first place'. But our Indian experience has proved it wrong.

    Politicians are single minded in exploiting the situation in the favour of themselves and their families. A situation wherein they have the full majority is a dream come true for shady people in every party, they would make merry of the chance.

    Just look at Karnataka, both the CM candidates of BJP and Congress that had full majority engaged in ruthless corruption. If we beleive the members arguing aganist the topic, then this (corruption) should never have happened but it did, with full support and in mega proportion. The Mining scam of Karnatka to the tune of Rs 16 thousand crores with the loss in commerical tax to the tune of nearly Rs 1 lakh crore, this led to the resignation of the BJP CM, B.S. Yeddyurappa.

    In 2010, Siddaramaiah, led a padayatra from Bangalore to Bellary against the mining scam. Now after coming to powers, he himself is facing allegations of bias in allocating contracts to 8 mining firms and illegal mining ( to the tune of Rs 5,450 crores).

    This is a classic example of what full majority can do, same state, same problem, same place of mining, two different parties back to back but same result back to back ' Corruption at the highest level', when each CM should be banning this completely.

    In contrast, look at the AP bifurcation issue and the coalition government. In principle, it was promised to grant special status to AP but did not happen. Mr.Chandrababu Naidu objected and later withdrew from the coalition a a result of unkept promises, could this have happened if the party had absolute majority, nobody would have even looked at Naidu.

  • #634394
    Coalition in India is among the regional not national parties at most times.
    So there is no way that such regional local coalitions would pay a significant impact on the central government.
    One should note these alliances remain active only during the election times and yet function independently during their rule.
    So, coalitions do not impact the way democracy works.
    So saying that a coalition government is better than an absolute majority isn't correct.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #634397
    For the people who still believe that single party does not harm democracy, Let's see the leaders of parties with absolute majority.

    The most important question to be asked is do they perform well because of true work ? or are we led to believe that good work has been done by charismatic leaders who hold sway over the masses ?

    Indian history has proven that the latter is true when it comes to single party with majority. For instance,
    Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Congress, Mrs Indira Gandhi, Congress,Mr.Narendra Modi, BJP etc.
    These leaders are not just crowd pullers, they have the charisma and magentism that makes the electorate beleive in what they do and hence the party they stand for.

    The term coalition from Latin stand for ' to grow together' that's what is good for Indian Politics and our parties. Although it sounds like a chaotic arrangement for political survival, it is good for democracy. Imagine for instance, India has to declare war on its neighbors, it would be far easy to do so for a single party but not for coalition party. At times of war, seeking justice for victims of disaster and emergency situations, the coalition Government is better because, the decisions of the Government would be made in the best interest or members of the alliance or the opposition would strongly object and ensure that the right thing is done in time.

  • #634406
    But once again reflect upon this idea. How will local coalitions affect the central in working?
    Though BJP has emerged as an overwhelming majority, we cannot rule out that it still has ties and local alliances. If it didn't, there was no way for BJP to get so many seats. Local coalitions yet meant nothing while passing bills.
    Coalition in regional parties, does not affect the central in a grave manner. No true "single" party exists. Ideas overlap and regional collaborations happen. We saw this in pre-telangana politics where TRS sided with congress for a while. Now TRS has publicly disowned Congress and is questioning the help and aid received.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #634415
    I do not agree that a party with a huge majority will lead to bad or unilateral decisions. For instance, when the BJP Government tried to tax the PF contributions and accumulations of members at the time of withdrawal, there was a sea of protest from even the BJP party and the decision was put off.
    So, much depends on the quality of public discourse, and what the courts can do. Even Tamil Nadu had a famous dictator called Jayalalitha. She never cared for any opposition and tried to convert the superb Anna library near Guindy, in Chennai, into a child hospital. But the Madras High Court shot down the decision.

    In fact, certain good things can also happen when the ruling party has a good majority. For example, the Congress Government at the Centre was instrumental in bringing about the hugely popular National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, under which the rural masses were assured of one hundred days of work, at Rs.100 per day. This superb scheme, help mitigate the negative effects of droughts and bad monsoons.
    In Tamil Nadu, MGR had a brutal majority, but he went on to widen the scope of the mid-day meals scheme and laid the foundation for a hugely successful private sector participation in engineering education in Tamil Nadu. Today, there are some good deemed Universities in Tamil Nadu, like VIT and Sastra, at Tanjavur, but the seeds of this revolution were sown so many years ago, by MGR.

    So, the intent is important. When something good happens, a huge mass of people automatically support all that is good. Today, with the reach of the social media, and growing awareness among huge masses of people in every State, we have already reached a stage where we have checks and balances to stem any excess, whatever form such excess may take.

  • #634416
    In elections candidate belong to a party, a'Front' or contest as independent.

    1. One party:
    Let us first understand and thank pour leaders who guided us to be an Independent Sovereign Republic for giving us a real representative functional 'Multi-party democracy'.
    We should differentiate the absolute majority obtained by a political party in a nationwide election as quite different from the 'in-effect and principle' autocracy or dictatorship prevailing in countries like China and many other similar countries. In China it is a single party system. The same was in practice in many so-called 'leftist' countries . However even our own Communists while simultaneously eulogising such single party dictatorships and autocracies of a single party, ironically cry hoarse when a true democratic nation people elect a pan-Indian party to rule the country. They become intolerant and call such a true democratic system and result as autocratic. It is sheer hypocrisy , opportunism and intolerance.

    1. Front or pre-poll alliance/ Fronts

    Parties with more or less same ideologies, aims and principles , who have only a few pockets of influences come to an understanding before the elections. This is because of various reasons and compelling necessities . One is that such similar idea parties came into existence because of individual leader's differences or because of some disenchantment of certain individuals or groups.Once those become sorted out they are actually one and same. But because they were splinter parties, they would not have own symbol and recognition, Even when some of them have their own symbols their influence would be minimal and localised. So they forma pre-poll alliance or 'Front". Such fronts may have more cohesion than a mere temporary opportunistic coming together.
    For most practical purpose inside Parliament or legislature, they stay together while functioning independently outside the legislatures.

    The UPA at the centre and the LDF and UDF in Kerala, the Left front in W Bengal are examples of such coalitions.Voters take them as single entity only at the time of voting.
    As the voters see them as one cohesive unit or 'front' they have to be seen as a single unit and their getting absolute majority is also akin to a single party getting absolute majority. So here the coalition(front)s not different from a single party. In the next elections also they fight as a united or cohesive front. As they work with a Common Minimum Programme(CMP) in effect they have to be taken as akin to single party.
    So those who see single party absolute majority as harmful should also admit that such CMP coalitions / fronts getting absolute majority are also equally harmful.

    Theoretically individuals , without allegiance or support of any recognised political party also can contest elections. That is true representative democracy. If in a hypothetical situation of individual independent candidates amounting to working majority numbers come to a post poll agreement, then they can also form a government.(theoretically). But as each individual is diverse and different, there will not be any stability and such a thing cannot become practical.

    4. Post poll coalition:
    It is found that most post poll coalitions are unstable and may collapse very soon, because there is no basic common ideology and binding reason except that of coming to power. Mostly such coalitions may cause more harm to the governance and may retard the progress of the nation. The political instability will cause our external relations weak and economy will also get affected.

  • #634417
    Two realities as far as Indian Politics are concerned.
    1. I'm not claiming that coalition is ideal or the best, given the Indian scenario, we have to choose the lesser of the two evils, as far as being detrimental to democracy, single party is worse than a coalition.
    2. It would be very difficult to have a single party absolute majority, we need to get to know how to get the coalition to work for the country and not for the parties.

  • #634419
    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #634428
    1. The legal environment in India consists of two parts, the legislation and the judiciary. The judiciary consists of unbiased courts that decides the legitimacy of any decision. Most of the courts have a single judge to decide right or wrong. This means that even courts depend on singular majority and and unilateral decisions. Does this harm the judgement procedure? India doesn't think so.
    2. Sometimes unilateral decision is better for the people in the future. Bilateral decisions increase confusion. Lots of good decisions were opposed in our country from subsidiary parties. This means single party gaining absolute majority maybe a boon to our society instead of being detrimental.
    3.I will give you a real life example. Donald Trump took the autocratic decision of "Making American, Buying American and Hiring American". Although it is detrimental for Indians and other countries, but it is a boon to American society.Such unilateral decision is not possible with coalition government.
    4. Let me give you another example, Rajiv Gandhi was vehemently opposed when he thought of bringing information technology to our country. His decision was then considered as autocratic and detrimental to the society. Now you can very well see how his idea changed people's lives.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #634430
    1. Coalition government is created as none of the recognized parties gain absolute majority. This means a coalition government never has the complete support or confidence of people. People are always confused about its identity. Moreover such a party is easily breakable and dismissible.
    2. In India at least we have democracy. In lots of countries, military rules are followed, which are very strict.
    3. One author has put got the factors of fear of defeat, arrogance, complacency, etc. But isn't that true for smaller parties as well? Who doesn't have fear of defeat? Prolonged command over a field of expertise can sow the seeds of arrogance among anybody. This doesn't necessarily mean that the person or group or party has failed or is not good enough. Every party should have a rigorous procedure to avert arrogance at any point of time. Lastly complacency has nothing to do with singular majority. It may creep in with prolonged leadership only.
    4. Absolute majority doesn't mean that opposition isn't allowed. In fact, a party with absolute majority needs opposition to maintain the quality for which it got majority of the votes.
    5. Misuse of power and breaking of promises are unresolved issues in every work field. It has no direct relationship with majority support. In fact with majority support, the responsibility and fear of being judged creeps in. This leads to a better performance by the political party automatically.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #634441
    In my previous responses, I have tried to establish that the progress of the country almost halted during the coalition era which actually started in 1989. This has been due to various pressure tactics, push and pulls of the regional caste-based, community-based smaller coalition partners, who join the coalition Government to get some benefits for their leaders and vote banks. In this process, the interest of the country is forgotten. Moreover, in most of the cases (in India), we have seen that the coalition Government doesn't run full-term except the NDA Government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

    We have to introspect whether the country has the ability to bear the huge cost of the election in every two-three years which happens during the rag-tag coalition Government. I am simply astonished to find that the supporters of coalition Government don't mention these aspects in their discussion.

    I feel that for the sake of strong and decisive India, we need a Government with a single party having the majority. It can be expected that such Government would not falter to take strong decisions.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #634451
    Now let us count the benefits of single-party majority. As already stated by me, if a party gets absolute majority in India, it can take policy decision without any hindrance. Here I want to mean push and pulls of the smaller coalition partners. In Indian condition, only a party with pan-India presence can get an absolute majority. So, such part can't take narrow, parochial decision without taking into account the interest of every region of the country. So, the chances of economic or social imbalance due to Government decision would be much less. The Government would be able to implement the decision more forcefully without bothering various hiccups. Such Government is expected to run for full five years and so, it is expected to be more cost-effective. Such Government would be able to deal with outside forces detrimental to the national interest far more firmly. In short, it would provide a proper environment for the steady progress of India on all fronts.

    Not only these, in case of failure of such Government, the people would squarely and clearly put blame and change the Government after five years. There would not be much scope of confusion.

    Keeping in view the above advantages, I firmly support single-party majority system in the democratic set-up of India.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #634452
    There are still authors arguing that a single party is much better for the country. But how a single popular party can be detrimental to democracy is already being seen with the current BJP party. The party enjoy majority at center and can influence the happenings at the state also. The arrogance, the influence they have on the judiciary can be seen in the events below.

    1.Mr Amit Shah, CM of Gujarat resigned from Gujarat assembly going on to the Rajya Sabha. He said that Gujarat is an unassailable fortress and the Congress will be reduced in half.

    2.The Justice Loya case, a judge for CBI handling the Shorabudding encounter case suddenly died under suspicious circumstances. Those involved in the case went up to Mr.Amit Shah. Many irregularities were published by media and they still exist unanswered.

    3.The PIL for the Judge Loya's death has been squashed by the Honorable SC team led by CJI Misra which has led to the very embarrassing impeachment motion. The President had to intervene is a simple case that deserved investigations.

    4. CJI Misra was in the center of the controversy regarding the threat to democracy that was happening in the Indian system. This was very embarrassingly explained at a press conference by four SC Judges which has never happened before in our country. The key issue was irregularities of allocation of sensitive cases by CJI Misra and the same person who was part of the team to squash the Loya PIL.

    5.There have been many reports of Mr.Jay Shah (son of Mr.Amit Shah) whose business has grown 16,000 times from Rs 50 thousand to Rs 80 crores but questions still remain unanswered.

    6.Some controversial decisions have been passed related to finance including the electoral bonds wherein a donor can donate money to any party but the name will not be revealed. This is viewed as a blow to transparency in election party funds because anyone can donate money for getting favors in return. Demonetisation was pushed through despite many experts having doubts and the public had to face hardships including some losing their lives. Mr.Raghuram Rajan of RBI, a brilliant brain in the world of finance, has disclosed that neither he nor the RBI wanted or approved demonetization.

    7.The current BJP government has been stalling the no-confidence motion after the issues with Mr.Chandrababu Naidu's exist.

    8.BJP leaders have been making controversial remarks openly about changing constitution etc

    9. I have already mentioned the acquittal of the key accused in the Noida violence case of 2002.

    All these reflect the arrogance, interference and out of sync mindset of a party that is all set on having a Congress Mukth Bharat rather than an Acchae Din ka Bharat. Imagine if BJP or any party having the absolute majority, all the issues will be magnified and hence it would be detrimental to democracy.

  • #634453
    If the Single party with an absolute majority is good for the people then all the elections had won by them if the Coalition is good then every time they won the elections either of them not happened in the history of India. So my argument is correct. Whether it is a Coalition government or single party with the absolute majority we need to pick a right prime ministerial candidate and as well as the set of right Cabinet ministers....... then only we can yield a good result.
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #634466
    In a democratic system, a healthy and constructive opposition is required to correct the Govt if it is erring or going on a wrong path. The question is do we have an opposition like that in our country? I strongly feel it is not.

    Today even the intentions of ruling party are nor very clear because the only one man on the top can boast of honesty and character. What about the others who are part and parcel of the Govt. Is the vision of the top leadership reaching his associates below or they are simply becoming his yesmen. These are the questions coming in the minds of the intelligentsia in this country.

    A monopoly of a ruling party can be detrimental to the progress of the nation if strong opposition is not there. Judiciary alone can not correct an erring Govt.

    I believe that we have weakness at both the ends. We do not have a strong and honest ruling party and at the same time we do not have a better opposition. There are some people in the opposition who are simply there because it is their family legacy and some are there because they do not have any other thing to do.

    In such situation the damage is being done equally by the ruling party as well as the people scattered in opposition camps.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #634475
    A strong opposition can control the government of doing wrong. Take a lesson from the history. What happens to Germany in second World War. Germany was destroyed due to the dictatorship of the Hitler. The dictatorship in Germany was due to the absence of strong opposition. So, for the smooth running of democracy, a strong opposition is necessary. Nowadays, we cannot believe in media. They present the news for their own interest. They show any news according to TDP. If media will not present the real situation in the country then who will present the real situation? To present the real situation and the advantages and disadvantages of any policy of the government, a strong opposition is essential in a country. It is also the responsibility of the opposition to show the real situation. Opposition means not oppose everything. If a policy is in favour of the country then opposition should also favour the policy. Many times Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayeeji has presented the examples and had favoured the government. At the time of wars, the opposition also favoured the government of India. These are the examples that opposition should present the current and real situation in front of the public.
    So, to control the government from being the dictator a strong opposition is a must in a democracy.

    Honesty is the best policy.

  • #634493
    1. Quite a few incidents cannot determine that singular majority is totally waste or detrimental. Let's see some of the benevolent activities of a majority government. The ministry of science and technology proposed a new organization for patronage of educated people and thinkers and scientists. The name of the organization is Department of Science and Technology. This has flourished under the then government of India, which was a majority at that time. The annual budget of this organization to help out new scientists is around 3 billion dollars. So you can imagine how helpful it is for our young scientists.
    2. Not only this we have seen various schemes of the current government too in patronizing women and girl child under the name of "beti bachao beti padhao" etc. We can't rule them out while considering the pros and cons of a majority government.
    3. A majority government is better than coalition government, since it can catch hold of corruption better than coalition government. A government consists of people. No government, be it a single or coalition one, can ensure total honest. It will always have a bunch of dishonest people. But locating them becomes easier in a majority government. One thing here is that be it a single majority government or otherwise, to serve people, you require an honest mindset. If a government doesn't have that, then neither getting absolute majority nor forming coalition will help.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #634494
    After going through all the above arguments and theories I got my thoughts right in place and they are almost tallying my thinking regarding the requirements for a good democratic government can be listed as follows.
    1. A single party with an absolute majority.
    2. A strong opposition Party.
    3. The leaders of opposition parties and ruling parties should keep the priorities of the public in front than their personal agenda.
    4. Both the parties should have democracy within their party and they should be able to speak out openly when necessity comes.
    5. The ruling party should be constructive in approach.

    always confident

  • #634496
    1. I did not understand how the argument put by one author of bifurcation of a government into few sub parties or different parties and assaulting the CM relates to the topic of our GD. I think the author is confused with party conduct and political behavior and our GD topic. Whether it is a coalition government or majority government, these things are common.
    2. For example, in Bengal Trinamool congress bifurcated from Congress and became an independent party. Now this party has gained a supreme majority and working in West Bengal. Had this party worked in a negative manner with very high amount of corruption, don't you think the coalition formed by Congress and CPIM would have won in the succeeding elections.
    But, this did not happen. People have still voted Trinamool. This means, people have absolutely no faith in coalition government. This is the reason, you will see that most of the coalitions are formed after the election results are out. This is conducted as the required majority to rule a nation could not be formed while counting the votes. Now, this can be concluded as selfishness and inconsiderate behavior to the public of India. They voted someone else with some belief. Now they have to tolerate a coalition government with another person in whom they have no faith altogether. So they would loose their faith in the government whom they actually supported for long. This thing is actually detrimental to the society. In this case, you will find that one day, no single party will ever gain majority. You will find that most people are voting NOTA option.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #634505
    Continuing my argument, I must summarise to state that for Indian democracy, it would be definitely better to have one-party majority rule. This would definitely help the country because the party in power can take the proper decision as it deems fit and which is beneficial for all people of all parts of the country, In that case, the decision will not be hampered by the pressure tactics employed by the regional, casteist and communal smaller parties. Moreover, one-party majority rule would bring stability and election will not be required to be held in after 2-3 years instead of stipulated five years. So, this would be cost-effective for the public exchequer. Furthermore, the people of the country would be in a much better position to judge whether the decisions taken by the ruling party and implementation is proper or not, and accordingly change the Government after every five years. With a stable mandate, the Government would also be able to carry out necessary reforms.

    In this connection, I must state that some of the Members have failed to properly understand the topic of the GD. This GD is not about the role of the Prime Minister or the role of the opposition parties in a democracy. The present GD has sought the opinion of Members whether single-party rule or multi-party coalition rule is good for Indian democracy.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #634519
    We all know that the single majorty party is far from perfect and can be detrimental to democarcy. This is well supported by the doings of the Congress in the past when they had the full majority.

    With the Congress government also we have had government interference in Judiciary (24th amendment of 1971, to abolish the payment for Indian royals). In 1975, the Allahabad HC found that the leader of the absolute majority party who was the PM had misused the offical machinery for the election campiagn and the PM was banned from contesting the election by the same HC and this was upheld by the SC.

    Instead of respecting the HC and SC, the congress party with full majority led by Mrs. Indira Gandhi invoked article 352
    One of the most controversial periods in the history of our country is the 'Emergency rule' between 1975-1977. Many experts feel that Mrs.Indira Gandhi had emergency declared to supress her opponents(who were thrown in prision), the freedom of the press was cut down.

    Back to the present day, the point against the a party with absolute majority is good for democracy can be well related to the recent call, given yesterday by Mr.Rahul Gandhi, the Congress president. He has challenged the PM Mr.Narendra Modi for a 15 minute debate on
    1.Rafael Deal
    2.Nirav Modi/PNB scam
    3.Center's (BJP) interference in Judiciary
    4. conduct that amounts to Subverting the constitution.

    Rahul Gandhi has started 'Save the (Indian) Constitution. Such bold steps to challenge the PM would imply that there is some wrong doing otherwise, there wouldn't be any smoke without any fire. Imagine the same if the BJP had the single absolute majority without any coalition, such questioning of the Government's conduct would not be possible.

    Hope I've been able to put my views forward about how a single party with majority and it's leaders misuse and have misused the powers and threaten democracy in India.

    We have had issues with the two largest parties in the country and at least with the coalition the voice of the opposition is stronger and the stand of the ruling party is a little shaky when it comes to blatantly working against the democracy and people at large.

  • #634525
    I was avoiding quoting specific incidents of parties. But I see some participants who support the GD topic line has mostly resorted to point fingers at the present ruling dispensation at centre. It is either ignorance or deliberate selective anaesthesia.
    India had a very dark p[period when the country was almost on the brings of a dictatorship. The ruling party at the centre was Indian National Congress and the PM- then was Smt. IndiraGandhi. It may now sound ironical when we have to say that the Communists (CPI) was her'loyal opposition' which supported her in her autocratic trend. The judiciary also was made a mockery.Let us not forget how the SC verdict given by Justice V R Krishna Iyer was deviously surmounted by the PM and loyalists by using the majority in Parliament. Ultimately the nation was put under internal emergency and all fundamental rights were curtailed and denied.

    However the real democratic minded voters of this country put their stamp and defeated her and her party. The same voters brought her back with absolute majority within a very short time again.

    Let us not forget that then also and even today, there are people who admired Mrs Gandhi for her stern rue during the pre emergency and emergency period. Many people in our country still secretly and openly suggest 'benevolent dictatorship' rather than weak government succumbing to internal and external pressures.

    So people innately want a strong government with a strong leader who can steer the country ahead with vision and rule with stability and decisiveness.

    What I want to emphasise is that it is the people(voters) who decide what type of mandate to be given to a party and who or which party should rule the country.
    The UPA had many diverse parties who were stitched together with just a common program of preventing BJP from coming to rule. That is why when the CPM got a pretext they quit the government and put the government to pressure.
    What the Indian public expects from an elected government is: to rule the country(or state) for the full term with stability and decisiveness, with welfare of the people as priority and development with least corruption.
    So people actually want is a government by a party or a pre-election coalition front , with absolute majority so that the government has a clear mandate to rule,and does not fall with a small huff of political air. Democracy and our own constitution and election system also envisages that.

    So it is against the principles and aims of our democratic system and election system to say the absolute majority is detrimental. It should be that 'let people's will prevail'.

  • #634550
    Since the time is closing in I would like to conclude that an absolute majority party is never detrimental to a democracy. And neither is a coalition. Single parties thrive in countries like United nations and France which have a Presidential parliamentary system. But in India and UK having prime minister as a parliamentary head we are much suited to a coalition government indeed. But that's where the problem lies.
    The coalition itself contains regional and national agents with different interests and mindsets and there is no one specific responsible head in such case. It is rather a safe bet with a single party.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #634557
    1. Have you seen a house of cards? A coalition government is like a house of cards but arranged in a reverse way. At the bottom you have very less people working for people. At the top you have all the leaders of various parties fighting to get the cream of benefits.
    2. When our Prime Minister candidate was chosen from BJP, the party didn't face much problem. Had it been a coalition government, all subsidiary parties would have raised their own candidates.
    3. A political party is like a family. It tries to run a country in a unified manner. A country is the extended family of the political party. As in a family partition leads to confusion and collision, a coalition party always leads to conflict and chaos. So one political party is always better for running a country.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #634564
    To conclude my side discussion in this GD, I am summarising my views and stand.
    I am against the GD topic line and stand that :

    A single political party getting absolute majority is NOT DETRIMENTAL to our democracy.
    The reasons are:

    1. Our representative election system envisages and expects a decisive majority to one party or a well cobbled coalition or front that fought elections under a common agreement and a clear manifesto. The more decisive the results, the more ease to form a stable government. Only a decisive majority government can engage foreign nations with more confidence and compel them to take us serious.

    2. We are an experienced democracy with universal adult franchise since last 65 years at least. It can take care of any aberrations happening with its inbuilt multiple checks and safety valves. The electorate has proved this on many occasions, irrespective of steam roller majority of any single party.

    3. Every time our voter public disproved the guess works and doomsday predictions and put their stamp of choice properly.

    4. A fractured verdict is called as 'hung' or unstable and uncertain.

    5. It is when a single party or pre-poll coalition not getting absolute majority that we may see 'horse trading' and extreme pressures leading to corrupt and unwelcome methods to get and hold power. We have many instances and occasions to substantiate that.

    6. The larger the majority over and above the half mark, the stronger and confident the government can pursue its manifesto promises and implement progressive and innovative schemes without the worry of government falling by supporting parties withdrawing support. Moreover the government will be compelled and coerced to do favours to the supporting small parties, who will always be keeping the government and lead party on tenterhooks.

    7. A ruling side without an absolute majority will be 'PoornaAayu', with 'Nitya Khandam'(meaning longevity with fatal emergencies every other moment).

    8. As we would be preferring a chair or stool with four strong legs to sit or stand on,( and not one with one or two broken legs tied with ropes or tapes which may collapse any time and injure us), the public will not like to have a ruling side with fractured verdict , but ruling by loosely cobbled coalition. Because that will be weak , always shaky and may fall down any time injuring the nation and its progress.

    9.The fear of 'absolute majority becoming arrogant majority is just 'horrible imagination' and lack of confidence on the Indian electorate.

    10. With that I conclude saying that 'don't worry single party absolute majority is the actual necessity, and I wish the nation such a strong and decisive government with a single party getting absolute majority in coming elections.

    Thank you dear participants.

  • #634566
    We are coming to the close of the important debate and I would like to summarize as follows.

    As citizens of the country, we dream of democracy and what it stands for. I don't blame people for wanting a single party to rule us because I too would logically think that it would be fair and honest, for the people and by the people.

    But, we have to be practical, consider the history of our Indian Politics. We have numerous parties, the two largest parties being BJP and Congress.

    Let's pause for a minute and think what does democracy stand for. It is free speech, protection of our rights and be able to express them, be able to question our own leaders if we find wrongdoings, freedom for the press and most importantly, 'an impartial judiciary' and 'giving the voice of the opposite person or party due respect'.

    Now since Independence, we have had the two biggest parties in turns being at the helm of affairs. The Congress during its glory days (enjoying full majority) while in power has sadly interfered with the judiciary, legal investigations, misused Government resources, minority appeasement at the expense of rest of the electorate, practised family/dynasty politics instead of politics for the nation, indulged in corruption and silenced its rivals with a heavy hand.

    On the other hand, the BJP that is emerging as the most popular party, aiming at a big presence in the center and various states has also had it's share of un-democratic events, which include, saffronisation drive, temple agenda arrogance, heavy-handedness in pushing through policies, interference with law and judiciary, giving importance to corrupt leaders and religious fanatics, stalling important proceedings from the viewpoint of the parliament.

    In my discussions, I have given facts/evidence from our own Indian experience to support my stand that one party rule can be harmful. Though there is no party with clear priniciples that would be the beacon for Indian democracy, we have to be practical. Hence I conclude by stating that a single party with the majority of votes/seats can be detrimental to the health of democracy in the long run.

  • #634567

  • #634571
    1. I don't know why most of the authors are taking digs at BJP government. They are not the only government who have become a majority ruler. There are also majority governments who have done many things for the welfare of people. For example, Congress government in Punjab is majority government. They have done so much for the welfare for the people of Punjab, that the GDP of Punjab has highly increased now.
    2. A coalition party always works under tremendous pressure. Here the best interests of all the parties has to be looked after. This may not be possible always. Their might be conflict of interests.
    3. With so much of conflicting interests and resolution of the same, a lot of time is lost. Any party gets only 5 years for welfare related works. So the welfare of people comes to jeopardy.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #634573
    4. Coalition or collaboration works well for companies not political parties. Political parties are organizations which doesn't look for their own benefits. I mean this is the ideology, whether or not anyone follows it. So attaining mass majority by a single party is better.
    5. We should never forget that common man has got brains. They use their brains and make some party win singlehandedly with majority votes. So by doubting the efficiency of such parties we are doubting the intelligence of common man.
    6. The chances of corruption are much higher in coalition government. A lot of dishonest subsidiary parties use the brand name of coalition government to carry on their corruption. This is less likely in case of a singular majority. This is because, a majority government doesn't want to tarnish its name by corruption.
    7. While preparing annual budget, any party in a coalition government will have to give priority to the welfare of the associated parties over common people. This is not true for majority government.
    8. Lastly, I would conclude by saying that a majority government is the need of the hour. This will take our country forward by bringing peace and welfare to maximum families.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #634596
    As people are vexed up both of these sometimes they are giving with a single party with the absolute majority that fails to attain their needs then they shift to give more importance to coalition governments(regional parties giving more MP seats). So as far as my concerned is both of them are failed. A right decision(single party with the absolute majority) is getting spoiled by choosing a wrong candidate(s) to rule us.
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #634605
    Coming to the concluding phase of this GD, I reiterate that any monopolistic situation will adversely affect the principles of sound democracy and it is imperative that we must have a strong opposition whose motto should be the progress of the nation rather than ridicule the ruling party.

    This is the basic premises on which a country can develop and progress ahead.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #634606
    What will the Opposition party do if they have given 42 seats not eligible for opposition stature?
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
    If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.