Comprehensive Study Material
Coalition Politics
in India
Rise, Evolution, Impact & Future — A UPSC Mains Perspective
📘 GS-II — Polity & Governance
🏛️ Federalism & Party System
📝 Essay & Interview
Legacy IASPrepared by Legacy IAS — Bengaluru
01
Introduction: Meaning of Coalition Politics
A coalition government is formed when no single political party wins an outright majority in the legislature and two or more parties agree to govern together, sharing power on the basis of a negotiated arrangement. In India’s parliamentary system, this typically means a pre-election or post-election alliance forms the government with a combined majority in the Lok Sabha.
Coalition politics is not an anomaly — it is the natural outcome of a diverse, multi-party democracy where no single party can represent the full spectrum of regional, linguistic, caste, and ideological interests. Between 1989 and 2014, every government at the Centre was a coalition — making it the dominant mode of Indian governance for 25 years.
Mind-Map: How Coalitions Form
Electoral Verdict
→
No single-party majority
→
Coalition negotiations
↓
Pre-election alliance
(NDA, UPA model)
OR
(NDA, UPA model)
Post-election coalition
(United Front model)
(United Front model)
↓
Coalition Government formed
↓
Common Minimum Programme
Power-sharing formula
Portfolio allocation
Coordination committee
UPSC Relevance
GS-II Essay Interview
Coalition politics intersects with polity (party system, parliamentary democracy), governance (policy-making, accountability), and federalism (Centre-state dynamics). It is tested both directly and as context for questions on regional parties, federalism, and democratic governance.
02
Historical Background of Coalition Governments in India
Congress Dominance (1950s–1960s)
- India’s first two decades were defined by the “Congress System” (Rajni Kothari’s concept) — a single dominant party that accommodated diverse factions internally
- Congress won massive majorities (e.g., 364/489 seats in 1952; 371/494 in 1957) — coalition politics was unnecessary at the Centre
- The party functioned as a grand coalition within itself — absorbing left, right, regional, caste, and ideological streams
First Coalition Experiences (1967)
- The 1967 elections were the turning point — Congress lost power in 8 states for the first time
- Coalition governments (called Samyukta Vidhayak Dals — SVDs) formed in Bihar, UP, Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal, and others
- Most were unstable and short-lived — the politics of defection (“Aaya Ram Gaya Ram”) discredited early coalition experiments
- However, 1967 established the principle that coalition governance was possible in India’s federal democracy
Collapse of One-Party Dominance
- Indira Gandhi’s Emergency (1975–77) and the subsequent Janata Party experiment (1977–79) demonstrated that Congress could be defeated
- The rise of regional parties (DMK, AIADMK, TDP, AGP, BSP, SP, JD) in the 1980s fragmented the vote base
- By 1989, India had entered the coalition era proper — the V.P. Singh government was the first true coalition at the Centre
03
Evolution of Coalition Politics (Phase-wise)
Phase I: 1967–1977 — First Experiments
SVD governments in states; unstable; defection politics rampant; Aaya Ram Gaya Ram era. Congress still dominant at the Centre.
Phase II: 1977–1989 — Transitional Phase
Janata Party (1977–79) — first non-Congress govt at Centre; collapsed due to internal contradictions. Indira returns (1980). Rajiv wins massive majority (1984). But underlying fragmentation continues — regional parties strengthen.
Phase III: 1989–2004 — Coalition Era Begins
National Front (V.P. Singh, 1989–90) — minority govt with Left & BJP outside support. United Front (Deve Gowda, Gujral, 1996–98) — fragile, Congress-supported. NDA (Vajpayee, 1998–2004) — most stable coalition; 24 parties at peak.
Phase IV: 2004–2014 — UPA Era
UPA-I & UPA-II (Manmohan Singh) — Congress-led coalition; Left support initially; significant reforms and welfare legislation; but also policy paralysis criticisms in UPA-II. Coalition compulsions shaped decision-making.
Phase V: Post-2014 — Decline or Transformation?
BJP wins outright majority (2014, 2019) — first time since 1984 a single party has clear majority. NDA continues as an alliance, but BJP is dominant partner. Coalition politics persists in states. 2024 election reintroduces coalition dynamics at the Centre.
Analytical Note
The coalition era (1989–2014) was not an aberration — it was the natural expression of India’s deepening social diversity in electoral politics. The 2014/2019 return to single-party dominance may be a cyclical phenomenon rather than a permanent departure from coalition politics, as the 2024 election outcomes indicate.
04
Causes for the Rise of Coalition Governments
| Cause | Explanation | Effect on Party System |
|---|---|---|
| Regionalisation of politics | Rise of strong regional parties rooted in state-level identities (DMK, TDP, TMC, BJD, JDU, SP, BSP, etc.) | National parties cannot win all seats across India; regional allies become essential |
| Decline of Congress dominance | Congress’s “catch-all” model weakened as social groups (OBCs, Dalits, minorities) found dedicated representatives | Multi-party competition replaced one-party dominance; fragmented mandates |
| Federal aspirations | States demanded greater autonomy; regional parties articulated state-specific concerns better than national parties | Voters increasingly preferred regional parties for state concerns while supporting national parties variably |
| Social & identity politics | Mandal Commission (1990) → OBC mobilisation; BSP’s Dalit assertion; rise of caste-based parties | Fractured voting blocs that previously went to Congress; multiplied viable parties per state |
| Anti-incumbency & voter sophistication | Voters began “split ticketing” — voting differently for state and national elections; anti-incumbency prevented any single party from sustaining dominance | Encouraged party proliferation; made majority governments harder to secure |
| FPTP electoral system | First-Past-The-Post in multi-cornered contests means parties win seats with 30–35% vote share; many parties can win significant seats | Even with 35–40% national vote share, a party may fall short of majority — needing coalition partners |
05
Features of Coalition Governments in India
- Power-sharing formula: Cabinet portfolios distributed among alliance partners based on seats contributed; key ministries (Finance, Defence, Home) usually retained by the lead party
- Common Minimum Programme (CMP): A negotiated policy document outlining agreed priorities — essential for ideologically diverse coalitions (e.g., UPA’s CMP with Left support)
- Consensus decision-making: Major policy decisions require consultation with allies; unilateral action risks coalition collapse
- Coordination committees: Formal and informal mechanisms for inter-party consultation (e.g., UPA’s National Advisory Council; NDA’s coordination meetings)
- Fragile stability: Governments depend on continued support of multiple parties — withdrawal by any significant partner can trigger a crisis (e.g., Left’s withdrawal from UPA-I over the Indo-US nuclear deal)
- Floor management: Whips and floor managers must continuously manage numbers; every major vote becomes a negotiation exercise
06
Major Coalition Governments & Their Performance
| Government | Period | Key Achievements | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Front (V.P. Singh) | 1989–90 | Mandal Commission implementation (OBC reservations); raised social justice discourse; strengthened Panchayati Raj | Lasted only 11 months; dependent on BJP & Left support (contradictory); Mandal-Mandir crisis led to fall |
| United Front (Deve Gowda → Gujral) | 1996–98 | Common Minimum Programme model; continued economic reforms; Gujral Doctrine (neighbourhood policy) | Two PMs in 2 years; Congress withdrew support twice; governance paralysis; no popular mandate |
| NDA-I (Vajpayee) | 1998–2004 | Pokhran-II nuclear tests; Golden Quadrilateral highway project; Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan; telecom revolution; Fiscal Responsibility & Budget Management (FRBM) Act; Kargil War management; Lahore bus diplomacy | 13-day govt (1996), then 13-month fall (1999 trust vote lost by 1); 2002 Gujarat riots tested coalition; allies constrained Hindutva agenda |
| UPA-I (Manmohan Singh) | 2004–09 | RTI Act; NREGA (MGNREGA); Forest Rights Act; Indo-US Nuclear Deal; high GDP growth (~8–9%); National Rural Health Mission | Left withdrawal over nuclear deal; accused of policy drift on economic reforms; CMP constrained radical reform |
| UPA-II (Manmohan Singh) | 2009–14 | Food Security Act; Right to Education Act; Aadhaar launched; Land Acquisition Act | “Policy paralysis” criticism; 2G, Coalgate scams; inflation; weak leadership perception; coalition partners extracted heavy concessions |
Key Insight
The Vajpayee-led NDA (1999–2004) is widely considered the most successful Indian coalition — delivering infrastructure, economic reforms, nuclear capability, and political stability despite managing 24 alliance partners. It established that coalition governance can be both stable and effective when led by a politically skilled PM who balances alliance management with national agenda-setting.
07
Impact of Coalition Politics on Governance
| Dimension | Positive Impact | Negative Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Decision-making | Consultative; multiple perspectives considered; reduces chances of reckless unilateral action | Slower; consensus requirement can delay urgent decisions; lowest common denominator outcomes |
| Accountability | Alliance partners act as internal checks; PM cannot act as unchecked executive | Diffused accountability — no single party takes full responsibility for failures; blame-shifting is common |
| Legislative productivity | Legislation that passes has broader political support; more durable | Controversial reforms get blocked or diluted; ordinance route used more frequently |
| Ministerial quality | Portfolio allocation can bring regional expertise into Central government | Portfolios given to allies as bargaining chips — competence secondary to political accommodation |
| Corruption & rent-seeking | — | Coalition partners may extract “rents” in the form of ministries, contracts, and patronage — the price of coalition stability (e.g., 2G spectrum allocation criticism) |
08
Coalition Politics & Federalism
Coalition politics has been the single most important factor strengthening Indian federalism in practice, even without formal constitutional changes. When regional parties are part of the ruling coalition at the Centre, they ensure that state interests are represented in national policy-making.
Federalism Impact — Flow
Regional parties in coalition
→
State voices in Central govt
↓
Greater fiscal devolution
+
Restrained use of Art. 356
+
State-specific policies
↓
Cooperative federalism strengthened
- Art. 356 restraint: Misuse of President’s Rule declined significantly during the coalition era — regional allies would not tolerate dismissal of state governments
- Fiscal devolution: Finance Commission recommendations for greater state shares were more readily accepted (14th FC’s 42% devolution built on coalition-era precedents)
- Inter-State Council & NITI Aayog precursors: Coalition compulsions made Centre-state consultation more regular
- State-specific concessions: Special packages, industrial incentives, and infrastructure projects directed to states of coalition partners
Critical Balance
While coalition politics strengthened federalism, it also introduced asymmetric bargaining — states with electorally powerful coalition partners got disproportionate attention and resources, while states without representation in the ruling coalition were disadvantaged. This is not “cooperative federalism” in the truest sense, but “transactional federalism.”
09
Coalition Politics & Policy-Making
| Policy Area | Continuity Achieved | Compromises / Constraints |
|---|---|---|
| Economic reforms | 1991 liberalisation continued by every coalition (NF, UF, NDA, UPA); FDI, privatisation, fiscal consolidation advanced across govts | Pace of reform slowed; labour reform, land acquisition reform blocked by coalition partners (Left in UPA-I; Swadeshi lobby in NDA) |
| Welfare policies | MGNREGA, RTI, Food Security Act, Sarva Shiksha — welfare legislation had broad coalition support | Populist spending increased to satisfy coalition partners; fiscal discipline sometimes compromised |
| Foreign policy | Indo-US nuclear deal pushed through despite Left withdrawal; NDA’s Pakistan engagement and nuclear tests proceeded | Left parties blocked closer US alignment in UPA-I; regional parties influenced neighbourhood policy (DMK on Sri Lanka; TMC on Bangladesh) |
| Security | Kargil War managed effectively by NDA; counter-terrorism framework maintained across coalitions | Response to 26/11 constrained by coalition dynamics; defence procurement delayed by multi-party accountability structures |
Key Insight
A remarkable feature of India’s coalition era is policy continuity on economic reforms despite frequent government changes. From Narasimha Rao (minority govt) through Vajpayee (NDA) to Manmohan Singh (UPA), the broad direction of liberalisation, globalisation, and welfare expansion was maintained — suggesting that India’s policy direction is determined more by structural economic logic than by the political composition of any particular coalition.
10
Role of Regional Parties
King-Maker Role
- Regional parties have been decisive in government formation since 1989 — no government has formed without their support until 2014
- Examples: TDP supported NF (1989) and NDA (1999); Left supported UPA-I; DMK, JDU, Shiv Sena, TDP have all been pivotal coalition partners
- Post-2024, coalition dynamics have returned to the Centre with regional partners again playing critical roles
Issue-Based Support
- Regional parties offer support on specific issues while opposing others — creating a dynamic, issue-by-issue governance pattern
- Left’s support for UPA-I was conditional: supported welfare legislation, opposed nuclear deal and FDI in retail
- This forces national parties to negotiate on each major policy — increasing democratic deliberation but reducing speed
Impact on National Policy
- DMK influenced India’s Sri Lanka policy (opposition to LTTE operations; fishing rights)
- TMC influenced India-Bangladesh relations (Teesta water sharing blocked)
- JDU & RJD shaped OBC reservation and social justice policy at the Centre
- TDP pushed for special state status for Andhra Pradesh post-bifurcation
- Regional parties ensured that national policy could not ignore state-level concerns — a critical democratic function
11
Challenges of Coalition Governments
Key Challenges
- Political instability: Governments dependent on shifting alliances — United Front had 2 PMs in 2 years; Vajpayee’s first government lasted 13 days; trust votes become existential crises
- Policy paralysis: Controversial but necessary reforms stalled because coalition partners oppose change (labour reform, land acquisition, GST delayed for years)
- Opportunistic politics: Parties join/leave coalitions based on electoral calculation, not ideology — “principled” alliances are rare; horse-trading and defection remain risks
- Governance trade-offs: Cabinet portfolios allocated for political balance, not competence; “coalition dharma” (Manmohan Singh’s phrase) constrains PM’s authority
- Accountability deficit: When governance fails, no single party takes responsibility; blame is distributed across the coalition, reducing electoral accountability
- Disproportionate influence: Small parties with 10–20 seats can extract outsized concessions — the “tail wagging the dog” problem
12
Benefits of Coalition Politics
Key Benefits
- Inclusive democracy: Coalition politics ensures that diverse social groups (OBCs, Dalits, religious minorities, regional communities) have representation in governance — not just in Parliament
- Federal balance: Regional parties in coalition ensure that the Centre cannot ignore state interests; federal principles strengthened in practice
- Checks on executive power: Coalition partners act as a built-in opposition within the government — preventing the kind of executive overreach seen during single-party dominance (Emergency)
- Representation of diversity: India’s linguistic, religious, and caste diversity is better reflected in coalition governments than in single-party regimes
- Policy moderation: Extreme positions get tempered through coalition negotiation — policy outcomes tend towards the pragmatic centre
- Democratic deepening: Coalition politics has brought previously marginalised communities into the power structure — OBCs, Dalits, and tribal groups gained ministerial positions they would not have secured in a Congress- or BJP-dominated government
13
Coalition Politics vs Single-Party Majority Governments
| Parameter | Coalition Government | Single-Party Majority |
|---|---|---|
| Stability | Fragile; depends on continued alliance support; vulnerable to partner withdrawal | Stable; single party controls legislature; government secure for full term |
| Decision speed | Slower; every major decision requires consultation and negotiation | Faster; PM and Cabinet can act decisively without coalition constraints |
| Inclusiveness | High; multiple parties, regions, and communities represented in government | Lower; one party’s ideology and support base dominates |
| Accountability | Diffused; shared responsibility makes it hard to assign blame | Clear; ruling party fully accountable for governance outcomes |
| Federalism | Strengthened; regional parties have voice at Centre; Art. 356 misuse declines | Risk of centralisation; Centre may override state interests |
| Policy reform | Incremental; consensus-building required; radical reform difficult | Potential for bold reform; but also risk of unchecked action (e.g., demonetisation) |
| Executive overreach | Restrained; coalition partners act as internal checks | Higher risk; no structural internal check on executive within the ruling bloc |
| Legislative output | More deliberative; laws with broader support; but fewer landmark legislations | More productive numerically; but risk of rushed legislation (e.g., farm laws 2020) |
UPSC-Ready Balanced View
Neither system is inherently superior. Single-party governments offer stability and speed; coalitions offer inclusivity and checks on power. India’s democracy is best served by a system where strong governance coexists with institutional accountability — the specific mechanism (coalition or single-party) matters less than the quality of democratic institutions, independent judiciary, free media, and vibrant civil society that constrain executive power regardless of the government’s composition.
14
Comparative Perspective (India & Other Democracies)
| Country | Coalition Experience | Key Features | Lessons for India |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Rare; FPTP usually produces majorities; Cameron-Clegg coalition (2010–15) was exceptional | Strong two-party tradition; coalition viewed as anomaly; formal coalition agreement published | FPTP can produce coalitions even in two-party systems; formal agreements improve transparency |
| Italy | Chronic coalition instability; 70+ governments since WWII; frequent elections | Proportional representation produces fragmented legislatures; ideological coalitions are unstable; technocratic PMs used as compromise (Draghi, Monti) | Excessive fragmentation is dysfunctional; India’s coalitions have been more stable than Italy’s, suggesting FPTP moderates fragmentation |
| Israel | Every government has been a coalition; small parties wield enormous leverage | Pure PR system; religious/ethnic parties as king-makers; frequent elections (5 elections in 4 years recently) | Extreme PR creates permanent coalition dependency; India’s FPTP prevents this level of fragmentation but regional parties play a similar king-maker role |
| Germany | Coalitions are the norm (CDU/CSU-SPD Grand Coalition; traffic light coalition); highly stable | Mixed electoral system; coalition agreements are detailed and binding; strong convention of coalition discipline | Best model for India: Formal coalition agreements, institutionalised coordination mechanisms, and strong party discipline produce stable, effective coalition governance |
Key Comparative Insight
India’s coalition experience compares favourably with Italy and Israel (more stable, longer-lasting governments) but falls short of Germany’s model (less formalised agreements, weaker coordination mechanisms). The lesson: coalition governance works best when coalition agreements are formal, transparent, and institutionally supported — not when they depend on informal, personality-based arrangements.
15
PYQ Heat Map
| Year | Question Theme | GS Paper | Marks | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Coalition politics and governance in India | GS-II | 15 | High Frequency |
| 2023 | Role of regional parties in Indian politics | GS-II | 15 | High Frequency |
| 2022 | Party system evolution in India | GS-II | 15 | High Frequency |
| 2021 | Centre–State relations & cooperative federalism | GS-II | 15 | High Frequency |
| 2020 | Impact of regional parties on national politics | GS-II | 15 | Moderate |
| 2019 | Single-party dominance vs multi-party system | GS-II | 15 | Moderate |
| 2018 | Federalism & political parties in India | GS-II | 15 | Moderate |
| 2016 | Multi-party system & governance | GS-II / Essay | — | Moderate |
| 2014 | Coalition politics & its impact on decision-making | GS-II | 12.5 | Occasional |
Trend Analysis
- Most tested: Coalition vs single-party; role of regional parties; federalism & party system; governance quality under coalitions
- Rising importance: Post-2024 election, coalition dynamics have returned to centre stage — expect more questions
- Pattern: Questions demand analytical, balanced responses — avoid cheerleading or condemning coalitions. Link to constitutional framework, federalism, and democratic theory.
16
UPSC Mains Questions with Answer Frameworks
10-Mark Question
“What are coalition governments? Examine their relevance in India.”
1
Definition (2–3 lines): A coalition government is formed when no single party secures a legislative majority and two or more parties agree to govern jointly. In India’s parliamentary system, this has been the dominant mode of governance at the Centre from 1989 to 2014.
2
Features: Common Minimum Programme; power-sharing (portfolio allocation); consensus decision-making; coordination committees; fragile stability dependent on continued partner support.
3
Relevance — Positive: Reflects India’s diversity (linguistic, regional, caste); strengthens federalism; checks executive overreach; ensures inclusive governance. NDA and UPA demonstrated that coalitions can deliver — nuclear tests, MGNREGA, highway expansion.
4
Relevance — Challenges: Instability risks; policy paralysis; accountability deficit; disproportionate influence of small parties; governance trade-offs (portfolio allocation for politics, not competence).
5
Conclusion: Coalition politics is structurally embedded in India’s diverse democracy. Rather than viewing it as a problem, the focus should be on building institutional mechanisms — formal coalition agreements, stronger anti-defection provisions, and parliamentary reform — to make coalitions more effective and accountable.
15-Mark Question
“Coalition politics has strengthened Indian federalism but weakened governance efficiency.” Critically analyse.
1
Intro (3–4 lines): India experienced uninterrupted coalition governance at the Centre from 1989 to 2014. This quarter-century transformed Centre-state dynamics, policy-making processes, and democratic representation — while also raising concerns about governance efficiency and decision-making speed.
2
Federalism strengthened: Regional parties in coalition ensured state voices in Central policy; Art. 356 misuse declined sharply; fiscal devolution increased; state-specific concerns entered national agenda. Sarkaria Commission recommendations found political support through coalition partners.
3
Governance efficiency weakened: Decision-making slower (consensus requirement); policy paralysis on reforms (land, labour, FDI blocked by coalition partners); ministerial portfolios allocated for political balance, not merit; accountability diffused; corruption risks from coalition “rents.”
4
Nuance — Coalitions were not always inefficient: NDA-I (Vajpayee) delivered infrastructure, nuclear tests, and fiscal reform while managing 24 allies. UPA-I passed landmark legislation (RTI, MGNREGA, Forest Rights Act). Policy continuity on economic reforms was maintained across coalition governments. The problem was not coalitions per se but institutional design.
5
Conclusion: The trade-off between federalism and efficiency is real but not absolute. Coalition politics strengthened Indian federalism fundamentally — this is a permanent democratic gain. The efficiency challenges can be addressed through institutional reforms: formal coalition agreements (German model), strengthened Parliamentary committees, anti-defection law reform, and empowered civil service. The goal should be to retain coalition politics’ federal benefits while improving its governance capacity.
Essay / Interview
“Is coalition politics inevitable in a diverse democracy like India?”
1
Frame the question: India’s social diversity (language, caste, religion, region) makes it structurally difficult for any single party to represent all interests. The coalition era (1989–2014) was a natural expression of this diversity’s political mobilisation.
2
Arguments for inevitability: Regional identity strengthening (not weakening); FPTP in multi-cornered contests produces fragmented mandates; social mobilisation (OBCs, Dalits) continues; no party has consistently won 300+ seats since 1984.
3
Arguments against inevitability: 2014 and 2019 showed single-party majority is possible; strong national narratives (development, nationalism) can override regional fragmentation; BJP’s organisational expansion into new states suggests a party can win independently.
4
Conclusion: Coalition politics is highly likely to remain a recurring feature — the 2024 election reinforced this. Even when one party wins a majority, it governs within an alliance. India’s democratic maturity should be measured not by whether it has coalitions, but by how effectively its institutions enable coalition governance.
17
Conclusion & Way Forward
Coalition Politics as Democratic Reality
Coalition governance is not a flaw in Indian democracy — it is a feature of its diversity. A country with 28 states, 22 scheduled languages, thousands of castes, and multiple religions will naturally produce a multi-party system where coalitions are the norm, not the exception. The question is not “how to avoid coalitions” but “how to make coalitions govern well.”
Need for Institutional Safeguards
- Formal coalition agreements: Adopt the German model — published, detailed agreements on policy priorities, portfolio allocation, and dispute resolution mechanisms
- Strengthened anti-defection provisions: Prevent horse-trading and mid-term opportunistic shifts while allowing genuine political realignment
- Parliamentary committee empowerment: Ensure that legislation is scrutinised by bi-partisan committees, reducing the impact of floor management politics on policy quality
- Constructive vote of no-confidence: Require that any no-confidence motion must simultaneously propose an alternative PM (German “constructive vote of no-confidence” model) — preventing destabilisation without alternative governance
- Fixed-term parliaments: Consider fixed legislative terms to reduce the constant threat of government collapse that distorts policy-making
Future of Coalition Politics in India
- The 2024 election’s coalition dynamics indicate that the coalition era is not over — it may be entering a new phase where both BJP and opposition require allies
- Regional parties remain electorally strong — their role as king-makers or coalition partners will persist
- India’s democratic future likely involves a pendulum between single-party phases and coalition phases — with institutions needing to work effectively under both conditions
Final Word
Coalition politics in India has been a school for democratic maturity. It forced parties to negotiate, compromise, and govern inclusively. It strengthened federalism, empowered regional voices, and checked executive overreach. Its challenges — instability, policy paralysis, accountability deficits — are real but solvable through institutional reform. India’s democratic resilience lies not in the absence of coalitions but in the capacity of its institutions to function effectively under any configuration of political power.
18
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
A coalition government is formed when no single political party wins a majority in the legislature and two or more parties agree to govern together. They share cabinet portfolios, agree on a Common Minimum Programme (CMP), and make decisions through consultation and consensus. In India, coalition governments dominated Central governance from 1989 to 2014, and coalition dynamics have returned to the Centre post-2024.
Coalition politics at the state level began after the 1967 elections, when Congress lost power in 8 states and Samyukta Vidhayak Dal (SVD) governments were formed. At the Centre, the first true coalition was the National Front government under V.P. Singh (1989). The Janata Party government (1977) was technically a merged party, not a coalition, though it functioned like one internally.
An alliance is a broader term for parties agreeing to cooperate — this can be a pre-election seat-sharing arrangement (like NDA or UPA before elections). A coalition specifically refers to the post-election government formation where allied parties share power and cabinet positions. All coalition governments involve alliances, but not all alliances result in coalition governments (e.g., an alliance partner may provide outside support without joining the cabinet).
The Vajpayee-led NDA government (1999–2004) is widely considered the most stable and effective coalition in Indian history. Despite managing 24 alliance partners, it completed a full 5-year term, conducted nuclear tests (Pokhran-II), built the Golden Quadrilateral highway network, passed the FRBM Act, managed the Kargil War, and initiated the Lahore peace process. It demonstrated that coalition governance can be both stable and effective under skilled political leadership.
A CMP is a negotiated policy document agreed upon by coalition partners outlining their shared governance priorities. It represents the minimum policy agenda all partners can support. The most notable CMP was the UPA’s (2004), which included commitments to social welfare (NREGA, RTI), economic reform with a “human face,” and foreign policy consensus. The CMP allows ideologically diverse parties to govern together by focusing on common ground rather than divisive issues.
Coalition politics creates a dual effect on economic reforms. On one hand, it ensures policy continuity — all coalitions since 1991 have continued liberalisation, suggesting broad consensus on economic direction. On the other hand, it slows specific reforms: labour law reform was blocked by Left parties in UPA; FDI in retail was delayed; GST implementation took over a decade of negotiations. The result is incremental, consensus-based reform rather than radical transformation — which may be slower but is more politically sustainable.
On balance, coalition politics has strengthened Indian democracy. It brought diverse social groups (OBCs, Dalits, regional communities) into governance; strengthened federalism by giving regional parties voice at the Centre; reduced misuse of Article 356; and checked executive overreach. The challenges — instability, policy paralysis, accountability deficits — are real but are governance efficiency problems, not democratic deficits. A slower, more inclusive democracy may be healthier than a fast, exclusionary one.
Under Germany’s Basic Law (Article 67), a no-confidence motion against the Chancellor can only succeed if the Bundestag simultaneously elects a successor — the “constructive vote of no-confidence.” This prevents destabilisation without an alternative. India could adopt this model to prevent the kind of opportunistic government toppling that plagued coalitions in the 1990s. It would require a constitutional amendment modifying the no-confidence procedure in India’s parliamentary system.
Regional parties become “king-makers” when no national party has a majority. Parties with 15–40 seats can determine which alliance forms the government. Examples: TDP’s switch from NF to NDA shaped governments in 1989 and 1999; Left parties’ support was crucial for UPA-I; JDU, Shiv Sena, DMK, and AIADMK have all played decisive roles. This gives disproportionate power to small parties — a critique of coalition politics — but also ensures that regional and minority interests are represented in governance.
Always maintain a balanced, analytical approach. Key framework: define clearly; trace evolution (1967→1989→2014→present); analyse both benefits (inclusivity, federalism, checks on power) and challenges (instability, paralysis, accountability); use specific examples (NDA-I, UPA-I/II, United Front); compare with international models (Germany, Italy, Israel); and link to constitutional framework (Art. 75, anti-defection law, Art. 356). Avoid blanket praise or criticism — UPSC rewards nuanced, multi-dimensional analysis that acknowledges trade-offs.
Legacy IAS
Prepared by Legacy IAS — Bengaluru | For UPSC GS-II, Essay & Interview Preparation
© Legacy IAS. All rights reserved. For personal study use only.
