Category Archives: Federalism

The outcome of elections of 1967 gave a staggering blow to Congressdominance and generally considered as an important turning point in Indiaspolitics by putting an end to the era of one Party dominance. In this electionalthough Congress retained a bare majority in the Parliament-284 in a house of520 but it was unseated in eight out of sixteen state Assemblies including thepopulous heartland States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The Party lost itsdominance in other six States- West Bengal, Orissa, Madras, Kerala, Rajasthanand Punjab. Latent social forces were coming to the fore in the states. It wassignificant that new tendencies were appearing not at the national but at theregional level. This shift of centre of gravity of public life from the centreto the periphery marked a qualitative change in politics. Integrative politicsof the kind that was needed for nation building in the past at the all-Indialevel is now needed in the states. In other words, they required politicalleadership of a high order in terms of vision and skills.

Beginning ofchallenges for federalism

In this newenvironment the issue of federalism came to be affected more by the ideologicalposition, political strategy and support base of the new governments. It wasfound that many of the coalitions, in the face of urge for power of theirpartners, joined hands only in opposition to Mrs. Gandhis government, but weresharply divided on the vital issue of Centre- State relations. In regards twoschools of thought were identified; one stands for a thorough re-examinationand introduction of amendments of far-reaching importance in the Constitutionso that Centre-State relations could be rearranged to suit the needs of thechanged political context and its unitary bias could be shed. The other school,however, does not consider all this necessary, and was content with a generalreappraisal of the Constitution which may admit of a broad review ofCentre-State relations within the existing Constitutional framework. Adescriptive hypothesis which perhaps best summed up the then situation was thatcooperative federalism in India having lost support base in the Congress systemwas in search of a new anchorage amidst pressures of democracy, nationaldevelopment, regional growth and State autonomy.

But above all the emergence of coalition politics had brought forward anew power equation in which smaller states have found important position in thefederal governance. Without going into the theoretical position of greaternationalism, lesser nationalism, little nationalism, and the like one candraw the conclusion that in the newly created political arrangement, smallerstates with greater political capability in the field of power manipulation canplay a very decisive role in the federal process. The experiences that theIndian state has gained over the years show that all types of regional or localissues create situations for the emergence of new types of demands-sometimesdemand for autonomy and sometimes the creation of the state. Among the pointsof growing tension in India federalism is the feeling in some communities thattheir cultural message for the world at large is not being promoted. Someothers have grievances in economic matters. In the changed situation the Centremust learn to play an effective mediatory role even as it continues tosafeguard the countrys integrity and independence. But since regionalmovements struggling for greater expression also wish to uphold the nationalidentity, the country is now in a position to move forward constructively inre-ordering CentreState relations. It can also play a more creative role infurthering the emergence of new global institutions and values.

Relation amongparties

From thefunctional point of view it may be noted that there have been sharp changes inthe relationship between the Congress Party and other non-Congress regionalpolitical parties. It is true that in most of the cases, before the emergenceof coalition politics and because of the dominant position of the Congress Party,the local or the regional parties did not enjoy any influential authority inthe total political process. But there have been significant changes since 1967and a climate of bargaining politics had taken its roots and in this processlocal or regional parties have been able to come forward with their agenda ofaction. It was for the first time that the hegemonic position of the Congresswitnessed opposition from regional or local political parties. It may not be anexaggeration to say that the seeds of regionalization of Indian politics hadbeen sown during the 4th General Elections. Looking from the pointof view of socio-economic configuration, it may be seen that a new social andeconomic class, mostly in the middle order, emerged and began to exercise theirinfluence in the policy making process. No longer the issue of relativeautonomy of states found favor with the national political parties and in itsplace the politics of bargaining came to the surface in which states began toassert themselves in the federal governing process.

Federalism andviews of parties

The newenvironment encouraged political parties of the time to speak in favour andagainst of the nature of Indian Constitution. Among the parties the erstwhileJana Sangh and present Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has stood for a centralisedfederalism. By its theory of Hindu revivalism it favoured a strong nationalgovernment. It was of the view that only a powerful national government was thesolution for checking the fissiparous tendencies threatening nationalintegration and encouraging foreign invasion. Therefore, the BJP propagated theidea that in the interest of nation and preserving national unity it stood forsome kind of a decentralised unitary system in place of federal set up. TheLeft Parties wanted a system of governance which would ensure substantialautonomy to the states. The Socialists, despite their awareness of the need forsubstantial regional autonomy, were in favour of a strong national governmentboth for the maintenance of national unity and the accomplishment of concrete,time- bound socialist programme. Of all the regional political parties, DMK andAIADMK, the Akali Dal and later on AGP in Assam demanded more devolution ofauthority for the regions. The changes brought about since 1967 had created asituation where there have been radical changes in the party positions all overthe country. With the emergence of the Non-Congress government in severalstates and reduction in the Congress strength in Parliament after the 1967General Elections the position of the states vis-a-vis the Union wasstrengthened. In 1968, the Communist Party of India stood for changes in thefederal constitution of the country so as to divest the union government of itsoverriding powers to interfere in the affairs of the states and in order towiden the autonomy of states especially in the matter of finance and stateeconomy. In line the CPI (M) favored widest autonomy for the various statescomprising the Indian federation.

(Author is Professor and Head, Department ofPolitical Science, B.N.Mandal University, Bihar)

Read the original post:

Relation between Federalism and Indian Party System - Rising Kashmir

BBC Scotlands newly appointed political editor, Glenn Campbell, wasted little time in signalling his gratitude for his lofty new position. In a tweet on Monday, he provided the future coordinates for the corporations tongue in respect of the UK Labour leaders fundament. This will get lost in the turmoil of today but Keir Starmers speech on redesigning UK could come to be seen as a hugely significant moment in our constitutional debate, which is why the staunchest Unionists/nationalists will seek to trash it.

Campbell is a classic BBC apparatchik whose main qualifications for the job (as with all his predecessors) are longevity,obsequiousness to senior politicians, and the ability to walk and read an autocue at the same time. Hell not be expected to break any new stories; no fresh or original political perspective will be demanded of him. Like those who went before him, hell have been given a standard issue pen-knife for the purposes of extracting skelves from all the fences upon which hell be expected to sit.

Campbells tweet afforded Starmers speech on re-hashed federalism (part 67 in a series) a respect it failed to merit. Worse than this, it channelled the kind of supercilious contempt that Scotlands political classes reserve for those who exhibit any kind of passion about politics.

READ MORE:'Blatant propaganda': BBC slammed for pro-Tory 'bias' in climate change story

If you are pro-Scottish independence and feel, after many years of incoherent ideas about federalism, that it fails to meet your aspirations for Scotland, you now know where you stand with BBC Scotlands political department: you are to be considered staunch and your opinions thus deemed to be worthless.

Starmer, of course, is a dream come true for the BBCs political journalists on either side of the Border. He is of Tony Blairs vanilla left, which is to say that his radicalism stretches no further than being sufficiently left of the Conservatives to justify the role of opposition leader. And thence to retain it until such times as the electorate simply tires of the Tories and makes him prime minister instead.

He wont exhibit any of Jeremy Corbyns alarming tendencies actually to promulgate core Labour values around collectivism, trade union rights and seeking a fair share in the nations wealth for those who produce it: the actual workers. The BBC, chiefly through the grotesque and unprofessional bias of its UK political editor, sought to portray Corbyn as an extremist while failing to show him any measure of the respect, bordering on sycophancy, she accords Conservative administrations. This permits her unfettered access to those fabled Downing Street sources. Her predecessor, Nick Robinson, deployed a similar degree of unprofessional partiality in his coverage of the 2014 referendum.

Thus, Starmer is a sufficiently safe Labour leader who will give no cause for alarm to the BBC or those print barons who control the right-wing press and whose duty it is to assemble firing squads when anyone gets dangerously close to threatening the UK legislature with something approaching socialism.

He is also a gift to those within the Labour Party who seek an easy life and the opportunity to solicit greasy handshakes on their progress through Parliament for the purposes of ensuring a tidy wee lordship or a few non-execs. Over the last two decades, these have been the ultimate career goals of most of Scotlands Labour grandees.

Federalism neatly encapsulates Labours race to the middle without making a nuisance of itself to vested interests. It sounds interesting and a little thrilling, implying as it does a radical challenge to the existing constitutional arrangements. Of course, its not really. Proper federalism brings parity of esteem economically and culturally and rests on the willingness of an enlightened government to reinforce it with the instruments and finances for regional authorities to flourish.

Nothing in the present Tory administrations direction of travel suggests theyd grant anything like this. Meanwhile, the presence of London, a city state behemoth whose population alone swallows up that of the second-largest constituent country of the UK, renders the concept obsolete. In the hands of a Labour Party absolutely committed to employees rights in the workplace and trade union activism, then who knows perhaps it might be made to work after a fashion.

But Starmer, and those other fake Labour politicians, have already shown us what they were all about in this respect. Even as Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 was securing more votes than Tony Blair did in his last two elections, they were seeking to undermine him. Against all odds and the combined forces of the UK establishment, the BBC and most of the press, Corbyn destroyed Theresa Mays seemingly impregnable majority and came within a whisker of defeating her. If Starmer and Stephen Kinnock and the rest of their treacherous gang had shown loyalty to their leader instead of actively campaigning against him, theres every chance that under a Corbyn premiership the UK would already have departed Europe with a statesmanlike deal with the EU.

READ MORE:Covid variant border chaos has exposed Brexiteer's 'sovereignty' as fantasy

Nor did it take long for Gordon Brown to be wheeled out again to reinforce Starmers message. Brown, the former iron chancellor, is now reduced to the role of an old performing circus clown whose old-fashioned act sparks feelings of nostalgia among the grandparents. That the centrists of London Labour still believe him to be a touchstone for pro-Union sentiment in Scotland betrays the fundamental ignorance of the party about Scottish politics and the dynamics which have produced 17 successive opinion polls indicating clear majority support for independence. The reliance on Brown is just part of this long flight of ignorance. The other is that Labour simply needs to get its act together in Scotland to reclaim its hinterlands and thus skewer the SNP. That ship, though, sailed a long time ago. It fails to acknowledge that the SNP first defeated Labour in Scotland 13 years ago, when Blair was still in power.

The political dynamic of the UK has changed so radically in the space of six years that ideas around federalism are now about as radical and profound as a department stores 10% discount. In terms of a serious challenge to the embedded corruption at the heart of the UK gangster state, Scottish independence is the only game in town, as it has been since 2014.

Starmers federalism intervention came after he had failed to urge Boris Johnson to seek an extension on trade negotiations with the EU. Of greater concern to Labour voters across the UK is their leader continuing in his role effectively as Boris Johnsons minister without portfolio.

Read the original here:

Kevin McKenna: New BBC political editor wasted no time taking seat on the fence - The National