The challenges of coalition governance are real, but so too are the expectations of a govt that has, in its previous terms, set a high bar for decisive leadership
The Modi 3.0 government, emerging from the shadows of two terms characterised by commanding Parliamentary majorities, presents itself as a different entity in its third iteration. This phase, marked by coalition politics, has given rise to a series of policy decisions that raise questions about the government’s commitment to its principles and decisiveness in action. The administration, once perceived as resolute and unwavering, now appears to navigate a more intricate political landscape with decisions that reflect a departure from its earlier stances.
A prime example of this perceived shift is the introduction of the Unified Pension Scheme (UPS), a decision widely interpreted as a retreat from the National Pension Scheme (NPS). The NPS had stood as a pillar of pension reform for over two decades, a testament to the government’s long-term vision and commitment to systemic change. However, the abrupt reversal, coinciding with crucial assembly elections, suggests a shift towards political expediency. Critics argue that the decision was driven less by policy conviction and more by a desire to secure electoral gains, thus marking a significant departure from the government’s earlier image of steadfastness.
The introduction of the UPS, with its timing and implications, raises broader questions about the government’s commitment to its long-term policy goals. The NPS, once lauded as a significant reform, was not just a policy — it was emblematic of the government’s resolve to implement difficult decisions that could benefit the country in the long run. The shift to the UPS, therefore, is not just a change in policy but a symbolic moment that could reflect a deeper change in the government’s approach to governance.
Another telling instance is the government’s handling of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill. Faced with opposition from various quarters, the government chose to refer the bill to a joint parliamentary committee. This decision marks a notable shift from its previous approach of pushing through legislation with minimal scrutiny. The referral indicates a government more willing to accommodate differing viewpoints, but it also raises concerns about a possible loss of decisiveness. The once clear-cut legislative agenda now seems more susceptible to delays and compromises, a reflection of the complexities of coalition governance.
The handling of the Waqf Bill also suggests a more calculated approach to governance, one where the government is increasingly aware of the need to build consensus. While this may be seen as a positive step towards more inclusive policymaking, it also introduces the risk of paralysis by analysis, where decisions are delayed and diluted in an effort to satisfy all stakeholders. This could lead to a perception that the government, in trying to be all things to all people, may end up being ineffective in implementing its vision.
The withdrawal of the Broadcasting Bill further illustrates this trend. Initially introduced as a measure to regulate the broadcasting industry, the bill quickly became a flashpoint for debates over free speech. The government’s decision to roll back the bill in the face of public outcry is indicative of a reactive governance style.
The Broadcasting Bill was seen by many as a test of the government’s willingness to confront difficult issues head-on. Its withdrawal, therefore, has broader implications than just the policy at hand. It raises questions about whether the government is now more concerned with managing its image and avoiding controversy than with making the tough decisions that effective governance sometimes requires.
The annulment of the Lateral Entry Order is another example that speaks to this broader theme of responsiveness at the cost of perceived decisiveness. The order, aimed at infusing government services with external expertise, was seen as a bold move towards modernising the bureaucracy.
The Lateral Entry Order was not just another policy initiative — it was a bold statement of intent, signalling the government’s willingness to break with tradition and bring in fresh perspectives to the civil service. Its annulment, therefore, is more than just a policy reversal; it could be interpreted as a sign that the government is retreating from its reformist agenda.
These decisions, while highlighting the government’s sensitivity to public and political pressures, also suggest a shift towards a more cautious and flexible approach to governance. The dynamics of coalition politics, with its inherent need to balance diverse interests and viewpoints, may be contributing to this more measured style of decision-making. While this approach allows for greater adaptability, it also opens the administration to criticism that it is less decisive than in its previous terms.
The transformation from a majority government to a coalition has undoubtedly introduced new challenges and complexities. The need to accommodate a wider range of perspectives and the pressures of maintaining a cohesive governing alliance seem to have tempered the government’s earlier assertiveness. In this context, the Modi 3.0 government may be seen as evolving from a force of bold reform to a more pragmatic and, at times, cautious administration.
As the administration continues to navigate this new terrain, it will need to strike a delicate balance between responsiveness and decisiveness. The challenges of coalition governance are real, but so too are the expectations of a government that has, in its previous terms, set a high bar for decisive leadership. Whether the Modi 3.0 government can meet these expectations while adapting to the realities of coalition politics will be a key determinant of its legacy. In the end, the true measure of this government’s success may lie not just in its ability to make decisions, but in its capacity to make the right ones in the face of evolving political and social landscapes.
--FPJ
