The US-India nuclear cooperation deal, signed last year, is causing some serious tensions within India’s governing alliance, according to the Hindustan Times. The deal is being staunchly opposed by the Left alliance, on whom the minority cabinet of the United Progressive Alliance (Congress Party and numerous pre-electoral allies among state-specific parties) depends to remain in office. The opposition National Democratic Alliance (BJP and its own pre-electoral state allies) is asking for a parliamentary committee to examine the deal.
“This is not a family affair of the UPA and Left. It’s an issue that concerns the entire nation and, therefore, the government should put in place some parliamentary mechanism, something like a committee comprising members of both Houses, to study the agreement,” senior BJP leader Vijay Kumar Malhotra said after an NDA meeting chaired by Leader of Opposition LK Advani.
Despite the conflict, “The Opposition, however, has no immediate plans to bring a no-confidence motion against the government.” At least for now…
Whatever the conflicts between the Left and the UPA, it is not as if the Left wants a new election anytime soon.1 Nor does it want an alliance with the NDA. In a no-confidence vote, the Left and UPA would be likely either to vote with the UPA or to abstain. Nonetheless, one might expect at some point that the NDA would want to embarrass the Left by making it choose influence in the government over stated principle on the nuclear deal. An article on newindpress.com suggests that the NDA may do just that in September, but agrees that the Left is unlikely to vote to remove the cabinet in such a case.
Will the Left side with the BJP to bring down the government by voting with the BJP-sponsored no-confidence motion? Sources rule out such a possibility, saying that the Left cannot afford to go to polls, if they side with the communal forces.2 Instead, they would prefer to abstain.
The UPA strength will then be reduced to 237 MPs, (UPA 219+BSP 18), after the 59-strong Left withdraws its crucial outside support to the government, while the NDA will have 172 MPs on its side.
The status of the government will then be reduced to a minority government, as was the case with the then Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao, when he formed the government in 1991.
In case, the Left decides to take the extreme step of voting with the BJP, even then the general election will be held only in the beginning of 2008, by February-March, given the fact that a lead time of about 45 days is required for preparations by the Election Commission.
While I am certainly no expert on Indian politics, I just don’t see the Left alliance being willing to provoke an election over this, no matter how much it would like to show its opposition to the nuclear deal. In fact, I would even be surprised if the Left abstained. We will have a better idea next week, when meetings are expected between the Left and the main governing party, Congress.
The Congress leadership is likely to initiate talks next week with the four Left parties, notably the CPM, on the modalities of the proposed mechanism to allay their concerns on the India-specific Hyde Act of the United States. [...]
In the back-channel discussions between the CPM and the Congress, it has been broadly agreed to have representatives from both sides on the proposed mechanism for talks. The advice of scientists and diplomats will be available to them while they go through various provisions of the Hyde Act and the bearing they have on India’s sovereignty and independent foreign policy.
There is going to be some serious diplomacy, and I am not talking about between India and the US government, or any other foreign power. I mean between the highest leaders of the government and its critical support parties, which need each other in parliament.



Congress has often called the bluff of the Left, which really has nowhere to go given its correct opposition to the communalist BJP.
Seed planted by Geoff Robinson — 28 August 2007 @ 07:35
Exactly, Geoff, and that’s why the oft-feared “tail wagging dog” syndrome of small-party above-proportional influence over coalition governance is seldom realized in practice.
Unless the small parties are close to indifferent as to which major party leads the government, their bluff can usually be called by the bigger party. And if they are close to indifferent, then their ability to determine who governs does not skew policy outcomes (because such a party must be centrist relative to the main ideological cleavage).
Seed planted by MSS — 28 August 2007 @ 14:40
Matthew:
Unless the small parties are close to indifferent as to which major party leads the government, their bluff can usually be called by the bigger party.
This is the best one-sentence explanation I’ve heard for Israel’s frequent coalition changes. The various ethnic- or religious-constituency parties don’t really care who governs, as long as they get their
porker, chicken? Therefore they can afford to bring down governments.And if they are close to indifferent, then their ability to determine who governs does not skew policy outcomes (because such a party must be centrist relative to the main ideological cleavage).
I have to take exception to this. Even if a party is centrist, their coalition options need not be. Think Jim Jeffords–he might be centrist, but which party he chose made a significant difference.
And this is assuming that there’s only one significant issue dimension. With multiple dimensions, a fence-sitting party can affect policy on one issue even if the partners they are choosing between are all centrist along the “main ideological cleavage”. The religious parties in Israel are the obvious example here, but the Green parties in Europe could fit as well.
Seed planted by Vasi — 30 August 2007 @ 09:26
Tail and dog, revisited
The conditions under which small parties or individual legislators can exploit “pivotalness†and demand influence beyond their contribution to the majority are much stricter than often assumed.
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes — 30 August 2007 @ 21:22