Do not get infuriated even by the suggestion of something like that. Let us have a debate on that. Given the situations both political parties are in, this may be far fetched from reality but we will go back few years in history to see whether it was possible at all. When Aam Aadmi Party made a spectacular debut in assembly elections in Delhi in December 2013, there was a tweet by Kiran Bedi after the declaration of results, in which she asked AAP and BJP to come together. In a series of tweets, she may have expressed unintentionally the desire of a broader section of society.
Unfair for Delhi people not to get a stable government & return to polls again/soon.Onus on both, BJP and APP to provide good governance
— Kiran Bedi (@thekiranbedi) December 9, 2013
Effort to find common minimum prog must be attempted by elders of BJP+AAP to respect a split verdict!Or else option of re-election remains!
— Kiran Bedi (@thekiranbedi) December 9, 2013
AAP & BJP by working together on a CMP they will be serving not ruling!This is the new expectation from split verdict. Need to be respected!
— Kiran Bedi (@thekiranbedi) December 9, 2013
Three arguments can be given. First, the success of anti-corruption crusade of 2010 and onwards should not be credited to a single party or organisation. After a series of scams, CAG reports and persistent media coverage of these events created an anti-establishment atmosphere. Comes India Against Corruption (IAC) into the picture empowered with the enormous reach of social media joined by the audience of the conventional print and television media, and we witness a series of mass protests and processions. It is a known fact that the opposition party mobilised people, clearly visible in the case of Ramlila Maidan sit-ins of Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev. Then there were fiery speeches by Leaders of Opposition - Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley - in both houses, and the government could not defend convincingly the charges thrown by them. Although the appeal of Team Anna should not be underestimated, but the involvement of a cadre-based party broadened the appeal and the reach.
Second, both AAP and BJP are eating into each other's constituencies. The traditional and most vociferous campaign against the anti-corruption movement was of the middle-class. After the emergence of AAP, the middle-class votes got divided between AAP and BJP. This led to the no clear voting to one party as evident in Delhi Assembly elections, which would have consolidated to one party. The clear gainer of this was Congress which provided outside support to AAP to form the government. This will ensure that they may pull out from the government when it suits them or when they think popular sentiments against themselves have weakened with passage of time. There is an argument that if Congress pulls out, AAP will emerge as a clear winner in Assembly Elections necessitated by that. Let's not forget that elections are a huge burden on the exchequer. Given the kind of alternative politics that AAP champions, this may put them in the same league with parties which forced elections when the confidence motions were defeated by a very narrow margin, in some cases even by one vote.
Third, stability is one of the major reasons to be considered. Looking back at the first one month of the AAP government, their actions have repeatedly raised the doubts over the longevity of this government. This in parts may be attributed to their lack of a majority in the assembly on their own. At the same time, few policies have raised eyebrows. Their scrapping of previous government's decision to allow FDI in retail raised a question whether it was a well-thought move or a compulsion of electoral politics just to appease their voters. Say, if multi-brand retail by the giant Indian corporates do not reduce employment how can the same by MNCs do the same. After all, multi-brand retail by Indian firms is allowed. Their decision to subsidise the power bills pushed power sector reforms to a position where it was five years back. Coming back to the discussion on stability, two parties fighting for the same issue will steal the votes of each other. Reading these doubts in the minds of public, BJP modified the tone of their campaign. Starting with the promise of clean administration and good governance promise, now they have also included the slogans of stability. After all, nobody desires the repeat of the short-lived governments of the late eighties and the late nineties.
To avoid division of anti-corruption votes and to bring stability in Indian politics, AAP and BJP should join hands. Surely that is not going to happen anytime soon. AAP’s performance in Delhi was emphatic but their show in rest of India is yet to be seen. Without a proven record of mass electoral support in rest of India, they do not have the power to set terms or do a hard bargain for the number of seats to contest. Also joining hands with BJP will alienate certain sections of society with AAP and congress will get a chance to attack it. BJP will not do that because they will have to share power when there is a possibility of them emerging as a winner or ending very close to that in coming general elections. Whether their alliance happens after polls is something which will have to be seen. We have examples from the past where political parties shed (or compromised with) their ideological baggage which had been suitably named compulsions of coalition politics.
This proposal was very radical, but that is also how the promises made by AAP can be described.
