Aspiring king-makers: Why the Third Front is just an anti-Modi experiment

The USP of the so-called 'Third Front', as repeated at every election in the past two decades, has been that they are  a 'non BJP, non Congress' front. But that coinage is conveniently forgotten after elections by the likes of Sharad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Nitish Kumar, Deve Gowda, Sitaram Yechury and others, all partners or supporters at one time or another of the NDA or UPA.

JD(U)'s Nitish Kumar, chief mover of the Third Front. PTI

While repeating these words, the 'Third Front' constituents also convince themselves and appear genuine about  a need to unify all such parties not aligned with either of the two principal national political parties, making a pitch to emerge as another alternative. Once again, despite evidence to the contrary, they claim that 11 parties have formed a 'Federal Front' in Parliament to have a common floor strategy in the practically dysfunctional last session of the 15th Lok Sabha. And this is only the beginning of a larger alignment to rule the country in three months, they claim.

Several questions emerge: Is the Federal or Third Front really in the offing? Is it really a non-BJP non Congress Front? Or is it simply an anti-Narendra Modi/BJP Front, willing to be Congress's back-up or be backed by Congress to "protect secularism"? Can a Third Front really be a viable alternative?

Come parliamentary elections and third front leaders start talking of Third Front as the only viable political alternative to save the country from the clutches of BJP and the Congress. In March 2009, nine parties came together to launch the Third Front and even held a rally in Tumkur near Bangalore. That group vanished  without a whimper.

The all so-called Third Front parties, the Left Front (CPM, CPI, Revolutionary Socialist Party and Forward Bloc), AIADMK, Janata Dal (Secular), TRS, TDP, BSP were all pushed by the voters to the margins. The difference between 2009 and 2014 is that the BSP has been replaced by the SP, TDP with JD(U) and BJD. Again, it comes at a time when Nitish Kumar -- the most vocal protagonist of the Front and perhaps the biggest prime ministerial contender from the pack of Mulayam, Sharad Yadav, Navin Patnaik, Jayalalithaa, Deve Gowda et al – is predicted to fare very poorly in Bihar.

The prospects of the other parties in the proposed Front do not appear very bright either. Their combined current strength in Parliament is around 90. Of these 11 prospective parties, some are single member or two-member parties in the 15th Lok Sabha. Mamta Banerjee's Trinamool and Mayawati's BSP are out of it and perhaps will never be a part of it since the Left and Mulayam are already there.

So is it really a non-BJP, non Congress Front as they claim? Or is it simply an anti-Narendra Modi Front?

As for the claims that it was an anti-BJP anti Congress Front here is the reality: The Congress led UPA 1 & 2 governments have survived on crutches provided by Mulayam's Samajwadi Party and Gowda's Janata Dal (S) standing firm as outside protectors. The JD(U),  after its split with the BJP, survives in government in Bihar with the "unconditional" support of the four-member Congress legislature party.

There is every reason to doubt that the Third Front is actually an anti-Modi or anti BJP Front, but they don't want to say so. These regional players, at this stage, would like to avoid being seen as associates of the Congress. No Third Front government is possible without support of either the Congress or the BJP, just as no BJP or the Congress government is possible without forming a coalition with regional players. Given the nature of its formation, the BJP's support is ruled out. That makes their present or future association even more clear.

Then there are those who claim that if a Third Front government could be formed in 1989, 1996 albeit for brief periods, why can't it be formed again in 2014, for a longer period. But they don't like admitting that all the parties in this proposed Front are much smaller and are in no way in a position to transfer votes to other partners.

The Janata Dal, which led national a government by VP Singh in 1989, with outside support of BJP and the Left, had 143 seats. Even in 1996 Janata Dal was a strong entity with 47 seats and all its pre-poll and post poll allies, Left Front, SP, TDP, DMK, TMC, AGP put up a good show. This time around, with Janata Dal fragmented, none of the aligning parties can claim to be the first among equals, at least pre-poll. That's why the leadership issue is not to be discussed, not even informally.

Neither Nitish, nor Deve Gowda, nor SP, nor the Left is talking about who is/will be the leader of their Front. That's the most contentious issue, so it is prudent on their part not to discuss the issue, which will make the idea die even before its birth.

The Third Front can't be a pre-poll alliance for a variety of reasons. For one, no party benefits from the alliance with the other party. And, without recognising one as a senior partner, how will seat-sharing talks be possible? How will JD(S) of Karnataka benefit JD(U) in Bihar or Mulayam's SP in UP or vice-versa? The Left parties can be accommodated in some states as AIADMK has already announced a tie up but the Left parties can't return the favour to them in Bengal, Tripura or Kerala.

But it gives a talking point to these regional leaders while seeking votes – he or she could either be the king or be the king maker. The result, in the eventuality of a third front government, could be an unstable and quibbling rule, much pushing and pulling in different directions with the Prime Minister of the country belonging to a party that has no more than 20-odd MPs. That would be like a Madhu Koda (Jharkhand) experiment at the Centre.