THE POLITICS OF SEAT-SHARING—FIGHTING FIRST, RECONCILIATION LATER!

THE POLITICS OF SEAT-SHARING—FIGHTING FIRST, RECONCILIATION LATER!

15-OCT-ENG 28

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA-------------------------I don't know why there's so much fuss about seat-sharing, as if it's the final stage of politics. Meetings, rhetoric, bickering, and disagreements among leaders have become commonplace before every election. Every party wants to secure a "respectable" number of seats, as if respectability in politics is measured solely by seat count.

But the question is, when the picture after the election changes drastically, what's the point of this prior tussle?

Just look at the last assembly election—AIMIM won five seats. Just a few months after the election results, four of those MLAs joined the RJD. Mukesh Sahni's VIP party won four seats in the same election, and three of its MLAs later joined the BJP. Meaning, the party chosen by the people later joined someone else's camp.

So, why all this seat-sharing tussle? When there's still plenty of room for "games" even after the elections, why so much pre-election hustle?

In fact, seat sharing in Indian politics has become a struggle for survival, not an ideological one. Parties don't consider who can win from where, but instead insist on the principle, "We have so much support, we should get so many seats." The result is that on one hand, alliances are formed, while on the other, distrust grows.

Ultimately, the public sees everything—who is making pre-election agreements and who is reneging after them. The real question now is why "business" has replaced "ideas" in politics.

This tussle over seats shows that alliances are formed in politics, but alliances of trust have been left behind.