Leadership is another factor. People need someone to provide direction and keep the cadres confident. If a leader seems indecisive or out of touch, especially after an electoral drubbing, factionalism will set in. The TMC’s implosion is perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this. However, there is an unpleasant reality to acknowledge: The influence of the prevailing power can be difficult to counter. Hence, the fragmentation may appear as a pragmatic reaction to existing incentives, rather than a manifestation of internal weakness or great-power manipulation.

The second thing to consider is what all this means for federalism. Are we seeing a drift toward centralisation? On the surface, with national parties asserting themselves in various regions, it might appear so. This tendency does not bode well for our complex polity. A decline in regional parties weakens the federal structure, reducing the representation of the varied interests it was originally meant to preserve. A robust federation requires diverse centres of political power to advocate for a region’s specific interests.

The data on this is not entirely clear, though. Look to southern India for a case in point: In places like Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Kerala, there is still a strong sense of state-level identity and a vigorous regional political culture. The parties there are as influential and electorally viable as ever, which is a testament to the resilience of Indian federalism.

Nonetheless, one can see a change coming. A trend towards increased centralisation in leadership projection and dominant media/campaign narratives is evident. It is altering the relationship between the national and the regional. Despite the outward appearance of federal institutions functioning as intended, the competitive arena is trending toward nationalisation. Whether this is a fundamental change to federalism is debatable, but it is worth taking seriously.

Then there is the matter of the Opposition, and here things get more troubling. We appear to be accepting a democratic system with diminishing space for disagreement. Undoubtedly, democracy is majority rule. Still, its true value lies in protecting pluralism and institutionalising disagreement. Opposition gives an election its meaning; without it, we have ratification, not a contest of ideas.

It is pertinent to question whether the recent political realignments stem from a legitimate democratic procedure or the machinations of self-interested politicians. A defection is not undemocratic in itself. A legislator might have a real ideological difference with his party or think the leadership has let them down. But when it becomes a pattern, with everyone defecting toward the dominant force, one worries about the setting itself. Effective democratic operation necessitates more than simply having an Opposition; we need the conditions for it to survive and make its mark. Yet, this is the responsibility of the Opposition. Political arenas rarely see principles prioritised over opportunities for dominance. The horizon is limited; the calculations are consequential.

Corruption is the last of these concerns. It tends to surface when the political landscape fragments. Leaders will find themselves under investigation around the time of any major realignment. Be it a genuine case or one with political motives, it only feeds public cynicism. In the event the assertions are substantiated, an inquiry by an objective tribunal is warranted. Institutions, again, are not any different from people with ambition and the will to power. They cannot extirpate corruption through procedural fairness. The answer is to put some muscle back into our institutions rather than erode the competition. We need anti-corruption bodies that are beyond reproach, and parties that are ready to accept their verdict.

In the end, the breaking up of opposition parties is not merely a tale of unprincipled ambition or poor management. It pertains to representation and the principle of federalism. A democracy that exists solely in the Constitution offers little genuine democratic representation and consolidation. It is unproductive to assign fault to the dominant national party for the disintegration of regional factions. The Congress’s historical record of dealing with regional parties is demonstrably unsatisfactory. It is incumbent upon regional parties to analyse the reasons for their dissolution and identify measures that could prevent such occurrences in the future.

The writer teaches at Jadavpur University, Kolkata, and was the Eugenio Lopez Visiting Chair at the Department of International Studies and Political Science at Virginia Military Institute, US