Growth for All with Sustainable Use of Resources

Growth for All with Sustainable Use of Resources

Today the main challenge in front of international community is to sustain and accelerate the process of poverty eradication and ensure food and energy security, particularly to developing countries while shifting gradually to a Green Economy. A green economy approach to development holds the potential to achieve greater convergence between economic and environmental objectives. Agriculture plays a critical role in determining food, water, ecological and livelihood security. Integrating the strategies and policies for a green economy into agriculture has to proceed with an absolute imperative of ensuring these and not forgetting the differentiated needs of subsistence agriculture and market-oriented crops.



Also, transitioning to a greener model of agriculture will depend on the expeditious provision of green technologies and financial support to developing countries for productivity enhancement, improved resilience and diversification of production systems.



Sustainable development and management of agriculture would benefit from sharing of best practices including farm and non-farm development, improved post-harvest management, integration of supply chains and strengthening of public distribution systems. Eradicating poverty is an indispensible requirement for sustainable development. A major cause aggravating poverty is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production. Poverty eradication remains an overriding objective of governments in developing countries, and efforts to build green economies should contribute substantially to realizing that objective.



Integrating green economy strategies and policies into poverty eradication, food security and energy security is an imperative for sustainable development.Food security and access to affordable clean energy are both crucial to eradicating poverty and promoting social development.The issue of energy security and universal energy access is intricately linked with economic development and growth, and rising energy needs to meet it. Energy poverty coexists with inefficient energy use in much of the world, which – given continued heavy dependence on fossil fuels – has been a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Understanding the flexibility or lack of flexibility of each country to change this energy mix and devising innovative methods to secure energy security are the need of the hour without compromising on the need for high economic growth to meet the aspirations of the people, especially in developing countries.



Energy security is a multi-faceted concept. In the current context, the primary focus is on poor people’s securing adequate energy supplies to raise their living standards, including through improved income generation, health and education. Renewable energy should be considered as an integral part of the solution to the energy needs of the poor, but that will only be feasible if it is affordable and technologically accessible. As affordability is a function in part of large-scale deployment and learning, the strategy to address energy poverty needs to be linked to a broader alternative energy strategy as part of a green economy.With respect to energy security, rural energy access remains seriously deficient in many developing countries, with well over a billion people lacking access to electricity and clean cooking and heating fuels. At the same time, even in urban areas, electricity is often underprovided and unreliable, especially for urban poor communities. This exacerbates poverty and closes off escape routes by limiting income generation opportunities as well as educational opportunities especially for girls.



What is Green Economy?

A green economy is typically understood as an economic system that is compatible with the natural environment, is environmentally friendly, is ecological, and for many groups, is also socially just. These attributes are the conditions that must be imposed on an economy from the perspective of many green economy advocates. This conventional concept of a green economy may be alternatively described as “the greening of an economy”.

Some fundamental criteria for meeting these conditions have been established since Rio, such as using renewable resources within their regenerative capacity, making up for the loss of non-renewable resources by creating their renewable substitutes, limiting pollution within the sink functions of nature, and maintaining ecosystem stability and resilience. A Green Economy is a system of economic activities related to the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services that results in improved human well-being over the long term, whilst not exposing future generations to significant environmental risks and ecological scarcities. Conditions for social justice may include: 1) not compromising future generations’ capability to meet their needs; 2) the rights of poor countries and poor people to development and the obligations of rich countries and rich people to changing their excessive consumption levels; 3) equal treatment of women in access to resources and opportunities; and 4) ensuring decent labor conditions. A green economy is one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities.



A green economy is a economy or economic development model based on sustainable development and a knowledge of ecological economics.Its most distinguishing feature from prior economic regimes is direct valuation of natural capital and ecological services as having economics value and a full cost accounting regime in which costs externalized onto society via ecosystems are reliably traced back to, and accounted for as liabilities of, the entity that does the harm or neglects an asset.



Green Economy defined by Karl Burkart is based on six main sectors,which are as follows:



•Renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, marine including wave, biogas, and fuel cell)



•Green buildings (green retrofits for energy and water efficiency, residential and commercial assessment; green products and materials, and LEED construction)



•Clean transportation (alternative fuels, public transit, hybrid and electric vehicles, carsharing and carpooling programs)



•Water management (Water reclamation, greywater and rainwater systems, low-water landscaping, water purification, stormwater management)



•Waste management (recycling, municipal solid waste salvage, brownfield land remediation, Superfund cleanup, sustainable packaging)



•Land management (organic agriculture, habitat conservation and restoration; urban forestry and parks, reforestation and afforestation and soil stabilization)



UNEP Green Economy Initiative (GEI)

The Green Economy Initiative launched by the United Nations Environment Programme in October 2008 is aimed at seizing the opportunities this modern concept of a green economy has to offer. It seeks to accomplish two tasks. First, it tries to make a “beyond-anecdotal” macroe-conomic case for investing in sectors that produce environ-mentally friendly or environmentally enhancing products and services (“green investment”). By a “macroeconomic case”, it mainly refers to the contribution of green investment to output and job growth. Second, the initiative tries to provide guidance on how to boost pro-poor green investment. The goal is to encourage and enable policymakers to support increased green investment from both the public and private sectors.



The UNEP GEI activities include providing advisory services to countries interested in greening their economies; producing research products, such as The Green Economy Report, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) series of reports, and the Green Jobs Report; and engaging partners to effectively promote and implement green economy strategies.



Concept of Inclusive Growth

Rapid and sustained poverty reduction requires inclusive growth that allows people to contribute to and benefit from economic growth.Inclusive Growth refers both to the pace and pattern of growth, which are considered interlinked, and therefore in need to be addressed together. Inclusive growth by its very definition implies an equitable allocation of resources with benefits accruing to every section of society, which is a utopian concept. But the allocation of resources must be focused on the indented short and long terms benefits and economic linkages at large and not just equitable mathematically on some regional and population criteria.Utopia it is because it dreams of an ideal state which we all strive towards.The inclusive growth approach takes a longer term perspective as the focus is on productive employment rather than on direct income redistribution, as a means of increasing incomes for excluded groups. The inclusive growth definition is in line with the absolute definition of pro-poor growth, but not the relative definition.

By focusing on inequality, the relative definition could lead to sub-optimal outcomes for both poor and non-poor households. Inclusive growth focuses on ex-ante analysis of sources of, and constraints to sustained, high growth, and not only on one group – the poor.



Key components of Inclusive Growth (IG)should be as follows:-



•IG focuses on economic growth which is a necessary and crucial condition for poverty reduction.



•IG adopts a long term perspective and is concerned with sustained growth.

(i) For growth to be sustained in the long run, it should be broad-based across sectors.

(ii) It should also be inclusive of the large part of the country’s labor force, where inclusiveness refers to equality of opportunity in terms of access to markets, resources and unbiased regulatory environment for businesses and individuals.



•IG focuses on both the pace and pattern of growth.



•IG focuses on productive employment rather than income redistribution.



•IG has not only the firm, but also the individual as the subject of analysis.



•IG is in line with the absolute definition of pro-poor growth, not the relative one.



There are important lessons to learn from this approach including that development policy is country-specific, may involve just a few reforms that can be optimally sequenced to relax binding constraints, and it may lead to large positive welfare impacts.The main instrument for a sustainable and inclusive growth is assumed to be productive employment.The ability of individuals to be productively employed depends on the opportunities to make full use of available resources as the economy evolves over timeThe analysis distinguishes between self- or wage-employed, and further looks at employment by sector, size of firm, rural/urban, formal/informal, and other.The inclusive growth approach takes a longer term perspective.With this longer term perspective, it is important to recognize the time lag between reforms and outcomes. Inclusive growth is about raising the pace of growth and enlarging the size of the economy, while leveling the playing field for investment and increasing productive employment opportunities. Policies for inclusive growth are an important component of any government strategy for sustainable growth and the frameworks for inclusive growth analytics are eclectic in spirit.



Delhi Ministerial Dialogue, 2011

The Ministerial Dialogue on “Green Economy and Inclusive Growth” has taken place in New Delhi on 3-4 October. The event, organized by UN DESA and the Indian Government, is focusing on sustainable development initiatives in the lead up to next year’s UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro.The issues addressed at the two-day 2011 Delhi Ministerial Dialogue on ‘Green Economy and Inclusive Growth’ include sustainable management of sectors like agriculture, industry, energy and transport, urgent adoption of sustainable life styles and consumption patterns through reduction in per capita ecological footprint, appropriate population policies, equity concerns, poverty eradication and developmental imperatives. Designed properly, green economy policies and programmes can directly contribute to poverty eradication.

The Delhi Dialogue is a step forward in preparations for the UNCSD, also known as Rio+20, scheduled to take place in June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It aims to provide a platform for international deliberations on the integration of green economy architecture and global challenges of poverty eradication, food security, and energy security. Eradicating poverty is an indispensible requirement for sustainable development. A major cause aggravating poverty is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production. The Delhi Dialogue will be an opportunity for high level government officials and UN agencies to explore in depth the linkages of a green economy for poverty eradication and broad-based, inclusive growth. Integrating green economy strategies and policies into poverty eradication, food security and energy security is an imperative for sustainable development.



Objectives of the Ministerial Discussion were:-

(i) To obtain a comprehensive update on the recent green economy developments within major international policy forums and through the UNEP-led green economy initiative;

(ii) To discuss how the concept of the green economy can be further implemented at the country level;

(iii) To build on existing policies and processes that are supporting the shift to sustainable consumption and production and a green economy;



Conclusively we can say,designed properly, green economy policies and programmes with inclusive growth mechanism can directly contribute to poverty eradication. Successful examples can offer lessons and possible models for replication. For instance, India’s rural employment guarantee programme is at one and the same time an anti-poverty programme and an ecosystem restoration programme.



Understanding the flexibility or lack of flexibility of each country to change this energy mix and devising innovative methods to secure energy security are the need of the hour without compromising on the need for high economic growth to meet the aspirations of the people, especially in developing countries.

Durban Climate Meet: Bye Bye Kyoto

Durban Climate Meet: Bye Bye Kyoto


The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, was held from 28 November - 11 December 2011. The conference involved a series of events, including the seventeenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 17) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 7). In support of these two main bodies, four other bodies convened: the resumed 14th session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWGLCA); the resumed 16th session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP); and the 35th sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). The Conference drew over 12,480 participants, including over 5400 government officials, 5800 representatives of UN bodies and agencies, intergovernmental organizations and civil society organizations, and more than 1200 members of the media. The meetings resulted in the adoption of 19 COP decisions and 17 CMP decisions and the approval of a number of conclusions by the subsidiary bodies. These outcomes cover a wide range of topics, notably the establishment of a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, a decision on long-term cooperative action under the Convention, the launch of a new process towards an agreed outcome with legal force applicable to all parties to the Convention, and the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund.



The negotiations were driven by a series of interdependent linkages—some constructed to drive the negotiations forward, some integral to the field of climate change politics, and some based decisively on an understanding that 21st century global challenges need global solutions. This brief analysis examines some of the defining interdependencies that help tell the story of the Durban Climate Change Conference and the launch of a new phase of climate change negotiations. At the outset, expectations were modest with many countries feeling that “operationalizing” the Cancun agreements was all that could be achieved. Others wanted a balanced and interdependent package within a year that resolved the Kyoto Protocol question, moved to a new legallybinding treaty and operationalized the Green Climate Fund.



In Durban early informal consultations helped to clarify the technicalities of the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, especially the two-stage approach that defers the definition of quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives (QELROs) and their adoption as amendments to Annex B to the eighth session of the Kyoto Protocol Meeting of the Parties, proved very useful in keeping prospective participants on board.This core demand drew legitimacy from Bali and helped frame the Durban negotiations. Indeed it is arguable that the EU drafted the script for the central plot in Durban by setting out their stall early in the process and offering to do the heavy lifting to save the Kyoto Protocol within the context of a roadmap that put up a challenge to other parties—developed and developing.



The package agreed comprises four main elements: a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, the design of a Green Climate Fund and a mandate to get all countries in 2015 to sign a deal that would force them to cut emissions no later than 2020, as well as a workplan for 2012. Progress on each element of the Durban Platform unlocked other elements. For example early in the second week, delegates made headway on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention; a fund expected to mobilize US$100 billion a year by 2020. Reports of early progress on the GCF—a priority deliverable for the South African hosts and the region, proved to be a major contributor in raising the stakes. A fragile sense of possibility emerged as Ministers arrived, although there were increasing concerns about the diplomatic management of the process by the South African Presidency.



India and China: Role redefined

The intensity of the negotiations was highlighted by an impassioned speech by India's Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan that capped the finale of the UN climate summit which concluded with a Durban Package, after she warned that India "will never be intimidated by any threat or pressure". "Natarajan's speech ensured that India's main concern – the inclusion of the concept of equity in the fight against climate change – became part of the package,". The COP17 plenary session came to a halt following row between Natarajan and European Union (EU) Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard after objection over agreements reachedbehind closed doors. India had wanted a "legal outcome" as the third option, but Hedegaard said this would put countries' sincerity in doubt. That set off Natarajan, who roared: "We have shown more flexibility than virtually any other country. But equity is the centrepiece, it cannot be shifted. This is not about India. Xie Zhenhua, the vice minister of the National Development and Reform Commission, who headed the Chinese delegation, pointed out that the developing countries like India and China were "already doing much more than developed countries" against global warming. "U.S. and Chinese chief negotiators joined the huddle too. More frenzied applause indicated an agreement had finally been reached. When the session reconvened, Natarajan announced that India had agreed to a change of wording in the third option 'in a spirit of flexibility and accommodation'. Hedegaard thanked India." Commenting, the Chinese delegation said the conference had produced "progressive and balanced outcome." Xie Zhenhua, head of the Chinese delegation, told Xinhua that the outcome is fully in accordance with the mandate of the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Roadmap. The outcome, he added, is also in line with the two-track negotiation process and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. "The conference made decisions on the arrangement of the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, which is the most concerned issue of developing countries," Xie noted. "Also, there is an important progress on the finance issue, the establishment of the Green Climate Fund," he added. However, Xie said, the Durban conference did not accomplish the completion of negotiations under the Bali Roadmap. "The implementation of the Cancun Agreements and the Durban Outcome will not be achieved in a short run," Xie said. "A heavy load of work ahead on the post-2020 arrangement needs to be done in order to enhance the implementation of the Convention." Xie also cautioned that some developed countries are reluctant to reduce emissions and support developing countries with financial and technical aid. "The lack of political will is a main element that hinders cooperation on addressing climate change in the international community," he said. "We expect political sincerity from developed countries next year in Qatar." Xie stressed that China will make further contributions to the global cause of tackling climate change by taking stronger domestic actions and continuing to play an active role in relevant international talks.

Coalition Politics: Future of Indian Political System

Coalition Politics: Future of Indian Political System


Coalition Politics is a time tested thing in Modern Democracy. TheconceptofCoalition Politics basically draws its roots fromthe times when warring states sometimesused to allywith each other inorder to defeat of a common enemies, as in Vedic Civilisation’s Dasragya war, Nizams & British coalition verses Marathas . In recent times in India got a taste of Coalition Politics at the state levelwhen the Left front comprisingof Communist Party of India (CPI), CPI (Marxist) and others formed the first ever Coalition Governmentin IndiaatWestBengalwith Mr. Jyoti Basu as the Chief Minister (succeeded by Mr. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee)whichtill datehasn’t been defeated. At the national level the first ever coalition government was formed underthe PrimeMinistership ofLate Shri MorarjiDesai Jiwhich existedfrom24th March 1977 to 15th July 1979 headed by nowan insignificantJanata Party (who reputation has nowbeen acquired by its breakaway section which formed the Bharatiya Janata Party). Since 1996 Indian Politics has been dominated with CoalitionGovernmentswhichbyfar have been stable after a shaky start.The incumbent Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh is heading a coalition Government of 15 parties called the United ProgressiveAlliance (UPA)with Mrs. SoniaGandhi, beingitsChairperson which isholding asecond terminOffice.



The term‘coalition’ is derived from the Latin word ‘coalitio” which is the verbal substantive of coalesce which means to grow together. However, as actually used, it somewhat belies it nominal meaning, ‘for the units or the elements brought into combinationby a coalition very seldom grow together in any literal sense. According to the dictionarymeaning coalitionmeans an act of coalescing, or uniting into one body: a union of persons, states: alliance. In the strict political sense the word coalitionis usedfor ‘allianceortemporary unioninto asingle governmentof distinct parties ormembers of distinct parties. It is also generally accepted that a coalition

can takeplace onlywithin thecontexts of mixedmotive inwhich both conflict and common interest are simultaneously present and must govern the Course. Political coalition or political alliance is an agreement for cooperation between different political parties on common political agenda, often for purposes of contesting anelection tomutuallybenefit bycollectivelyclearingelectionthresholds or otherwise benefiting from characteristics of thevoting systemor for government formation after elections. A coalition government is a cabinet of a parliamentary government in which several parties cooperate. The usual reasongiven for this arrangement is that noparty onits owncanachieveamajority inthe parliament. In such times, parties haveformed all-partycoalitions (national unity governments, grand coalitions). If a coalition collapses a confidence vote is held or a motion of no confidence is taken.



Coalition and/or minority governments were rare between 1947 and 1989when the CongressPartywon majorities of seats in the Lok Sabha (LowerHouse),based on only pluralities of 40 to 48 percent of the vote. These victorieswere anartifact of the first-pastthe- post electoral system’s disproportional seat-vote ratio bywhich theleading party getsdisproportionately moreseatsthanvotesinpercentageterms. As like any other democracy, political parties represent different sections amongthe Indiansocietyandregions, and their core values play amajor role in the politics of India. Both the executive branch and the legislative branch of the government are run by the representatives ofthepoliticalpartieswho have been elected through the elections. Through theelectoral process,the people of India choose which majority in the lower house; a government can be formed bythat partyor thecoalition. The full-term stability of the NDA and the endurance of theUPAfor eight years as of today, has also been due to the fact that coalitions in India since 1996 have been characterized to a large degree by spatial compatibility, that is, they consist of a patchwork quilt of parties that have state-specific bases and do not compete on each other’s turf. This enables even minoritycoalitions dependenton outside support to last, combined with the fact that intheUPA’scase thesupporting Left parties,whatevertheirdissatisfactionwith Congress policies do not wish to create an opportunity for the BJP to return to power.



Experts saythatCoalitionPolitics is result of rise of Regional Parties on agendas ofNational Importance.One of the reasons for the growing importance ofRegional Partieshas beentheir success inarticulating theinterestsoftheassertive backward castes and Dalits or ‘untouchables’. These parties remain ‘regional’ intermsof geographic location, butarenationalintermsof issuesrelevant tothecountryasawhole.Theirrolewithin thenational coalitionis also indicative of amore competitive and polarised party system.Cabinetsbasedonacoalitionwith majority in parliament, ideally aremore stable and long-lived than minority cabinets while the former are prone to internal struggles, they have less reason to fear votes of no confidence. Sometimes grand coalitions of two large partiesalso occur, but these are relatively rare and large parties usually prefer to associate with small ones. However, if none of the larger parties can receive enough votes to form their preferred coalition, a grandcoalition mightbe their only choice for forming a government. In many democratic countries, such as Germany, France, India, Israel and Italy, government by a coalition of political parties isconsidered normal.This debate is closely related to issues of voting reform, as countrieswith some formof proportionalrepresentation tendto have more political parties in parliament than those that use a first-past-the-post system, and so are more likely to have coalition governments.



The basic essence of federalism is the notion of two or more orders of government combining the elements of ‘shared rule’ for some purpose and regional ‘self rule’ for others. It is based on the objective of combining unity and diversity. This means accommodating, preserving and promoting distinct identities within a larger political union. The noted constitutional authority, DurgaDasBasuwrote that Constitution of India is basically federal, butof course withstriking unitaryfeatures. According to Nani Palkivala, Indian Constitution provides for a cooperative federalism among states with a bias in favour of the Centre. He was of the view that if the Constitutionisworked in theright spirit, there would be no need to consider any amendment asfar ascentre-state relation is concerned. He further said that the problem has arisen to-day in an acute formbecause over a period of years the Centrehas acted in amanner inwhich at best has beencontrary tothe spirit of the Constitution. Article-1 of the Constitutionmentioned that‘India, that is, Bharat shall beUnion of States’. If this articleis analysedit providesthemessage that there shouldbemore of cooperation and understanding than the concept of domination andconflict.Theconflict that occuredin theIndian Federalprocess are due to the conflict between party in the power at the Centre and the parties in opposition to it which control some of the states. In all federal system, and, in particular, what are called polyethnic unions there is a conflict of values between those of the nation and the subnationswhich constitute theUnion. Inacoalitionsituation, governments are forced to build consensus amongst the allies. In theory, to the extent that these efforts at consensus building are debated on the merits of the issues involved, coalition governments are actually healthy. Inpractice,however, the perception that these negotiations amongst allies sometimes amount to unhealthy andunethical quid-pro-quos, is gaining ground. The recent cash-forvotes issue that erupted in Parliament, and widespread media coverage about the kinds of ‘deals’ that have been struck with various allies to get support for the India-USnuclear agreement, Rail Budget, FDI in retail, Srilanka issue and many more have only reinforced our concerns about tenuousnatureof coalitionpolitics. If we as a nation are likely to live with coalition politics, there are some important issues we need to consider. Hollow as it might sound, we need a massive push for enforceable ethics reforms among political parties, how partiesraise funds,howtheyspend them, howmuch of it needs to be transparent and otherrelated issues.As a country, we cannotwait for a chance discovery of an oasis in the desert to save us. This needs a concerted effort of citizens fromacross the country to push for higher standards inpublic life.



Reasons for Coalition Politics in India areasfollows:



1.Growth of Regional Political Parties:Growth of regional parties has been reason for the emergence of coalition politics in India.

2.Inability to Represent India’s diversity: Coalition politics also thrives because of the inability of national parties to continue to give a feeling to the diverse population in India that they are able to adequately representtheirdisparate interests. pc. The BJP’s vote share increased fromabout 11 pc in 1989 to a little below 25 pc in recent elections.

3.Lose ofTrust: The tendencyof the national partiesto speakof national level issues, and to force coherence in thepolitics andviews on issues, is at oddswith our extremely diverse population. In the initial years, to the extent that theCongress party wasable to accommodate regional/ local interests and reflect their aspirations, it was possible to maintain a large single party identity. Butover theyears, regional and caste identities have begun to increasinglyassert themselvesin the political space.

4.The moral degeneration in politics: Combinedwith regional parties’ ability provide credible alternatives to theCongress party in the states, led to a situation, where ‘horse trading’ became relatively commoninunsettling state governments. The brazenmanner in which political parties traded MLAs ledto thepassage of the antidefection lawin 1985.

MERITS & DEMERITS OF COALITION POLITICS

Merits

1.The coalition government addresses the regional disparity more than the single party rule.

2.Coalition government is more democratic, and hence fairer, because it represents a much broaderspectrumofpublic opinion than government by one party alone. In almost all coalitions, a majority of citizens voted for the partieswhich formthe government and so their views and interests are represented in political decisionmaking.



3.Coalition government creates a more honest and dynamic political system, allowing voters a clearer choice at election time. It is also easier for parties to split, or new ones to be formed, as newpolitical issues divide opinion, because new parties still have a chance of a share inpolitical power.



4.Coalitions provide good government becausetheir decisions are made in the interests of a majority of the people.A coalition government better reflects the popular opinion of the electorate within a country.

5.Coalition government provides more continuity in administration. Amore consensual style of politics also allows for amore gradual and constructiveshift ofpolicy between administrations.

6.Such government functions on principle of politics of consensus. Besides, states are given more powers, and the base of concept of federalismis strengthened.

7.Government will be more consensus based: resulting policies will be broadly approved of for the benefit of the nation.

8.Better representation of the electorate’swishes 10. Better quality of policy: enhanced scrutiny and increased attention paid to each policy

9.Increased continuity: election does not lead to dramatic overhaul whichcan producefragmented rule

10.Yet instability apart, coalition governments have been effective in enhancing democratic legitimacy, representativeness, and national unity.

Demerits

1.Coalition government is actually less democratic as the balance of poweris inevitablyheld by thesmall partieswhocan bartertheir support for concessions from the main groupswithin the coalition.

2.Coalition government is less transparent, Because a party has no real chance of forming a government alone, themanifestos they present to the public become irrelevant and often wildly unrealistic.

3.Coalitions providebad government because they are unable to take a long termview.

4.Coalition governments are very unstable, often collapsing and reforming at frequent intervals – Italy, for example, averages more than onegovernment peryear since 1945. This greatly restricts the ability of governments to dealwith major reforms and means that politicians seldom stay in any particularministerial post for long enough to get to grips with its demands.



5.Coalition governments are definitely far less effective, not durable, and non-dependable as compared to the governments formed by any one party with a definite ideology and principles.

6.In coalition governments, MLAs and MPs from all the parties are given portfolios/ministries and appointed as Ministers. These ministers are appointed on the recommendations of the parent party, without taking the qualification, characterandcriminal /clean record of the MLAs and MPs.



From above discussion it can be concluded that since India is a diverse countrywith different ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities, it also has diverseideologies.Dueto this, thebenefit that acoalition hasis thatit leadstomore consensus based politics and reflects the popularopinion of theelectorate.Inorder to have stable coalitions, it is necessary that political parties moderate their ideologiesand programmes.Theyshould bemore opento takeothers pointof view as well. They must accommodate each other’s interests and concerns. In India, parties donot alwaysagree onthe correct path for government policy. Different parties havedifferent interestsand beliefs and it is difficult to sustain a consensus on issues when disagreement arises. However, this is not to say that we have never had successful coalitions. Governments in W. Bengal, Kerala, N.D.A. last ministry as well as present U.P.A. Government led by Congress (twice) at centre have been successful coalition.

ESSAY ON NUCLEAR POWER

ESSAY ON ENVIRONMENT FACTOR -                                                                        NUCLEAR ENERGY  The people's energy When nuclear companies are unwilling to stake their financial health on the safety of a reactor, how can the Government ask local residents to risk their lives, ask

• Write the authors • Hazards • Energy • Tamilnadu • Send to a friend • Printer friendly version

 - As the local people determinedly continue to resist the commissioning of the Koodankulam reactors, the statements of the nuclear establishment have acquired a desperate edge. The chief of the Nuclear Power Corporation (NPCIL) declared that a "foreign hand" was behind the protests. The former president, A P J Abdul Kalam, while assuring the locals that the reactors were "100 per cent safe," also wrote an article in The Hindu arguing that nuclear energy is India's ticket to modernity and prosperity.

Such claims go back several decades; for example, Jawaharlal Nehru compared the "Atomic Revolution" to the "Industrial Revolution," arguing that "either you go ahead with it or ... others go ahead, and you ... gradually drag yourself" (Nehru 1958). However, in the intervening half a century, atomic energy has failed to live up to its promise, and the idea that it is linked to progress and economic success is now both cliched and historically inaccurate.

The grand hopes for nuclear power in India must be evaluated in light of the history of the numerous pronouncements of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) about the dominant role for atomic energy it envisioned - and failed to deliver. In the early 1970s, for example, it projected 43,500 MW of nuclear generating capacity by 2000 (Sethna 1972), whereas what materialized was a mere 2720 MW (DAE 2002). Last year, the nuclear contribution to electricity generated in the country was 2.8 per cent. What little energy has been generated has been expensive (Ramana 2007b; Ramana 2007c; Ramana, D.Sa, and Reddy 2005e). When viewed in light of the ample financial and political support from successive governments, the nuclear programme has been a failure.

The gap between pronouncements and achievement is largest where thorium is concerned. In 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission explained that although "the programme [had] slipped badly," the country would be in a position to start setting up thorium reactors within about 15 years (AEC 1970). Forty years later, there is no thorium reactor in existence, and there is yet no solution to several serious technical problems with the thorium cycle.

Unlike uranium, thorium itself cannot be used as reactor fuel, but must be put through a nuclear reactor to first produce a fissile isotope of uranium, uranium-233. Uranium-233 has three key properties. First, it can be used to make nuclear weapons, being superior, in some respects, to weapon-grade uranium (lower critical mass) and plutonium (smaller spontaneous fission rate) (Kang and von Hippel 2001).

Nuclear energy has failed to live up to its promise, and the idea that it is linked to progress and economic success is now both cliched and historically inaccurate. (Pic. of Koodankulam from Wikipedia)   • The nuclear black swan • Nuking dissent over Jaitapur • Who bears the brunt? • Our atom state • A poor safety record

Second, uranium-233 is produced in conjunction with uranium-232, which emits energetic gamma rays, and this is the main reason it hasn't been used to make weapons. This property is even more problematic when uranium-233 is used as nuclear fuel, because it makes fuel fabrication hazardous to the health of workers and expensive. Thus, the very properties that make thorium unsuitable for weaponisation pose a greater hurdle for energy generation.

Third, the DAE's plans for producing uranium-233 in bulk involve the use of plutonium-fueled fast breeder reactors, which, when compared to heavy water reactors, carry significantly greater risk of catastrophic accidents and produce much more expensive electricity (Kumar and Ramana 2008; Kumar and Ramana 2011; Suchitra and Ramana 2011; Ramana and Suchitra 2009; Ramana and Suchitra 2007d).

For some or all of these reasons, most countries have abandoned thorium; India is a leader in this field by virtue of being one of the only participants.

In recent years, dreams of a nuclear powered future got a fillip with the Indo-US nuclear deal. The deal served as the flagship of the Manmohan Singh Government's efforts to give its foreign policy a pro-Western tilt. For the United States, the deal was, in the words of Ashley Tellis, an important adviser to the Bush administration, intended to craft "a full and productive partnership with India". But this relationship is not one between equals. India soon fell in line with U.S. strategic objectives, for example, by twice voting against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency, and halting the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project - an important potential source of energy.

The Singh Government is also willing to pay generously to reinforce this "partnership." As the former DAE head, Anil Kakodkar, admitted in an article for a Marathi daily earlier this year, India must import reactors worth billions of dollars because "we also have to keep in mind the commercial interests of foreign countries and of the companies there". It is these imports and the larger foreign policy shift that hasten the process of "neo-age imperial subjugation."

So the "foreign hand" is partly behind the nuclear expansion, not behind the local protests that have sprung up at every site earmarked for a nuclear plant. The conspiracy theory peddled by the NPCIL amounts to dismissing genuine local concerns out of hand. The end result of this policy is visible in Koodankulam. The local villagers, who have been opposed to the project since the beginning were ignored and ridiculed till they finally escalated their protest in desperation. The public money that has been spent on the Koodankulam plant is imperilled not by the intransigence of the local residents, but by the failure of the Government to heed their concerns earlier.

Local residents have a right to be worried. Nuclear accidents can have very destructive public health consequences. The impacts of Fukushima can be gauged only over the long term but are certain to be grave . Although some nuclear advocates quote the absurdly low and misleading figure of 57 direct deaths in Chernobyl, the World Health Organization estimated about 9000 excess deaths due to cancer globally. Many more thousands will have cancers that are assumed to be curable. The American Cancer Institute's recent study found that children who were exposed to Iodine-131 from Chernobyl are continuing to develop thyroid cancer. Other epidemiologists estimate even higher figures.

Even today an area of about 10,000 square kilometers around Chernobyl is under "strict control" because it is polluted by Cesium-137, which has a radioactive half-life of 30 years. A recent study conducted by a team of atmospheric scientists in Europe and the United States estimates that the multiple accidents at Fukushima released over 40 percent of the estimated Cesium-137 emission from Chernobyl (Stohl et al. 2011). However, because the wind was luckily blowing towards the Pacific ocean for a significant fraction of the period, the area polluted with the same concentration of Cesium-137 is estimated to be only about 10 percent of the area at Chernobyl (von Hippel 2011).

The wind may not always be propitious. These figures should be of great concern in India, since, most people are dependent on the land and the sea for their livelihoods.

The claim that modern reactors, such as the VVER reactors in Koodankulam, are "100 per cent safe" is scientifically untenable; every nuclear reactor has a finite, albeit small, probability of undergoing a catastrophic failure. More specifically, the VVER reactors have previously had problems with the the control rod mechanism (Kastchiev et al. 2007).

On 1 March 2006, for example, one of the four main circulation pumps at Bulgaria's Kozluduy unit 5 tripped because of an electrical failure. When the system reduced the power to 67 per cent of nominal capacity, three control rod assemblies remained in an upper-end position. Follow-up tests of the remaining control rod assemblies identified that in total 22 out of 61 could not be moved with driving mechanisms. Control rod insertion failures can seriously compromise safety in an accident.

There is a very simple indirect test by means of which even a non-expert can evaluate the question of nuclear safety. If there was really a "zero per cent chance" of an accident, why would nuclear vendors work so hard to indemnify themselves? Atomstroyeksport, the vendor of the Koodankulam plant is protected by a special intergovernmental agreement, which would prevent victims from suing it in the event of an accident. Companies like Westinghouse are holding back on reactor sales to India, since the new liability law includes some very mild liability for suppliers.

When nuclear companies are unwilling to stake their financial health on these claims of "100 per cent safety", how can the Government ask local residents to risk their lives?