Kamal Ghorui
Tamil Nadu rarely produces fractured mandates. Its electoral history is defined by decisive verdicts and single-party governments. Now, as the dust settles on the 2026 assembly election, a rare scenario emerges: Secular Progressive Alliance (SPA) getting a majority yet DMK falling short of the majority mark of 118 in the 234-seat assembly.
If that scenario materialises, Tamil Nadu could be staring at a coalition govt — an outcome that would test not just numbers, but the political culture of the state.
It started early
Even before the two major alliances signed seat-sharing agreements, the demand for power sharing was loud. While Edappadi K Palaniswami kept saying AIADMK would come to power, BJP leaders always referred to an “NDA govt”. On the DMK side, Congress entered negotiations with an unusually assertive posture. It initially sought 38 seats, along with cabinet berths in the future govt.
Congress linked its seat demand to strategic calculations: it wanted enough MLAs to independently influence Rajya Sabha elections and maintain relevance within the alliance structure. Though only a few Congress leaders openly chased this desire to convert alliance politics into institutional power, their intransigence suggested that they had the consent, if not instruction, of Rahul Gandhi.
Stalin categorically rejected the idea of power-sharing, insisting that Tamil Nadu’s political model did not accommodate coalition governments. Sonia Gandhi reportedly had to step in to make Congress drop the demand to keep Stalin happy. Eventually, the Congress settled for 28 seats and one Rajya Sabha seat—a clear climbdown from its opening position.
How Congress laid the ground
As this column mentioned in Jan, Congress has a strong argument. One, it unconditionally supported the DMK govt from 2006 to 2011 when Congress had 34 legislators and DMK 96 (PMK had 18, CPM nine and CPI six legislators). Two, DMK was given cabinet berths in two Congress-led UPA govts.
The fact that Congress held on to its demand through weeks of bargaining showed that power-sharing, once unthinkable in Tamil Nadu, has entered mainstream political negotiation. If DMK doesn’t sail past the 118-mark, the demand would return with renewed urgency, and, if some other allies join the chorus, Stalin would be in a less powerful position at the negotiation table. The Congress’s initial insistence now appears less like posturing and more like groundwork.
Good and bad of coalition govts
Theoretically, a coalition govt widens representation and makes governance and policy-making more consultative, while strengthening institutional checks within the executive.
On the flip side, a coalition govt can hamper decisiveness that has long characterised Tamil Nadu’s administration. More power centres within a govt means divergent interests; more bargaining can slow down decision-making and complicate implementation of big schemes. Policy continuity — one of Tamil Nadu’s administrative strengths — might face new pressures from coalition compulsions.
Not many surveys show AIADMK winning this election, yet the party is discussing ways to keep the govt to itself if it gets a surprise win of more than 118 seats. While BJP dreams of a scenario where AIADMK needs its support to form a govt through participation, EPS will be no pushover in the unlikely event of his party garnering enough seats on its own. The AIADMK general secretary may still travel to Delhi to meet BJP leaders, but back home he has repeatedly shown – the latest during seat allocation talks – who calls the alliance shots.
If Tamil Nadu does enter the era of coalition govt a, it will not be an accident of arithmetic alone. It will be the culmination of a gradual, negotiated rebalancing of power — one that began well before the first vote was cast.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
