“SO few and so futile”, Winston Churchill famously remarked about Liberal MPs. Time has proved him wrong. The polarisation ensured by the two major political parties — Conservatives and Labour — does little good to the polity. It perpetuates itself, silencing a third view which people are entitled to hear.

As it happens, it was left to one of Britain’s most cerebral politicians to take the initiative to establish an organisation independent of both the major political parties, with a view of its own. He is the former leader of the Liberal Party, Paddy Ashdown.

This is how The Economist’s columnist, Bagehot, described the venture in an August issue: “One evening about five years ago, a group of political types gathered for a London dinner party. They included a former secretary of state on the modernising wing of the Labour Party, a senior Liberal Democrat in the then-coalition government and a prominent voice on the Conservative left. … Wine and conversation flowed. The talk ranged from public services and the economy to foreign policy and party politics. By the time they were on coffee, the three agreed that they had a great deal more in common than with some or most of their own parties. How silly, they concluded, that the political system kept them apart.”

The political system keeps out alternative voices.

It is party loyalties that are responsible for drowning out the sane voices even when some in each party wish to bridge the divide in order to promote sensible policies.

The Brexit referendum exposed “the fragmentation of the old two-party electorate”. Various groups have come to the fore to provide a rallying point for centrists; the most prominent among them being one founded by Lord Ashdown and other like-minded public figures. This online campaign is called ‘More United’.

This centrist movement, transcending party lines, seeks to appeal to those “who want to influence politics but, for whatever reason, don’t necessarily want to do so through a political party”. The response has been much warmer than expected. Its techniques are novel: “…provide scholarships to promising young politicians, nurture parliamentary links between like-minded MPs, deploy activists to favoured local campaigns or even, some reckon, catalyse a new political party.”

In South Asia, especially in India, political divisions have hardened. It is precisely in such a situation that a third voice needs to be heard. Right now the BJP with its divisive Hindutva plank is pitted against the others. This affects public policy on a host of important issues which call for a non-partisan approach in domestic and foreign realms.

But, given the ossified divide, what can the third voice possibly expect to achieve? The answer is two-fold. First, it can influence the moderates by the cogency of its reasoning, the soundness of its approach and the depth of its research. The second reason is even more effective — it is the appeal to the people; the voter on whose support all parties thrive.

Eighty years ago, the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform said in its report: “Parliamentary government, as it is understood in the United Kingdom, works by the interaction of four essential factors: the principle of majority rule; the willingness of the minority for the time being to accept the decisions of the majority; the existence of great political parties divided by broad issues of policy, rather than by sectional interests; and finally the existence of a mobile body of public opinion, owning no permanent allegiance to any party and therefore able, by its instinctive reaction against extravagant movements on one side or the other, to keep the vessel on an even keel.”

It is this last factor, “a mobile body of public opinion” that the third force seeks to influence and mould.

In India, before independence, there existed a significant group of Liberals. Unfortunately, some of them drifted towards the Congress, which is why the report of the committee set up by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, made such little impact.

Interestingly, as the divide between Muslim League and the Congress deepened, the Quaid had a word of advice for Muslims who disagreed with the League’s demand for Pakistan. In a speech at a public meeting in Bombay on Dec 21, 1945, he said “those Muslims who differ from the policy and programme of the All India Muslim League should start an independent and separate Muslim organisation but they should not join the Congress.”

Such an independent contribution need not be — indeed, should not be — confined to politicians. In this day and age, the media and think tanks play a significant role. But large sections of the media get politicised while political parties float. The BJP excels in this. Its foundations and other bodies handsomely pay recruits from among retired army officials and others. This is not a third voice. It is the echo of stooges.

The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, September 3rd, 2016