“The latest discussions indicate that the parties are working towards a common manifesto, but constituency-level negotiations remain unfinished. RGP has reportedly put forward a list of seven constituencies it considers non-negotiable, namely Mayem, Mandrem, Siolim, Shiroda, Cumbharjua, St Cruz and St Andre, besides seeking five more seats. The problem is that St Cruz and Cumbharjua are also constituencies where Congress has strong political stakes.
This is not merely a disagreement over numbers. These are constituencies where both parties may believe that conceding ground could weaken their own political organisation.
RGP has entered the negotiations with a very different political identity from Congress. Its politics has been built around Goan identity, land, resources, employment, environment and opposition to policies it believes threaten the character of Goa.”
The Congress-RGP alliance has moved beyond the stage of political courtesy. The two parties have now begun discussing a common political programme, including issues such as Section 39A, Goa’s growing financial burden and the Mahadayi water dispute. An in-principle understanding was reached earlier this month, but the real test of the alliance has now arrived: seat sharing.
And this is where the political honeymoon could become difficult.
The latest discussions indicate that the parties are working towards a common manifesto, but constituency-level negotiations remain unfinished. RGP has reportedly put forward a list of seven constituencies it considers non-negotiable, namely Mayem, Mandrem, Siolim, Shiroda, Cumbharjua, St Cruz and St Andre, besides seeking five more seats. The problem is that St Cruz and Cumbharjua are also constituencies where Congress has strong political stakes.
This is not merely a disagreement over numbers. These are constituencies where both parties may believe that conceding ground could weaken their own political organisation.
RGP has entered the negotiations with a very different political identity from Congress. Its politics has been built around Goan identity, land, resources, employment, environment and opposition to policies it believes threaten the character of Goa. Congress, meanwhile, is a larger organisation with an established network and a history of contesting constituencies across the state.
The two can agree on issues. Agreeing on candidates is a completely different matter.
That is why the common manifesto could actually prove easier than the seat-sharing formula. On Section 39A, Goa’s financial burden and Mahadayi, there appears to be sufficient common ground for both parties to present a joint position. RGP has also previously placed a broader set of conditions before Congress, including its positions on Goan identity and defections.
But elections are ultimately fought constituency by constituency.
The question Congress will have to answer is whether it is prepared to surrender seats where it has an organisational presence to accommodate RGP. RGP, on the other hand, will have to decide how far it can stretch its demands without making the alliance impossible.
There is another complication. The opposition space in Goa is already fragmented. AAP and Goa Forward Party have formed the Goa First alliance, while Congress has continued to indicate that it remains open to broader opposition coordination.
That makes the Congress-RGP arrangement strategically significant, but it also makes seat sharing more complicated. Every party entering an alliance wants to protect its political identity, organisational workers and future prospects. A party cannot simply tell its local workers to step aside because a larger electoral calculation demands it.
This is where leadership and political maturity will matter.
Congress and RGP have already demonstrated that they can sit across the table and identify common issues. The next step is much harder. They have to convince their respective workers that the alliance is not a surrender by one party to the other.
The history of Goa politics offers enough examples of alliances collapsing because of personal ambitions, constituency-level rivalries and disagreements over tickets. Therefore, the success of this alliance will not be decided at the Dona Paula meeting table alone. It will ultimately depend on whether the leadership can take difficult decisions and ensure that those decisions are accepted on the ground.
The signs are therefore mixed, but the process is clearly moving forward. The parties have not abandoned negotiations. They are discussing a common programme and continuing talks on seats. That is politically different from a loose understanding announced for headlines.
The biggest danger now is allowing the seat-sharing negotiations to destroy the common ground painstakingly created over the past few weeks.
Congress and RGP have found issues on which they can stand together. The harder task is deciding where they will stand separately.
The alliance will therefore be tested not by the manifesto, but by the map of Goa.
If both sides can accept that winning a constituency for the alliance may sometimes require one party to step back, the understanding can move towards a formal electoral arrangement. If every constituency becomes a prestige battle, the common manifesto may remain only a document while the alliance itself remains unfinished business.
For now, the answer is not in the slogans or announcements. It lies in Mayem, Mandrem, Siolim, Shiroda, Cumbharjua, St Cruz and St Andre.
That is where the Congress-RGP alliance will truly be decided.
