‘How coalition pressures unsettled governance’
New Delhi: Between 2020 and 2025, Bihar’s government saw an unusually high number of ministerial changes, making it difficult to maintain a steady administration. Official records show that around 60 elected representatives served as ministers during these five years, a turnover rate not seen before in the state’s recent history. This frequent reshuffling reflected the shifting nature of coalition politics in Bihar, where top government decisions often relied on power-sharing and party negotiations. The instability affected more than just politics, disrupting policy implementation, bureaucratic work, and the delivery of public services across the state.
Looking closely at ministerial tenures during this time shows clear differences. The Chief Minister and two other ministers retained their positions throughout the term, but most ministries saw frequent leadership changes. About 84 per cent of ministers from the Legislative Assembly ran for re-election, indicating that parties still sought to present an image of experience and stability to voters, despite ongoing changes. Additionally, two former Legislative Council members who served as ministers are now running for Assembly seats, underscoring how the lines between the legislative and executive branches in Bihar are often unclear.
This sudden rate of turnover had fairly serious administrative implications. Almost 20 government departments had four or more ministers in charge in five years, which caused fragmented leadership and disrupted long-term planning.
There were more than six ministers at the helm of each of the following ministries: Tourism, Law, Disaster Management, and Revenue and Land Reforms. The frequent change of political leadership here meant fluctuating priorities, constant reviews of ongoing projects, and loss of institutional memory.
Such unpredictability hindered sustained policy implementation and made it difficult for reforms to establish roots, particularly in areas that demand perennial oversight, such as land regulation, disaster preparedness, and law enforcement.
This inevitably trickled down to the bureaucratic layer, which was growing accustomed to the constant change in visions and working styles of the different ministers. In many instances, decisions needed to be put on hold until the newly appointed minister gave the go-ahead, thus delaying administrative work. Besides, the new political reshuffling often created parallel transfers within the bureaucracy, which further eroded departmental expertise and continuity.
Ad hoc arrangements when ministers changed further exacerbated these difficulties. The Chief Minister assumed additional charge of a portfolio every time it fell vacant, as happened with frequency in the course of this term, or allocated it temporarily to another member of the cabinet. An essential requirement from the governance perspective, this resulted in some portfolios receiving less focused attention, all the more so when they required technical expertise or dedicated oversight. Overburdened ministers who were being entrusted with multiple responsibilities could hardly keep up with consistent engagement, which caused delays in decision-making and thereby affected the quality of governance.
The consequences for the delivery of public service were very serious, especially in sectors such as Health, Education, Finance, Industries, and Urban Development, which have seen multiple ministers in five years.
These are areas where stability at the helm is crucial for sustaining reforms, monitoring progress, and course correction when necessary. Long-term initiatives for school infrastructure, healthcare access, industrial growth, or urban planning require sustained interest, but constant reshuffles weaken accountability and blur lines of responsibility. For the citizens dependent on these services, the effects showed up as spotty implementation and delayed rollouts of key schemes.
In contrast, the departments that maintained ministerial continuity included Home, Vigilance, General Administration, Cabinet Secretariat, and Energy; they consequently had sustained leadership throughout the term. Many of these portfolios were retained directly by the Chief Minister himself, thus allowing a degree of operational cohesion not replicated in other sectors.
In this regard, it is important to consider the overall stability brought forth by uninterrupted leadership in ensuring the proper enactment of governance.
This is essentially the root of Bihar’s ministerial turbulence: its coalition-driven political framework. And with constantly shifting alliances, internal party pressures, and the need to balance diverse political interests, cabinet reshuffles became a tool for maintaining equilibrium within the ruling coalition.
