TRENDS IN GROWTH AND FUNCTIONING OF POLITICAL PARTIES BY: JAIDEEP M CHAUHAN
TRENDS IN
GROWTH AND FUNCTIONING OF POLITICAL PARTIES
AUTHORED
BY: JAIDEEP M CHAUHAN
LLM 2nd
Year
PES Modern
Law College
Savitribai
Phule Pune University
INTRODUCTION
Parties have been vital to democratic
politics in India. The Indian party system has been unique and has gradually
evolved with the process of social transformation in the country. The
complexities and contradictions arising from the cleavages and heterodoxies of
our society shape the dynamics of its functioning. Interestingly, party
politics holds on to the plural ethos of our polity, though uneasily. The
Indian party system has rich legacy, but is occasionally marked by volatility,
ruptures, and pervasive crisis. Hence, the premonition from the western
scholarship predicting its eventual decimation comes as no surprise.
Nevertheless, the system has managed to not only deliver, but also has augured
democratic practices. It is almost established by now that India is an example
of a successful democracy and this fact is globally acknowledged. Parties do
tend to feed on polarization and schism in society, but by and large, they
closely monitor their moves to retain the support of the masses. Attempt
towards extreme radicalization may put any party in pariah status. This sets in
a natural check and balance system where the ground realities determine the
dynamics of party politics. This chapter delineates the trajectory of party
system in India, the dramatic shifts it has been through from pre-independence
days to the contemporary times and analyses the challenges that beset the
successful working of the electoral democracy in the country[1][2].
Definition
and Typology
MacIver defined political party as an
association organized in support of some principle or policy, which by
constitutional means, endeavours to make the determinant of the government
(MacIver, 1926: 326). According to Giovanni Satori, a party is a political
group that presents and places candidates for public office through elections,
Schumpeter states that the first and foremost aim of each political party is to
prevail over the others to get into power or to stay in it. This goal of
attaining political power distinguishes political parties from other groups in
the political system, although the distinction is rather blurred at times,
especially about pressure groups. It is generally agreed that democracy
requires groups such as political parties to perform critical functions—
recruit leadership, formulate policy, organize decision making, communicate
upward and downward amongst leaders and the public, promote consensus, enforce
responsibility, and move the society towards the effective resolution of its
conflicts. They generate ideologies, beliefs, and symbols for political
identification to the citizens[3].
Nature and
Legacy of the Indian Party System Background
The rise of nationalism in India in
19th century served as the backdrop for the emergence of political party. The
British colonial rule produced enormous resistance and resentment among
Indians. This acrimony resulted in development of feeling of nationalism and
construction of the imaginary of India as a nation. It also helped the country
to consolidate itself as a unified political entity. In 1885, association of
middle-class professionals along with Allan Octavian Hume, created the Indian
National Congress (INC). It is the oldest political party in India and one of
the oldest parties in the world. By presenting Indian interest to the British
Crown in a systematic and organized manner, the INC soon became a leading voice
of the Indian middle class, constantly clamouring for more jobs under the
colonial government and for greater political participation (Mitra, et al.,
2004: 8). With this, a political process conducive for the crystallization of
political parties and political groups were set in motion (Mehra, 2003: 25).
The contribution of the INC in the independence movement and in shaping the
political system in post-independence period has been seminal. It acted as the
core of nationalistic assertion. This umbrella organization provided a national
platform to all kinds of forces to unite against the colonizers. INC’s
sustained battle against British occupation gradually led the country towards
liberation. Even in the post-independent era, Congress has been able to
harmonize easily its basic elements of leadership with national appeal and
acceptability, a pan-Indian ideology with recognition and accommodation of
local and regional spirit and district level cadre (Khare, 2004: 32). Down the
line, it tried to continue to sustain its propensity for preserving democratic
tradition, though sometimes it failed miserably. Despite its pan-Indian appeal,
the Congress could not provide the nucleus for an institutionalized party
system. It is interesting to investigate the initial debates surrounding the
future of party politics in India in the post-independence era. Many seminal
political figures were skeptical of the necessity of parties in the Indian
political system. They cautioned against the trivialities and petty 4 politics
that parties tend to generate. Because of this reason, they took a clear and
open stand against parties, advocating a democratic system free of them. The
most prominent views were of M.K. Gandhi, the father of our nation, who was
never comfortable with the idea of a polity driven by parties. Gandhi was
deeply convinced that state and all its institutions are enmeshed with power and
are inherently repressive to the people. State becomes the repository of
endemic and organized violence and may pose a huge threat to the helpless
citizens. Wary of such insinuation, in his last piece of writing Last Will and
Testament, Gandhi, therefore, suggested the dissolution of Congress as a
political organization after achieving independence and replacing it with Lok
Sewak Sangh (Servant of People Association) (Narayan, 1970: 235). Gandhi
prescribed a democratic system based on village self-government for the country
and called it Gram Swaraj, where political parties will have no role. In his
scheme of decentralization of power, there was no place for power-seeking
political parties (Narayan, 1970: 240). Similar reverberations are found in the
thoughts of Jayaprakash Narayan in his Gandhian phase. Narayan fervently
advocated for party-less democracy with emphasis on decentralization of power,
village autonomy, and more representative legislature. He observed that in
parliamentary democracy, the electors are manipulated by powerful, centrally
controlled parties, with the aid of high finance and diabolically cleaver
methods, and super media (Narayan, 1959, p.66). However, this idea was
outrightly rejected by the working committee of the Congress. It was in no mood
to fiddle away its enormous power and support base that it had arduously
generated over a long period of time. After independence, the nation began its
journey of enduring democracy with parties at the centre of political
mobilization and governance[4].
Different
Phases:
Parties and party system in India
have transformed through different phases with the changing milieu. These
phases can be generally categorized as the period from 1947–67 (marked by clear
dominance of Congress), 1967–77 (noted by rising dissent and opposition, period
of emergency), 1977–84 (rise of regional forces), 1984–90s (incoherent
multiparty system), and contemporary times (present two-coalition multiparty
system). The first phase of the Indian party system (1947–67) is clearly marked
by the monopoly of the Congress. When the Congress finally came to power at all
levels of government beginning in 1947, it had years of invaluable seasoning
under its belt, giving India an advantage unknown to many other decolonized
nations (Varshney, 1998: 39). This specific historical context provided
Congress the character of a mass organization. The monopolistic position of the
Congress and the unorganized fragmented opposition which could not even
adequately ventilate popular grievances, enabled the former to emerge as a
formidable political structure (Kothari, 1961: 849). It is precisely because of
this reason that the Indian party system has been famously described as
“single-party dominance” (Morris-Jones: 1971) or the “one party dominant system”
or “Congress System” by Prof. Rajni Kothari (Kothari: 1961). This implies that
the working of the party system in India in the beginning was such that the
Congress formed the core and rest of the parties operated from periphery,
applying the pressure from the margins. Because of Congress's popularity and
its rule-based internal functioning, no competitor with a similar nationwide
mass base ever arose to challenge it for the leadership of the national
movement (Varshney, 1998: 39). Even the conflict and dissent came from within
the Congress rather from opposition parties outside Congress. This made the
Indian party system ‘party of consensus and parties of pressure’ (Kothari,
2002: 40). The choice of 5 first-past-the-post electoral system also worked to
the advantage of Congress. All these features of party politics in India in the
immediate post-independent era rendered the presence of other smaller parties
insignificant.[5]
Transformation
of Indian Party System:
Rise of New Trends The dynamics of
party politics of contemporary times is completely different from its preceding
phases. As Ajay K Mehra aptly remarks, the emergence of the BJP has not only
created the basis for bi-nodal party politics in India soon, since the third
front remains in total disarray, it has also paved the way for coalition
politics based on a federalized party structure with participation from
national and regional parties alike (Mehra, 2003: 22). This bipolarity became
an increasingly stable feature of politics at the centre as well as in the
states. The Congress and BJP became two power centres, deciding the alignment
and framework of politics in India. These two parties turned out to be two
decisive mobilizers overshadowing the rest of the parties in India. Even then
for a good amount of time, no party has been capable of securing a single-party
majority. They failed to accommodate the diverse 8 stakes of the electorate
belonging to varied caste, class, religious, regional, linguistic, and ethnic
interests, and fetch votes of all. The natural outcome has been two-coalitional
party system in the form of United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and National
Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by Congress and BJP, respectively. Balveer Arora
believes that the new realities have resulted in federalization and renewal of
party system in India. The federalization of party system seems to be a natural
outcome of the extremely diverse political spectrum of India. But it requires
an integrating arrangement that could ensure greater power and influence to the
state-based parties. Congress was both unwilling and ill-prepared to assume this
role, entrapped as it was in its centralist and dynastic legacies (Arora, 2013:
92). On the other hand, the BJP accepted coalition politics as inevitable and
therefore engaged diligently to work out power sharing strategies. It
understands that India’s polity is a network of states in which castes,
communities, classes, and parties cooperate and compete for benefits conferred
by political power (Arora, 2013: 92). This party wins as it works out skillful
alliance for successful federal coalitions. BJP has fetched steady electoral
gains and established itself as an alternative to the Congress. Its ability to
jell with the way the new middle class in India wanted to redefine the nation
and articulate the cultural and material aspirations of this class helped it to
consolidate (Yadav and Palshikar, 2003: 44). Oliver Heath has argued that the
rapid political and geographical expansion of the BJP and its emergence as a
main political force was due its ability to delicately redefine itself and its
social base and forge alliances with regional parties having different social
bases. Strategically, it distanced itself from the hard-core issues of Hindutva
with which it was associated since its inception, due to necessities of real
politics. It sought to accommodate its coalition partners by publishing a
national agenda which omitted the controversial issue of the building of Ram
temple at Ayodhya, the Uniform Civil Code, and Kashmir’s special constitutional
status as a part of its moderation strategy (Basu, 2002: 399). BJP mellowed
down its militancy and repositioned itself to invoke a pan-Indian appeal. It
realized that moderation and centrist ideology can only stabilize it in the
longer run. Therefore, we see periodic toning up and subduing of its Hindutva
rhetoric displaying cycles of moderation and militancy according to the
contingent situation (Kumari, 2009: 226). A closer observation alludes to the
dwindling importance of ideology in party politics in India. Ideology never
remains static for a party but undergoes transformation along with time and
experience, the compulsions of practical life and in interactive struggle with
rival ideological tendencies (Suri, 2004). Often, it is used to disguise the
tactics to gain votes from the electorate. Moreover, apart from communist
parties, most parties define themselves as secular and democratic parties; that
do not identify themselves in terms of left or right. While electoral fortunes
of BJP surged in recent times, few old parties like Communist party[6][7].
Challenges
and Prospects
Numerous obstacles can be identified
in the way of functioning of party politics in India. It has a long history of
social inequalities and social injustice. Endemic problems such as poverty,
illiteracy, and backwardness have kept on rocking its boat and freedom for all
has been a far-fetched dream. Society has been hierarchically constituted on
the lines of caste, 12 class, gender, religion, ethnicity, linguistic
identities, and so on. Discrimination has been rampant on these bases leading
to exclusionary tendencies in politics. Political parties had this huge task of
reconciling aspirations of all sections and ushering in the goal of incremental
change in a fragile society like India. The feminist and subaltern critique of
society exposes the denial of equal rights and entitlement to women, dalits,
Adivasis, and other marginalized sections. Corridors of political power are
typical male bastion and deliberately deny admission to women. Political
parties are informed by patriarchal constructs, societal prejudices, and
cultural practices that hinder the free and fair political participation of
women and other weaker sections. Political discourses of parties have been
deliberately dismissive of the question of women. The persistent feminist
struggles for equality and empowerment resulted in the 73rd and 74th Amendment
Act, 1992 resulting in the 33 percent reservation for women in the Panchayati
raj institutions, mahanagarpalikas and municipalities. There is assiduous
demand for replicating this reservation for women in the lower house of the
Indian parliament and in state legislative assemblies in the form of Women’s
Reservation Bill but has been pending so far. Parties should also ensure at
least 30 percent reservation for women at every organizational position.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, the Indian experience of
party system is unique in itself. Since the 1950s till present times, it has
been constantly evolving with the changing milieu. The changing contours of
India’s electoral politics are, in significant ways, a reflection of new
assertion among the socially and economically underprivileged sections of
Indian society. Despite working amidst hierarchically constituted diverse
interests, most parties in India represent the entire spectrum of the society.
They have been creatively engaged with the issues of entitlement and social
justice. The recent phenomenon of increasing federalization of parties
reaffirms our faith in diversity and heterogeneity and has further strengthened
the democratic fabric of the nation. Indian party politics gives the impression
of the country as a pluralist society, where the interests of multiplicity of
private associations and other various forces is aggregated, and they have
considerable influence on policy formation (Brass, 1994: 65). Nonetheless, as
political parties are public institutions, they must refrain from becoming
dynastic and converting governance into their family business. Summary of the
Chapter • Clearly, there have been remarkable.