POLITICAL SCIENCE AND

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
PARTY SYSTEM IN INDIA
Party System in India
Zoya Hassan Paul Brass
• Political parties in India have played a critical role in • Parties in India owe their origin to the nationalist
the success of India’s democracy when all essential movements. They have certain features in common
prerequisite of the success of democracy like the with western parties but also have indigenous
minimum level of liberty etc. have been missing on the character.
other hand. • Indian parties reflect paradoxical features. The blend of
western bureaucratic structure indigenous political
practices and institutions. Parties in the west are well
institutionalised but in India, parties are built around
personalities or family.

YogendraYadav Law Commission

• Parties are going through institutionalisation and • In its 170th report point towards the lack of the
deinstitutionalization. Parties reach among the people intraparty democracy within the country as a
is widening but people’s’ loyalty is weakening. Parties paradoxical feature of democracy in India.
have got limited to the instrumental activities of voting
and lack the broad agenda of building democracy and
nation.
Phases of Politics in India
1st Phase (Congress
System):Until 1977 Rajni Kothari gives analysis as
to why Congress system didn’t
• It was different from the result in authoritarianism.
communist one-party system or
authoritarian system. • Free and fair elections.
• Rajni Kothari called the Congress • Strong constitutional status of EC
system as Party of consensus. • The system of delimitation of
• He uses term “Margins of pressure” constituencies
to expllain opposition within
Congress as well as outside • Parties of pressure
Congress. • Faction within Congress
• According To Kothari, ‘historical • The choice of leadership.
consensus’ was in favour of • Congress system continued at the
Congress. national level till 1977 and states
• The strength of Congress was its till 1969.
ideology. Congress has a centrist
ideology.
2nd Phase 3rd Phase 4th Phase
• Political scholars • Sunil Khilnani • The major change
predicted in 1977 suggests was witnessed in
that India is moving emergence of 1989. This change
towards 2 party professional is known as
system, however, politicians during “regionalisation
this prediction was this phase. and fragmentation’
immature. • Reasons: of Indian politics..
• According to • Indira Gandhi -
Morris Jones, 2nd New type of
phase shows the politics.
emergence of • JP movement
“market polity in was also
India”. A defector’s responsible for
market has involving many
emerged. students in
politics.
Party system in India
• Congress Hegemony 1952-67
According • Bipolarization of State party Zoya Hasan
to E system. 1967-89
Sridharan, • Complete fragmentation of • Features of 1st Phase
Party system 1989-2014
• Dominated by nationalist ideology.
• Moderate level of political
participation by voters.
According • A consensus among Elites.
• Congress system (1947-1989)
to MP • Coalition System (since 1989) • Features of 2nd Phase
Singh,
• Breakdown of nationalist consensus.
• Rise of Regional aspirations.
• High level of voters’ participation.
Zoya Hasan • Association by subaltern classes to
• Phase 1: One party dominant
classifies system represent themselves rather than to
Indian party • Phase 2: Multiparty system. be represented.
system into
Why Fragmentation?

E Sridharan • Growing politicization of social cleavages along

talks about regional lines in 1960s due to centralisation in
congress.

seven • Delinking of Parliamentary and State assembly issues

since 1971.

reasons • Political consciousness and news social forces.

• Disillusionment with congress politics.

behind • Division of powers between centre and states at

asymmetrical level.

such • Role of caste and religion in politics leading to more

fragmentation.
• Systemic properties of FPTP – Duverger’s “law.
progress
Analysis of Indian National Congress
Reasons for the dominance of Congress Factors or causes of the breakdown
system of the congress system :
• Legacy of National movement.
• State re-organisation led to the rise of
• Role of Gandhi.
dominant castes.
• The organisational strength.
• Role of Nehru :
• Green revolution led to the rise of
intermediate caste.
• He promoted intellectual debates.
• Leadership of Nehru could arrest • Prosperous shared political power while
disruptive forces. majority remained poor.
• Congress maintained centralist stand • Democratic upsurge.
• Congress rejected communal and • Indira Gandhi didn’t enjoy legitimacy on
communalists agenda. par with Nehru.
• Nehru maintained intra-party democracy, • Centralisation of powers in the hands of
freedom of speech and freedom of one person within the party.
expression.
• Nehru could gain confidence of minority. • Emergency .
• Nehru could convince that only congress • Failure of congress to fulfil the promises
can ensure the survival of the country. of social and economic development.
 Current Status of Congress

• Suhas Palshikar calls present state not just decline of Congress but demise of
congress.
• 2014 election has been the worst performance of congress. Worse than post-
emergency election.
• Congress party which got absolute majority in 1984 election could not get enough
majority to form the govt after 1989.
• It led to the beginning of coalition politics at union level. Congress reached to a
situation where it required the help of other parties for the survival of govt.
• In 2014 election, congress lost even from the traditional congress states like
Maharashtra, Haryana and Delhi.
• In terms of social base, congress support base among STs and Muslim remain intact.
In 1996, 36% Muslims and 36% STs voted for congress and in 2014 it was 38%
from both.
• Congress support has considerably declined among other sections. In 1996, 25%
upper caste and 20% OBCs vote reduced to 13% and 15% respectively in 2014.
42% SCs vote reduced to 28%.
• Congress was once a “Catch all party” in past and now becoming “Catch none” party.
Analysis of BJP

It is a successor In 1st general Ideology :

The objective
of Jan Sangh election, the • Cultural
founded by of Jan Sangh vote share nationalism.
BJP was was to
formed on
Shayama Prasad was of 3.2% BJS - Janata • Gandhian
Mukherjee in develop while in the Parivar - socialism.
5th April 1951, the other strong 4th general • Integral
1980. prominent opposition to BJP in 1984
leader was Deen election, vote humanism and
Dayal
Nehru share jumped Antyodaya.
Upadhayay. (Congress).
to 9.4%.
Rise of BJP
Year Seat Share Vote Share
1984 2 7.40%
1989 88 11.56%
1991 120 20.95%
1996 161 20.30%
1998 182 25.54%
1999 183 23.07%
2004 138 22.16%
2009 116 18.80%
2014 282 31.50%
2019 303 38%
Reasons for Rise of BJP
— Decline of congress.
— Failure of left. According to Christophe
Jaffrelot the feeling of
— Effective Leadership. insecurity among Hindus
— Organisational strength of because of neglect of congress
RSS also served as a cause.
— Nationalist Rhetoric.
— Support from NRIs.
— Globalisation and According to Thomas Hansen
popularisation of identity “Saffron waves” caught middle
consciousness. class youth becoming anxious
— BJPs economic program. because of Globalisation and
— Muscular foreign policy. Democratic upsurge in the
Lower class.
Status of Left Front in India
The Left Front, comprises of the Communist Party of
It enjoyed its golden
India (CPI), the Communist Party of India (Marxist-
Leninist), the All India Forward Bloc (AIFB), the period in electoral
politics in the 1990s and
Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the
Revolutionary Socialist Party. early 2000s.

In 2019 for the first time since In West Bengal, it failed

1952 the Left Front did not In Kerala, it managed
to win even one seat, its
end up with double digits in
vote share reduced to a only one seat, its vote
the general election. It has share is around 32 per
been reduced to 5 Seats in paltry 7 per cent from 23
per cent in 2014. cent.
Parliament.

2014 election was one of

the worst performance of The best performance of
left getting just 12 seats Left was in 2004 when
and total vote share of they got 64 seats.
4.8%.
Causes for the decline of Left
— Role in national movement.
According to Prof Apoorvanand
— Left front lacks coherence.
• When we talk of the Left's relevance, we have to
— Rigid organisational hierarchy. differentiate between the Left ideology and the Left-
leaning political parties.
— Agenda hijacked by congress.
• The Left ideology is based on equality and the parties
— NEP. have not been able to reach out to the people and
explain it.
— Class v Religion-Caste. • They are in electoral politics, but they never prepared
themselves for it.
— Left in India lacks confident to • They have never fought for power at the Centre. They
emerge as an independent have never contested over 100 seats. So, they are
political force perceived by the voter to be an ally, a regional force,
never the prospective ruling party at the Centre.
— They prefer to be the part of • Their flaw also lies in the fact that they think that the
Left ideology has an answer to all problems. Due to
the 3rd front. this arrogance, they have failed to reinvent themselves
with the changing times.
Coalition politics
Coalition is “Power sharing arrangement”.

Coalition politics is not new in India. Congress itself was a grand coalition or rainbow
coalition.

In technical sense coalition politics started in the states first. The coalition culture at
the state level is mature.

Problems in Indian coalition

• It’s not just limited to the coalition culture rather the problem is in India’s parliamentary democracy.
• Political corruption/Defections.
• Lack of ethics.
• Lack of transparency.
• Lack of culture of dialogue.
• Consensus make working of coalition difficult.
Consequences of Coalition
Negative Positive
• Makes democracy more
• Increase in money and muscle representative
power. • Protects democracy in turning into
• Decline of parliament. the tyranny of majority
• Weak PMO. • Regional aspiration can be articulated
• Political Defections and Horse-
trading .
• Policy paralysis
According to former P.M Man
• Judicial activism
Mohan Singh the problem of
• Presidential activism coalition politics has solution of
• Political instability ethics. The problem lies not in
• Threat to national security the coalition but lack of
• Lack of consensus in foreign policy. “Coalition Dharma”.
Western and Indian coalition – Bidyut
Chakraborty.
Coalition in India Coalition in West
• Coalition by “Political
calculation” searching for • Coalition by design.
design. • Coalition are formed to
• Coalition have been formed to run the govt.
stop some party from coming
to power. • Minimum winning
• Oversized coalition are coalition.
formed. • Ideological coherence
• Ideology is not a exists.
consideration.
• Unstable Coalitions. • Stable coalitions.
Third Front in India
— It is a fluid category in indian Third front is normally formed before elections.
politics.
— Primarily an alliance of regional In 2014, 14 parties combined to give strong balance
parties. to communal BJP but dissolved in 24 hrs.
— Often lack ideological coherence.
In 2019 Similar progress was seen however, third
— They do have significance at the front could not be formed.
state level and decent vote share at
the national level.
Weakness of Third Front
— They could form govt. at national
level twice : • Too many prominent leaders.
— 1989 – United front govt. • Parochial in their approach.
— 1996 – National front govt. • Political Opportunism.
• No ideology.
— However, they could not run the
• Open to join any alliance.
govt. more than 2 years • Constituent Parties mostly regional.
Pressure groups in India
— These are associations of people formed to articulate their interest.
— Pressure group v. political parties
— Political parties have a role of interest aggregation whereas pressure groups
have a role of interest articulation (their own interest). Pressure groups
remain outside from the govt offices and pressurise from outside whereas
political parties join political institutions/govt institutions.
— Every pressure groups is an interest group but not the vice versa.
— According to Gabriel Almond, there are 4 types of pressure groups.
— 1. Institutional Pressure groups (army and business associations).
— 2. Non-associational Pressure groups.
— 3. Associational Pressure groups.
— 4. Anomic Pressure groups (terrorist organization, criminal gang).
Role of Pressure Groups in India
— Congress System
— The status of other parties was like that of pressure groups.
— Most powerful pressure groups then and even now are institutionalists.
— Associational pressure groups didn’t have much significance due to lack of
Free market economy.
— Rise of communal pressure groups based on caste and religion is significant
during this period.
— After 1991
— We see the decline of institutional pressure groups and rise of associational
pressure groups.
— Corporate class is now playing an important role in policymaking.
— India is also becoming deformed polyarchy.
— We have also seen the rise of Anomic pressure groups because of rising civil
society activism in the country.
Views of Scholars
— Rajni Kothari:
— He considers Pressure groups as the source of political modernisation, the reservoir of political
leadership. His analysis is more relevant for the Pressure group politics till the 1990s. He mentions the
domination of communal (community-based) pressure groups.
— Myron Weiner :
— In his book ‘Politics of scarcity’ has traced the evolution of pressure group politics to the national
movement. Congress itself was a pressure group in beginning. Out of all pressure groups, caste-based
pressure groups had been powerful. The trade union has been not so powerful because of an active role
of govt. in industries.
— Christophe Jaffrelot
— The influence of caste-based and community-based pressure groups has been the greatest in Indian
political setup.
— Professor Anand Chakraborty
— He believes that GoI should have been more accommodative of Pressure Groups. This would have
addressed the problem of alienation to large extent. In India, many pressure groups have been banned
under unlawful activities, preventive detention act.
— Robert Hardgrave and Stanley Kochanek:
— According to them, India has moved from state-dominated pluralism to more active pressure group
politics.
Voting Behavior in India
— Psephology: Study of Voting behavior has promoted because of behavioural movement in Political
science. Election studies help us in knowing the nature of democracy, strategizing party
programmes.
— Milan Vaishnav:
— It is a very challenging task to study the electoral behaviour of Indians because of size and diversity.
— One of the earliest work on the voting behaviour of Indians was conducted by David Butler, Pranav
Roy and Ashok Lahiri. David Butler in his book “India decides” have shown that the voting behaviour
of Indians is much mature than their counterparts in western countries. He has praised the sensible
voting by Indian voters. Elections have ensured that governments in India changed in a peaceful
manner rather than coups and revolutionary actions.
— CP Bhambri:
— There is a decline in western countries in participation in election that they’ve to go for compulsory
voting. However, in India there is an increase in voting in each successive elections.
— M.P Singh:
— The real credit for the success of India’s democracy goes to the great political wisdom shown by even
ordinary voters. We can’t say that voters’ verdict was not appropriate in any election.
— Mukulika Banerjee:
— In her ethnographic study titled “Why India votes?” tries to answer the basic question of why people
participate in such a huge no. when they know that participation won’t translate into any real change.
Voting Trends
— Lokniti-CSDS
— Corruption.
— Economic growth.
— Welfare policies
— Anti-incumbency
— Gender difference
— Rural v Urban.
— It can be said that choices of voters have become almost frozen.
— Indians give preference to caste & religion.
— Only floating voters make the difference.
— Kenneth Arrow in his impossibility theorem has suggested that it is difficult to determine
the preferences when more than 3 choices are available.
— Scholars like Christophe Jaffrelot, Rajni Kothari have shown that the long-term
determinant of voting behaviour in India is caste and religion.
— Professor YogendraYadav, suggests that people are going for identity plus politics. Along
with identity they are also concerned about governance and development.