Party system 300+

Party system
• Role of political parties in a democracy - Govt formation; opposition; Public interest mobilisation and articulation (Gabriel Almond & Powell
model); Political socialisation (from politically inactive to mass politicized society); Political modernisation
• Unique features of Indian parties
◦ Zoya Hasan - No concern for ideology - 'catch all' parties;
◦ Paul Brass - Paradoxical features - western in organisation with posts like secretaries & chairpersons, but Indian in functioning -> lack
intra-party democracy
◦ Yogendra Yadav - Office oriented than policy oriented - ignored broader agenda of nation building
◦ Christophe Jaffrelot - centralised vote-fetching machines
• Changing trends
◦ Party system - number of parties having systemic relevance (Sartori)
◦ India - always multiple parties - but not multiparty system
◦ Till 1967 (Congress phase)
▪ Morris Jones - One party dominant system => Rajni Kothari 'Congress system'
▪ Status of other parties - pressure groups (Jan Sangh 1951 - opposition)
▪ Reasons for Congress hegemony - a) Legacy of INM b) Association of Gandhi c) Nehru's charisma - attracted minorities too
◦ 1967 - 1989 (breakdown of Congress)
▪ Lost elections in 9 states
▪ Reasons for breakdown
• Internal
◦ Death of charismatic leaders - Nehru & Shastri - internal fault lines ([Link] INC(R) & Morarji Desai INC(O))
◦ Deinstituitonalization of democracy, Centralisation of power; since 1972, no intra-party elections
◦ Reliance on loyalists; lost touch with grassroot leadership
• External
◦ Linguistic re-organisation of states - regional parties (Ex:- DMK -> linguistic nationalism -> brought it to power in 1967)
◦ Green revolution - dominant caste (M.N Srinivas) -
◦ 1st democratic upsurge (Yogendra Yadav) - OBC came to organise themselves independently
◦ 1989 - 2014 (era of coalition)
◦ 2014 - now (BJP phase)
▪ Suhas Palshilar -> fourth party system = system defining party
• 'Hindutva plus' = Hindu nationalism and developmentalism
▪ Causes for BJP system
• Organisational strength till grassroot level
• Nationalist rhetoric
• Strong leadership
• Globalisation & growth of middle class - strong NRI support
• Thomas Blom Hansen - part of global phenomena of rise of right - nationalism, security concerns Terrorism, welfare policies, etc.
Patterns of coalition politics
• Feature of parliamentary form of government. Hung assembly. William Riker - ‘power sharing arrangement’
• Janata Party govt 1977 was first coalition of many non-Congress parties. Regular feature at state level since 4th general elections (1967).
• National level from 1989 onwards.
◦ National Front govt (1989) and United Front govt (1996)
◦ NDA (1999-2004) - first non-Congress coalition to have completed full term
• Bidyut Chakravarty in book - "Winning the Mandate"
◦ minimum winning coalition vs ‘oversized coalition’ (due to distrust)
◦ In western, ideological convergence. In India Rainbow coalition. (Different ideology).
▪ In Kerala election 2021 - Congress and CPI(M) were opponents, but were coalition partners in Bengal.
◦ In case of India, negative coalitions - not to run the government but to stop someone else from coming to power.
▪ Coalitions were formed to keep others out of power (National Front - keep Congress out; United Front - keep BJP out)
• Support coalition govts
◦ P. Chidambaram - inclusive politics by giving representation to marginalized sections like Muslim & Dalit based parties, which otherwise
find it difficult to access power on their own
◦ More accountable and responsible
◦ Yogendra Yadav - Unstable minority govt are preferable over single party autocratic regimes, because they create a culture of political
consultation and consensus
• Some of the negative consequences are:
◦ Policy paralysis; Tough decisions like Demonestisation cannot be taken
◦ Horse trading; Defection; money role

R Jayasimha Reddy | AIR 46 CSE 2024

 ◦ Weakening of institution of PM. (M.P Singh - In a coalition, there are more than one PMs. For a particular faction, their own leader is PM).
• Former PM Manmohan Singh used to suggest that India lacks Coalition Dharma.
• PM Vajpayee govt (1996) had dissolve within 13 days as coalition partners withdrew support.
• Coalition itself is not bad -> makes democracy more representative, consociational.
• However may impact national interest of country if it does not have healthy coalition culture.
• German model of constructive vote of no confidence to provide stability to the govt
• Regular consultative mechanism with all the members of the coalition. There is a need for reforming anti-defection laws.
Increasing role of regional parties
• Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) were founded even before 1947.
• Picked up particularly after 1967 with the beginning of breakdown of Congress system
• Causes for the rise of regional parties
◦ There are institutional factors
▪ Delinking of parliamentary and state legislative elections. It has given opportunities for Regional parties for mobilization of people on
local issues.
▪ Linguistic reorganisation of states has - language based regional parties.
▪ Misuse of Art 356 -> strengthened regionalism (Sarkaria Commission)
◦ Socio-economic factors
▪ Green Revolution -> new dominant caste -> supported local parties to enhance their clout
▪ Post Mandal commission report - BSP, SP (UP) & RJD (Bihar)
▪ Perceived injustice - Telangana (TRS)
▪ Chairismatic personality of regional leaders like Nitish kumar, Mamta banerjee, Naveen patnaik
• Regionalization of Indian political party system has resulted into both negative as well as positive consequences.
◦ Regionalization has strengthened the federal axis of Indian political system. It has strengthened the bargaining power of state
governments.
▪ 10th FC - ADS; 14th FC - 42%
◦ Political empowerment - Bahujan Samaj Party was in power in UP four times
◦ Undemocratic - personality clout of leader (KCR - TRS; Akhilesh Yadav - SP)
◦ Coalition politics in the absence of healthy coalition culture.
◦ Regional issues dominate over national integration concerncs - unresolved water and border disputes
• Third front
◦ Primarily the collection of regional parties. 3rd front is a fluid category. It’s combination keeps on changing.
◦ 3rd front has also formed government at the union level 2 times - In 1989, National Front Govt. (with the support of BJP); United Front
Govt. in 1996, with the support of Congress.
◦ However, 3rd front could never provide stable government.
◦ It emerges before elections and dissolves after elections.
◦ In 2019 elections, 3rd front was formed under the banner of Federal Front. And even Congress was part of it. It was, however, ineffective
to influence election outcome.
◦ Problems with 3rd front:
▪ Too many leaders.
▪ Opportunism.
▪ Too parochial in their approach.
▪ Lack nationalist agenda.
◦ 3rd front is not insignificant. significant share of votes and presence at state level.
◦ Since 3rd front represents OBCs as well as other sections like Muslims, Dalits, 3rd front is always an important force.
Marginalization of Left
• Praful Bidwai, in his book "CHALLENGES CONFRONTING INDIAN LEFT". Suggests that the decline of left is an old story.
• CPI(M) and CPI together - 64 seats in 2004 to only 5 seats in 2019 to marginal increase to 6 in 2024
• Initially left was the major opposition to the Congress. It’s vote share was double the vote share of Jan Sangh (rightist party).
• Today, successor of Jan Sangh - BJP has majority of its own. But, the left has got completely marginalized.
• Left once ruled Tripura, West Bengal & Kerala, but now confined to Kerala [CPI(M)]
• It is surprising that left in India could never take root despite the prevalence of mass poverty.
• Reasons:
◦ They are dependent on imported doctrines. Left has not presented any serious understanding of the peculiar circumstances of Indian
Politics - caste, not economic structure is the basic structure
◦ Contrary to their ideology, Left parties in India have high command culture. They do not allow dissent and internal debate.
◦ Left leaders do not have grassroot base, most of them were picked up from universities.
◦ Left agenda was initially hijacked by INC and now by AAP. Congress presented a better version of socialism suitable to Indian context.
◦ Globalization has made left ideology redundant. Left ideology does not meet the ambitions of youth in India.
◦ Left foreign policy is based on anti-globalization, anti-Americanism and pro-Chinese stand.
◦ Left lost in W.B. because the left govt. used force against its own people and favoured its adversarial class (corporate class) during Nano
protests.
◦ Due to footloose industry and rise of gig economy, idea of trade unions is also changing
• Indian left needs introspection. They have to revive the original idea of left politics i.e. politics of social movement, radical democracy,

R Jayasimha Reddy | AIR 46 CSE 2024

 organizing the exploited sections of society and working for their rights
• Why left in Kerala
◦ Changing nature of Left
◦ Transformation of CPM from an ideological party to an electoral force shedding ideological preoccupatons
◦ Left ended the politics of confrontation between the landowners and the peasants, and between the industrial workers and the
industrialists and took slogans that resonated with middle class aspirations
◦ the CPM projected one leader, Pinarayi Vijayan, eclipsing all others including its central leadership
Political personalities
• In gen - parties have greater sig in parliamentary sust & personal in presidential
• Excessive dep on personalitybrings multiple fears - deinstitutionalisation of party syst; perversion of dem into mobocracy; syst implications
like parliamentray syst becoming presid feature
• In the interest of Ind dem, essent to institutionalise pol parties, need to revive ideological polittics
Pressure groups
• Pressure groups are organisations formed to protect and promote interests of its members by influencing government policies. In
democracy, they perform the vital role of interest articulation. Samuel Finer calls them as 'invisible empires'.
• Study of [Link] is of important concern for scholars of pluralist theory of democracy.
• Myron Weiner ("Politics of scarcity") -> p. groups do not get enough attention from bureaucracy & state -> propensity for extra
constitutional methods -> Shekatkari Sangathan (1980s) rose to national importance -> 'Rasta roko'
• However, some P. groups -> meaningful role -> such as PUCL, PUDR; Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan; MKSS - RTI etc.
• Rajni Kothari argues P. groups -> agents of modernisation & reservoir of leadership -> Jan Lokpal movement - Arvind Kejriwal, Anna
Hazare.
• They strengthened non-party politics.
• Some prominent works include:
1. Rudolph & Rudolph -> Caste associations
2. Robert Hardgrave & Stanley Kochanak -> student organisations, women organisations & trade unions
• Farmers groups:
◦ 43% of workforce -> influential pressure group.
◦ According to Sudhai Pai, post Green Revolution period, numerous pressure groups of rich farmer organisations like BKU.
◦ Demands of farmer pressure groups - increase in MSP, fertiliser subsidies, public procurement -> major issues. Since 1990s -> WTO &
liberalisation -> new issues such as protection from international competition -> recent RCEP
◦ The farmers’ organizations have used methods like offering support to the political parties during the elections, staging protests
◦ The farmers’ organizations succeeded in many places increasing the wage rates for agriculture labourers, securing price rise and
agricultural export policies, and ensuring farmer issues remain relevant in public discourse.
◦ Farmers pressure groups have been effective at state level such as securing loan waivers
◦ Samyukta Kisan Morcha -> Even though there are some important All India farmers associations like All India Kisan Congress, Akhila
Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, peasant groups have been mainly organised on territorial basis. The interplay of language, caste factor, vast agro-
biodiversity, etc. have been greatly responsible for non-emergence of national-level pressure groups. Lack of all-India leadership -> most
visible during the ongoing protests where except from North West, farmers of rest of the country remained untouched.
◦ Lack of any radical agenda - largely have been reactive short-term demands like crop loan waivers & free electricity but didn't push for
structural reforms. These organizations have become a tool for the vote bank politics.
◦ Farmers pressure groups are an indispensable element of the democratic process. It is very essential for the government to consult these
farmers’ organised groups at the time of policy formulation and implementation.
Trends in electoral behaviour
• “ Electoral behaviour is a field of study concerned with the ways in which people tend to vote in public elections and the reasons why they
vote as they do“ - Plano and riggs. It is a result of development of behaviouralism in political theory.
• Electoral behaviour in India is a challenging task because of its size and diversity
• Caste, religion, language (DMK, TDP), region (BJD, TMC)
• Personality
• Money
• Performance - anti incumbency
• Party identification- people who identify themselves with a particular party will always vote for the party irrespective of its omissions and
commissions
• Ideology- Some people are committed to certain ideologies like communism , capitalism, democracy, secularism etc
• Political events preceding an election like war, murder of a leader, corruption scandal
• Economic conditions at the time of election like inflation, food shortage, unemployment
• Electoral behaviour helps in comprehending the process of political socialisation,internalisation of democracy and assess the real impact of
revolutionary ballot box
Changing socio-economic profile of legislators
• One of the reasons for adopting parliamentary form of govt - ensure representation to all sections of society. Edmund Burke - Parliament is
the microcosm of society
• Studying changing profile -> allows us to understand whether parliament is inclusive &
• Shankar and Rodrigues have divided the changing profile of MPs in 3 phases
◦ 1st Phase. Till 1967

R Jayasimha Reddy | AIR 46 CSE 2024

 ▪ Brahmins dominated the parliament. Reservation of SC/ST ensured their presence.
▪ Women and minorities were under represented.
▪ Graduates from foreign universities
▪ Lawyers were more in number and the 2nd position was of agricultaralists.
◦ 2nd Phase. 1967 – 1989.
▪ State reorganization, green revolution and deepening of democracy, there was a rise of intermediate caste. A phenomenon described
by Yogendra Yadav as 1st democratic upsurge.
▪ Agriculturalists were in majority and 2nd was of social service members.
▪ Politics became the full time profession. The trend started because of JP movement
▪ Sanjay Gandhi youth congress. Youth entered the politics at the time of career formation
▪ Nothing changed as far as the representation of minorities.
▪ Representation of women got stagnated around 8-10% of total seats.
◦ 3rd Phase. From 1989
▪ The phase of plebianization (mobocracy).
▪ Prof. Yogendra Yadav explains it through the term ‘2nd democratic upsurge’. Share of OBC increased significantly due to
implementation of Mandal commission report. From being less than 10% to about 25% in 1991 in Lok Sabha - OBC
▪ In terms of profession, by agriculturalists and social workers; lawyers - almost vanished
▪ Since 1990s, phenomenon known as ‘criminalization of Indian politics’.
• 16th LS vs 17th LS
◦ Agricultural background - 27% vs 38%
◦ Business - 20% vs 23%
◦ age- 59 years vs 54 years
◦ Criminal cases - 34% vs 43%
◦ Women MPs - 11.3% vs 14% (78 women MPs)
• 17th LS
◦ 85% crorepatis in 17th LS
◦ 4.5% Muslims in a 14% population
◦ 43% have criminal record with 29% having serious charges against them like rape,murder,sexual assault- ADR
▪ Political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot has remarked that in India people are under rule of money and muscle power rather than under
the rule of law.
◦ 43% upper castes; 22% OBC; 16% SC; 9% ST
◦ A quarter of all MPs (138 out of 542) belong to political families
• Good
◦ education (Since 1996, at least 75% of representatives of each Lok Sabha have been graduates - mirror the larger trend across the
country; the literacy rate has increased from 18% in 1951 to 74% in 2011)
◦ profession (agri, social workers; lawyers - vanished);
◦ Women slight improvement (4.4% to 14%)
• Bad - Christophe Jaffrelot ("Profiling the 17th Lok Sabha") - Despite the rhetoric of inclusiveness, India's parliament remains as elitist as
ever. Lok Sabha is an assembly dominated by men, mostly Hindu, disproportionately upper-caste, a significant number of whom belong to
political families.
◦ Upper caste
◦ Religion - 91% of MPs are Hindus (for a share of 82% of the population), against 4.4% Muslims (who make up 14% of the population),
decline from 5.3% in 2009.
◦ Women low - With 78 women out of 542 seats (14.6%), India stands behind Rwanda and Bangladesh
▪ Modest rise in women’s representation is the decision taken by two major regional parties – the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the
Biju Janata Dal (BJD) — to distribute a third of their tickets to women candidates
◦ Dynasticism - A quarter of all MPs (138 out of 542) belong to political families
◦ Rich - 85% crorepatis in 17th LS
◦ Other -
▪ age (increasing - Over the years, the average age of the Lok Sabha from 46.5 years for the first Lok Sabha to 54 years for the current
one)
▪ criminalisation
▪ India’s Parliament sees a high turnover of its members. Consistently since the 1960s, at least half of all parliamentarians in any given
election are first-time MPs
• Prof. Bidyut Chakraborty - unfortunately changing SE profile hasn't added to substance and depth in parliamentary proceedings & quality
of legislative output
• Reason for lack of inclusiveness - selection of candidates on the basis of winnability. Choices are constrained by the candidates supplied
by parties
• Problem with lack of inclusiveness - socio-economic background of elected representatives shape their general outlook on choices

R Jayasimha Reddy | AIR 46 CSE 2024