INTRODUCTION:

Today’s party system in Indian politics tends to explain about today’s or the present prevailing party system. Before going into details, to brief up about Party system, it is a pattern of political order which all parties accept and runs accordingly. Right from the origin of parties in international context to the features of political parties in India, it gives an idea of the formal structure of political parties and the criteria to be recognized as a political party. This paper’s aim is to reveal the present condition of the Indian political parties who are active not only in forming government but also to show their limitations as party in opposition.

Also, it throws light on the polices and decisions taken for the country which is the outcome of their party’s political ideology. It questions as if the loyalty towards one’s party will bring any growth or welfare to the country. No doubt Election Commission has tried to bring changes in the electoral process and has drawn its attention to the middle class and other sections of society (to vote) so that they will actively take part in strengthening democracy but it seems as if nothing has changed from the side of citizens (Jayal, 2001). Taking advantage of this attitude, political parties compromise with values, ethics, and morality to win elections. Indian politics is a field of multi-party competition but the pattern through which the country is governed is all same whosoever party comes to power. Dynastic rule, splitting citizens by associating them with various castes and religion, purchasing media for election campaign etc. will remain common elements for various parties of Indian politics (Eldersveldet al.,1978; Brass et al., 1985, Rao, 2009).

One-party system: a one-party system cannot produce a political system as we would identify it in Britain. One party cannot produce any other system other than autocratic dictatorial power. A state where one party rules would include the remaining communist states of the World (Cuba, North Korea and China), and Iraq (where the ruling party is the Ba’ath Party). The old Soviet Union was a one-party state. One of the more common feature of a one-party state is that the position of the ruling party is guaranteed in a constitution and all forms of political opposition are banned by law. The ruling party controls all aspects of life within that state. The belief that a ruling party is all important to a state came from Lenin who believed that only one party – the Communists – could take the workers to their ultimate destiny and that the involvement of other parties would hinder this progress (Lijphart, 1996).Two-party system: as the title indicates, this is a state in which just two parties dominate. Other parties might exist but they have no political importance. America has the most obvious two-party political system with the Republicans and Democrats dominating the political scene. For the system to work, one of the parties must obtain a sufficient working majority after an election and it must be in a position to be able to govern without the support from the other party. A rotation of power is expected in this system. The victory of George W Bush in the November 2000 election, fulfils this aspect of the definition. The two-party system presents the voter with a simple choice and it is believed that the system promotes political moderation as the incumbent party must be able to appeal to the ‘floating voters’ within that country (Yadav, 2007). Those who do not support the system claim that it leads to unnecessary policy reversals if a party loses an election as the newly elected government seeks to impose its ‘mark’ on the country that has just elected it to power. Such sweeping reversals, it is claimed, cannot benefit the state in the short and long term. The multi-party system: as the title suggests, this is a system where more than two parties have some impact in a state’s political life. Though the Labour Party has a very healthy majority in Westminister, its power in Scotland is reasonably well balanced by the power of the SNP (Scots Nationalist Party); in Wales within the devolutionary structure, it is balanced by Plaid Cymru; in Northen Ireland by the various Unionists group and Sein Fein.

Within Westminister, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats provide a healthy political rivalry. Sartori defines a multi-party system as one where no party can guarantee an absolute majority. In theory, the Labour Party, regardless of its current parliamentary majority, could lose the next general election in Britain in 2006. Even its current majority of 167 can’t guarantee electoral victory in the future. A multi-party system can lead to a coalition government as Germany and Italy have experienced. In Germany these have provided reasonably stable governments and a successful coalition can introduce an effective system of checks and balances on the government that can promote political moderation. Also, many policy decisions take into account all views and interest. In Italy, coalition governments have not been a success; many have lasted less than one year. In Israel, recent governments have relied on the support of extreme minority groups to form a coalition government and this has created its own problems with such support being withdrawn on a whim or if those extreme parties feel that their own specific views are not being given enough support. Dominant-party system: this is different from a one-party system. A party is quite capable within the political structure of a state, to become dominant to such an extent that victory at elections is considered a formality. This was the case under the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. For 18 years (1979 to 1997, one party dominated politics in Britain. In theory, the Conservatives could have lost any election during these 18 years. But such was the disarray of them opposition parties – especially Labour – that electoral victory was all but guaranteed. The elections of 1980’s and 1990’s, were fought with competition from other parties – hence there can be no comparison with a one-party state (Yadav, 2007). During an extended stay in power, a dominant party can shape society through its policies. During the Thatcher era, health, education, the state ownership of industry etc. were all massively changed and re-shaped. Society changed as a result of these political changes and this can only be done by a party having an extended stay in office.

Political Parties:

A political party is an organized group of people who exercise their legal right to identify with a set of similar political aims and opinions, and one that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office. Even though the presentation of candidates and the electoral campaign are the functions that are most visible to the electorate, political parties fulfill many other vital roles in a democratic society. They are also institutionalized mediators between civil society and the duly-elected representatives who decide and implement policy (Rao, 2009). For example, political party-affiliated legislators who meet with civil society representatives to solicit individual (or organizational) opinion in the public policy formulation process. By this, they enable their members and supporters demands to be represented in parliament and in government. Key tasks of political parties include the following:

1. Solicit and prioritize needs and policy priorities as identified by members and supporters.

2. Familiarize and educate voters and citizens in the functioning of the political and electoral system and in generating general political values.

3. Educate and train party members and leadership on an ongoing basis.

4. Balance opposing demands and convert them into general policies.

5. Activate and mobilize citizens towards political participation while demonstrating how they can transform public opinion into viable policy options.

6. Channel public opinion from citizens to government.

7. Recruit and train candidates for public office.

Internal Functioning of Political Parties:

The internal functioning of individual political parties is somewhat determined by external forces such as the domestic electoral system, political culture, and legal regulations. Overall, however, it is internal processes that are the deciding factor in this process. Factors that influence a political party from within include the personality of party leaders and staff, the ideological foundations, party history, and internal political culture. Application of democratic principles and processes applied within a party structure include internal information and consultation processes, internal (formal or informal) rules and bylaws, the internal organization and decision-making structure, and transparency in the party’s functioning at all levels (Rao, 2009). Party members may also take on more formal roles in decision-making such as participating in internal elections for leadership positions or in selecting the party’s candidates(s) to stand in upcoming elections. Many parties also work actively to enhance the role of traditionally under-represented groups in their parties. Gender balance in party membership and adequate internal representation by women in the party’s organizational and governing structures is often reflected in the caliber and quantity of women put forth as part of party-based candidate lists.

Features of Political Parties in India:

As compared to other democratic countries India has a large number of political parties, it has been estimated that over 200 parties were formed after India became independent in 1947. One feature of the political parties in India is that the parties are generally woven around their leaders, the leaders actively playing a dominant role, the role of leadership can be transferred and tends to take dynastic route. Such parties include both national and regional parties, parties such as Indian National Congress (INC) has been led by Nehru-Gandhi dynasty since independence, starting from Jawaharlal Nehru who dominated the INC and led it to victory in three consecutive elections. After a brief interlude of the Prime Ministership of Lal Bahadur Shastri, Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister. After the split in the Congress party in 1969 she formed her own Indian National Congress (Ruling). After a further split, she formed the Congress (Indira) or Congress (I). Indira remained the leader of the party until her death in 1984, when her son Rajiv Gandhi took the reins and after his death his widow Sonia Gandhi, the current leader of INC took command (Lokniti, 2004). As a result of such dominance, the leaders of political parties of the country tend to take an autocratic tone. One other major feature of the political parties is that, except the communist parties, most of the political parties of India lack an ideological basis. Instead political parties in India are formed on the basis of race, religion, language, caste etc. factors, thus the high number of political parties (Brass, 1985).

A Historical Overview of the Major Political Parties of India:

India initially doesn’t have so many political parties. Earlier there was only one-party dominance in the country, it was Indian National Congress. INC was formed before independence in 1885 and this party gave roots to many other parties which are presently influencing and shaping major political parties of India. The Congress Socialist Party (CSP was formed within the Congress in 1934 by a group of young leaders who wanted a more radical and egalitarian Congress. In 1948, the Congress amended its constitution to present its member from having a dual-party membership. This forced the Socialists to form a separate Socialist Party in 1948. This Party went through many splits and reunion leading to the formation of many socialist parties. Many parties in contemporary India, like Samajwadi Party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, Janata Dal (United) and the Janata Dal Secular trace their origins to the Socialist Party (Rao, 2009).

From 1935, the Communists worked mainly from within the fold of the INC. A parting of ways took place in December 1941, when the communists decided to support the British in their was against Nazi Germany. Unlike other non-congress parties, the CPI had a well-oiled machinery and dedicated cadre at the time of Independence. Soon after independence the party thought that the transfer of power in 1947 was not true independence and encouraged violent uprisings in Telangana. But it failed to generated popular support and was crushed by the armed forces. In 1951, the Communist Party abandoned the path of violent revolution and decided to participate in the approaching general elections. The party went through a major split in 1964 which formed CPI and CPI (M). The Bharatiya Jana Sangh was formed in 1951. Its lineage can be traced back to the RashtriyaSwayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Hindu Mahasabha. The party was in forefront of the agitation to replace English with Hindi as the official language of India and was also opposed to the granting of concessions to religious and cultural minorities. The Bharatiyajanata Party traces its roots to the Bharatiya Jana Sangh.

Criteria of Recognition for Political Parties in India:

There are two types of political parties in India – National Party and Regional / State party. Every political party must bear a symbol and must be registered with the Election Commission of India.

In the current amendment to the Symbols Order, the Commission, has infused the following five principles, which, in its view, should govern the polity in the country, situate as it is in its present state:

1. Legislative presence is a must for recognition as a National or State party.

2. For a National party, it must be the legislative presence in the Lok Sabha, and, for a State party, the legislative presence must be reflected in the State Assembly.

3. In any election, a party can set up a candidate only from amongst its own members.

4. A party, that loses its recognition, shall not lose its symbol immediately, but shall be given the facility to use that symbol for some time to try and retrieve its status. [However, the grant of such facility to the party to use its symbol will not mean the extension of other facilities to it, as are available to recognized parties, like, free time on Doordarshan / AIR, free supply of copies of electoral rolls, etc.]

5. Recognition should be given to a party only on the basis of its own performance in elections and not because it is a splinter group of some other recognized party.

Criteria – A political party shall be eligible to be recognized as a National party if:

1. It secures at least six percent (6%) of the valid votes polled in any four or more states, at a general election to the House of the People or, to the State Legislative Assembly; and

2. In addition, it wins at least four seats in the House of the People from any State or States OR it wins at least two percent (2%) seats in the House of the People (i.e., 11 seats in the existing House having 543 members), and these members are elected from at least three different states.

Likewise, a political party shall be entitled to be recognized as a State party, if:-

1. It secures at least six percent (6%) of the valid votes polled in the State at a general election, either to the House of the people or to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned;

2. In addition, it wins at least two seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned.

It wins at least three percent (3%) of the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State, or at least three seats in the Assembly, whichever is more. At present there are 6 national parties and over 40 state parties (Lokniti, 2004).

Role of Political Parties:

As with any other democracy, political parties represent different sections among the Indian society and regions, and their core values play a major role in the politics of India. Both the executive branch and the legislative branch of the government are run by the representatives of the political parties who have been elected through the elections. Through the electoral process, the people of India choose which representative and which political party should run the government. Through the elections any party may gain simple majority in the lower house (Yadav, 2007). Coalitions are formed by the political parties, in case no single party gains a simple majority in the lower house. Unless a party or a coalition have a majority in the lower house, a government cannot be formed by that party or the coalition. India has a multi-party system, where there are a number of national as well as regional parties. A regional party may gain a majority and rule a particular state. If a party is represented in more than 4 states, it would be labeled a national party. Out of the 66 years of India’s independence, India has been ruled by the Indian National Congress (INC) for 53 of those years.

Alliances and Coalitions:

The term “coalition” is derived from the Latin word “coalition” which means to grow together. And in political terms, it means the union of distinct parties to form a single government. Alliances: There are three alliances on a national level in India, competing with each other for the position of Government (Lokniti, 2004). The member parties work in harmony for gratifying national interests, although a party can jump ships whenever it may deem fit.

The three alliances –

National Democratic Alliance (NDA) – Centre-Right coalition led by BJP was formed in 1998 after the elections, NDA formed the government although the government didn’t last long as AIADMK withdrew support from it resulting in 1999 general elections, in which NDA won and resumed power. The coalition government went on to complete the full five years term, becoming the first non-congress government to do so. In the 2014 General Elections NDA once again returned to power for the second time, with a historic mandate of 336 out of 543 Lok Sabha seats. BJP itself won 282g seats thereby electing Narendra Modi as the head of the government.

United Progress Alliance (UPA) – Centre – Left coalition led by INC, this alliance was created after the 2004 General Elections, with the alliance forming the Government. The alliance even after losing some of its members, was reelected in 2009 General Elections with Manmohan Singh as head of the government.

Third front – The coalition of parties which do not belong to any of the above camps due to certain issues. One of the major parties in the alliance CPI (M), prior to 2009 General Elections was a member party of the UPA. The alliance has no official leading party.

Alliance Politics: Boon or Bane for Democracy?

How Did the Coalition Government Come into Existence?

Indian is a diverse country with various tribes and casts. And this gives rise to various regional political parties. But the fact of the matter is that a single political party cannot represent the whole country at the Centre. Thus, the regional parties join in with the Centre so that they can all work together, giving equal attention to both regional and national matters, forming a coalition government.

But with time, the spirit of social welfare has just disappeared because every political party want to be in power. They are no longer interested in talking about the relevant issues like education, health, unemployment, security of women, hygiene, and poverty. They are more interested in making money for themselves. Ever wonder, why a bill takes so long to be passed in the Parliament? Because none of the parties want the bill to be passed. They shout and make the house look like a vegetable market. And while the bills like the Women Empowerment bill and the Land Acquisition bill are still being discussed, the Food Security bill, is being forced onto the public. Is there no morality left? In India, the coalition of political parties was first formed in 1998 with the National Democratic Alliance. The same year, NDA coalition government was brought down by the exit of the All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam (AIADMK). Again, the coalition contested the election in 1999 and completed its term in 2004. During the NDA coalition, most of the parties were regional and they freely walked in and walked out of the coalition government. The coalition government always makes its way to the top perhaps because the era of majority government is long gone. All political parties promise social welfare and development. They express their opinions and suggestions, and justify them, but they never act on them. What is even more frustrating is that even though these parties criticize each other, when it comes to power; they act as if everything is fine and join each other as allies. For example, in the year 1993, after the assembly elections, Mayawati formed a coalition with the Samajwadi Party President Mulayam Singh Yadav as the Chief Minister. But in the year 1995, she withdrew her support from his government. Mayawati then sought the support of the BJP to become the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.

At present, the UPA government is struggling with the fact that the DMK and the Trinamool Congress have pulled out of the alliance. As per reports, several economic reforms were at risk when especially after the DMK pulled out. But then how are they managing now? The UPA has the support of outside parties like the Samajwadi Party (SP and the Bahujan Samajwadi Party (BSP) who aren’t a part of the alliance but have helped save the day. But this should be stopped. It’s not a game where one can quit any time they want. And to make sure that the government runs smoothly, they could change the model of governance to one that is more stable than the present one. For example, the German government wherein the parliament gets fixed period of four years in the constitution, irrespective of which party has the majority. Also, more than half members are directly elected. The public elect the candidates they would like for a particular post who then elect the other ministers. And since the candidate is directly elected his decisions are not to influenced by the party he or she belongs to. However, “if” we change to this model of governance the candidate’s profile should be analyzed before he or she is chosen to be elected. Though changing the model of governance in India sounds impossible, it’s not wrong. Just imagine how much will the country and the citizens benefit if this model is put into practice. Regional parties aspire to play a major national role (TMC, DMK, SP, BSP, AIADMK, Akali Dal, etc.) but their constituency has been in one state or may be, at most, in a neighbouring state (Eldersveldet al.,1978). In the case of Tamil Nadu, it is Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and SP and BSP gaining a few seats in the neighbouring states. Their demands are all state-centered and their expertise has been in fulfilling the aspirations of the people of a state.

Their national outlook is limited and understating of national issues is very different from the national parties who headed the coalitions like the BJP and Congress. Regional parties have to understand their limitations. The vastness of the country and peculiar problems faced by the states and regions are very different and it calls for different strategies to be adopted to address a state or a region’s specific problems. The regional parties can contribute significantly be being members of the coalition by highlighting the state and regional issues to the government. This will help the government in power to understand more clearly the issues. Ours is a federal from of government and the state and regional issues have to find a place in governance and the best way of doing it is through the regional parties. The regional parties can really strengthen the federal structure by bringing micro issues that have a macro impact. In the Rajya Sabha, the elected members from the states and Union territories are supposed to raise state and regional issues. In the past, coalitions had suffered due to regional problems becoming national issues such as sharing of water (Tamil Nadu and Karnataka). The UPA, in its first term, had to struggle to balance its economic policies with the Left parties who offered outside support. The nuclear agreement with USA is another issue wherein the stand of the Left parties and UPA was diametrically opposite.

UPA II faced challenges from the TMC of West Bengal who wanted to government to be anti-left every time they were in power and later took a hostile stand against the presidential candidate proposed by the UPA. Another challenge for the UPA is from the southern regional party, the DMK, which has asked the Centre to toe its line on the Sri Lankan Tamils issue. Since March 2012 through 2013 they have made their stand clear that India should support the resolution sponsored by the US against Sri Lanka in the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Though India has not taken such a stand in the past (not supporting country-specific resolutions) it was forced to take such a stand because of the pressure it received from a regional ally.

It is good for a state to discuss with the Union government what it perceives as its concerns as far as foreign policy is concerned. For instance: Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir on their concerns about Pakistan as their nighbouring country; West Bengal and northeastern states about their concerns on Bangladesh, Myanmar, Bhutan and China. The advantage of a coalition government is the building of consensus politics. Political parties who are constituents are a coalition have to subscribe to this ideology in order to keep the coalition going. Ideology is also a dividing factor in coalition politics. The coalition can either make small parties visible at the national level or remove them from the political map. The danger of major political party in a coalition becoming ‘dictatorial’ is also not ruled out. In a parliamentary form of government, the leader of the majority party becomes the Prime Minister. The leader of the majority party is elected only after the general election. So, the tendency to project a person as prime ministerial candidate goes against parliamentary form of government. This tradition may not be acceptable to coalition partners. In the life of a coalition government, partners leaving one after another either offering support from outside or pulling out altogether will create instability for the government. It is performance which speaks during election time. If the same coalition faces the election, it will be difficult for the coalition partners to place before people their ‘achievements’. The future of Indian politics lies only in coalition governments as in the past 20 years no party has secured absolute majority in Parliament. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed partners threatening the government with deadlines declared, guns held to heads, allies walking out, friends and foes interchanging at bewildering speed. Is it time then for a coalition manifesto?

How Party Politics Affects National Interest:

India today voted for the US – Sponsored UNHRC resolution against Sri Lanka for war crimes. The geopolitical implication of the act is huge. India might have ceded whatever diplomatic elbow room it had with the island nation to China, the regional superpower keen on enhancing its military presence in the sub-continent. It has also risked losing an important ally in regional and international fora. China voted against the resolution.

Why did the UPA government vote for something so potentially damaging to the interest of the nation? Well, it had to buy peace with DMK, an important constituent of the ruling political formation. The DMK – which has 18 MPs – had threatened drastic action if India did not vote for the resolution which accused Sri Lanka of atrocities against Tamils. The DMK’s stand was dictated by its political compulsion at home. Thus, it was local politics impacting India’s long-term diplomatic interests. In another development, new Railway Minister Mukul Roy reversed the fare hike announced by his predecessor Dinesh Trivedi. The latter was forced to quit after his party, the Trinamool Congress, took offence to the hike, claiming it was against the party’s philosophy. The fare hike, though a marginal one, was a brave move from Trivedi. It was applauded across the board, even the railway trade unions, as progressive. The hike would have given the much-needed revenue boost to the railways to go ahead with its proposed maintenance and safety initiatives. However, it was against Trinamool Congress Chief Mamata Banerjee’s populist brand of politics (Rao, 2009). She does not want to give rival CPM in West Bengal an issue to go public with. So, the hike had to be rolled back, against the interest of the railways. Her message: when political interests are paramount, safety is a minor concern. The safety of Indians travelling on trains is a non-issue.

It was local politics influencing the national interest in a negative way. This is the regionalized polity of India, where limited, selfish interests of political players confined to states could leave national and global interests of the country in jeopardy. With the power to bring down the government at the centre, powerful regional players could run the country from state capitals. It is a curious situation the country will soon need to find an answer to. State-based parties getting stronger is not necessarily a negative trend. States have for long been robbed off their due by the Centre and relegated to a status of insignificance. The growth of local parties with strong regional agenda is a consequence of the malicious brand of politics pursued at the Centre (Mitra, 1979). It is good if they utilize their clout-even blackmail the Central government-to extract financial benefits for the state. But where do the limited interests of the states, more specifically or regional political parties, end and national interests begin? There has to be a thick line dividing the two. For long we have seen national parties lacking a mindset that emphasizes on the betterment of states. We cannot have another situation where states ignore the interests of the country. This is certainly more dangerous.

This is not to say that all regional parties and leaders are oblivious to the interests of the nation. But in a hypothetical situation-which might turn real given the acrimonious adversarial politics of today-where state-based parties give primacy to local agenda over issues of national import, things become difficult for the nation(Mitra, 1979). Who draws the line? Well, it is not clear yet but there has to be one. The political parties must develop a consensus on basic important issues and create ‘no-go’ areas. It appears impossible given the current political situation but parties might be driven to it in case of a grave crisis.

The Condition of a Setting Sun: Decline of a National Party:

The nation has given its 2014 verdict – Narendra Modi is India’s new Prime Minister. The Bharatiya Janata Party has on its own clocked over 280 seats in the General Elections, attaining simple majority in the Lok Sabha, while the National Democratic Alliance has won more than 330.The Congress, on the other hand, has been reduced to a mere 44 seats –its worst performance ever in the history of independent India (Dikshit,1993). What’s worse is that the stature of the national party, though emerging as the second largest party in the 16^th Lok Sabha, has been reduced to that a regional party – or even worse (Lokniti, 2004). Here’s why the Congress, being a national party, has won just 44 seats across the nation – 28 states and 7 Union Territories.

On the other hand, the AIADMK – led by Chief Minister J Jalalalithaa – has won 37 seats in Tamil Nadu alone. Also, Mamata Banerjee’s All India Trinamool Congress has emerged victorious in 34 seats in West Bengal. The Biju Janata Dal, led by Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, has bagged 20 seats in Odisha, and the Shiv Sena has secured 18 seats in Maharashtra alone. So, by comparing the four regional parties’ performance (in terms of geographical area) with that of the national party it becomes clear that the Congress has fared worse than even its regional counterparts. Also, in effect, the 2014 verdict leaves India without any credible opposition. As per norms, a party should have won at least one-tenth of the total Lok Sabha seats to claim the post o the Leader of Opposition. That figure for the incoming Lok Sabha stands at 54 (10 percent of total 543 seats). With the Congress winning just 44 seats, and no other party coming close to that figure, the situation is unprecedented. Bisecting the Congress performance, we find that the party failed to even open its account in 10 states and did not touch double – digit in any (Dikshit,1993).

Its performance in key states has been the worst. In Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Jharkhand, the party failed to win a single seat while min others it could barely open its account – Haryana (1), Punjab (3), Uttar Pradhes (2) and Bihar (2). The party’s vote share has also got reduced to a mere 19.3 percent nationally, compared to the BJP’s 31.1 percent. For the Congress, the next five years will not be just time for reflection but also to overhaul its internal system, policies and leadership structure if the party wishes to stay relevant. The party will have to act quickly otherwise it will face similar shocks in the upcoming state elections as well.

The Role of Opposition Parties in Democracy:

The opposition in a democracy plays as important a role as the government. For a strong and sensible government to work in a proper way, according to the will of the people, and equally strong and sensible opposition is a must. Such an opposition is the secret of the success of democracy in England, the oldest democracy of the word. There is mainly one strong political party is opposition. In this lies the strength of democracy in that country. On the other hand, in Indian there are a number of opposition parties constantly quarreling among themselves. This is the greatest weakness of Indian democracy (Jayal,2001). In India there is no strong, united and healthy opposition. There are various reasons for it. No industrial revolution has taken place in this country. The result is that the working class is not politically conscious and, therefore, it is disunited and weak (Lijphart, 1996).

The opposition parties do not have any clear cut programmes and policies. Their approach is often communal, sectarian or regional. Their leaders are confused and have no idea of their aims and objectives. They quarrel for power and there are frequent splits. There is often defection son a large scale. People do not have faith in such parties, and so they fail to secure a majority in the elections. In the legislature itself, their leaders indulge in destructive criticism to gain their political ends. They keep party interest above national interest. The role of opposition in a democracy is very important. The opposition accelerates the growth of the country or retards its growth by untimely agitations. For example, the violent agitations in Gujarat, Bihar, Assam and Punjab resulted in great loss of life and propensity and failed entirely to gain their objectives. The Government’s policy of State Trading in Food gains was wrongly criticized for political reasons. The result was that procurement targets could not be reached and wheat had to be imported to build up comfortable buffer stock. This was essential to hold the price – line. Such a destructive approach is against the national interest. The role of opposition in a democracy should be healthy. It should criticize the Government policies in the national interest and not for part gains. The opposition parties must come together and merge on the basic of similarity in their ideologies. Universal illiteracy and universal poverty, unhealthy linguist, regionalism, racism and casteism characterize Indian life. They are all obstacles in the way of the growth of a cohesive social and political life in the country.

There is a mushroom growth of political parties due to the selfishness and lack of far sightedness of their leaders. Parties can come together on the basis of common ideology. But in India the party alliances are opportunistic, the only common ground between them being their hostility to the Government. Obviously, such alliances are bound to be short lived. For example, the Janta Party was a coalition of a number of political parties. So, it could not rule the nation for any length of time. It was thrown out of power due to the inter-quarreling of the opposition parties. In a democracy the aims of the Government and the opposition should be the same – the good of the people. The opposition should criticize the government to implement its manifesto (Jayal,2001). It should criticize the government only to make it more efficient and honest. Criticism should be based on sound principles. Opposition parties should keep in mind that they may be called upon by the people to form the Government by any time. They should, therefore, function in a responsible way.

Emerging Trends in Indian Electoral Politics and Party System:

The paradox of Indian democracy is that enlightened middle class has shown indifferent attitude towards electoral process. In the era of globalization, one is so deeply involved to fulfill his unending quench for attaining material pleasure that one fails to realize his larger national responsibility. This raised the question that when the most educated and enlightened group will fail to fulfill their national obligation then how we can expect our political system to improve automatically. In western democracy, highly educated and successful groups not only take part in electoral process but also put pressure on government through various pressure groups and also by forming civil society groups on a large scale, whereas in India, people belonging to middle and upper class maintain indifferent attitude and people belonging to lower social, economic, educational background register their participation in large number. For the success of democracy, the participation of have and have not is equally required (Lijphart, 1996).

If we analyze the prevailing trend in Indian democracy, we find that on the one hand electoral process has raised the level of political awareness and on the other hand it has also increased the misuse of electoral process by political parties for their narrow ends. Winning election has become the sole criteria for political parties. In order to win election, political parties compromise with values, ethics and morality which used to be associated with it. It has further consolidated primordial values. In this process, they fail to realize that they have larger national responsibility as well (Lokniti, 2004, Yadav, 2007). The kind of tactics applied by political parties for winning election has promised casteism, communalism, regionalism, sectarianism and above all use of money, muscle power and criminalization of politics (Yadav, 2007). It has weakened the base of Indian politics. In fact, this has become an accepted feature of Indian politics. No political party is ready to discuss this issue that what should be done to do away with such malpractices. Even, Indian public too cannot escape from its responsibility as they are electing people who are of dubious credentials. Quest for power has laid to the erosion of values from Indian politics.

Conducting free and fair election is the responsibility of the Election Commission and it has been working hard to live up to its constitutional obligation. Due to the effort of the commission, electoral violence, misuse of money, bogus voting have been substantially reduced. The oppressed and deprived section of our population who could not even dare to go to polling booth, are electing their representative without any fear. However, it would be too early to say that in India, free and fair election has been totally established. Coming to the theme of the present paper, i.e. party system. It is closely associated with electoral politics. Maurice Duverger aptly defined that electoral system leaves its impression on the political life of the country through political parties only. In Indian competitive party system, political party’s gains power through competitive electoral battle. In order to win election, political parties, indulge in all sorts of manoeverality like arousing passion in the name of caste, region, religion etc. In fact, political parties have compromised with ideology in order to gain power. Over the years, one finds a marked change in the way party system operates in India.

The party system is now said to be moving from a one-party dominance system to a multi-party competition, from social cohesion to fragmentation, from a stable pattern to fluidity, from order to chaos as the principle of party competition. One party dominance has been replaced by coalition government. It has led to the emergence of regional centers of power. Regional political parties are playing very crucial role in the national politics. Initially, Congress party played a very vital role in shaping Indian party system. However, it cannot escape from the responsibility of decay that has set in Indian party system as it is the oldest political party in India. The catch-all’ character of the Congress party won helped it to win election without forcing any change in its policies or leadership pattern. The Congress party was supported by masses from diverse background but as pointed out by Yogendra Yadav, the party’s upper class-upper caste leadership remained the legitimate representative of the masses (Brass, 1985, (Yadav, 2007). Congress system was not open to vulnerable section and this may be due to the background of the political class. Charismatic personality of Nehru helped it to remain in power till the end of the decade of sixties. In 1967, serious challenge to Congress dominance emerged and its hegemony as a dominant party was challenged. Its ability to accommodate dissent got challenged forcing may groups to break away.

Why Mrs. Gandhi came in power and started facing challenge, in order to consolidate her position, she decided to centralize the power. Mrs. Gandhi’s slogan of ‘GaribiHatao’ won her vote as well as support. However, her style of functioning and dependence on ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ alienated her from other party leaders. It laid to revolt by many national leaders including regional leadership. Rajiv Gandhi’s appearance on the political map of India was under extraordinary circumstances. It re-established one-party dominance. However; his support base started dwindling once his name appeared in Bofors deal. Congress to post-Congress transformation was never an easy process. However, it led to the establishment of coalition government. The emergency of NDA followed by UPA led to the changed pattern of representation. Those regions / communities which were feeling deprived, their sentiment was used by regional leaders to form regional parties. These regional parties now have become so strong that they are playing deciding role in the formation of central government.

The most important factor responsible for the change in federal political arrangement is nationalization of regional issues and regionalization of national issues and it is largely because modernization, politicization and economic development and on the other hand because of mandal-mandir controversy. In post 1989 period we observe a new trend towards regionalization of Indian politics and it reflects the representative character of Indian polity. It has also brought those into the center stage of Indian politics who were left on the margins. In fact, regional parties have mushroomed in Indian politics in large numbers in recent years. However, barring few states, they have not brought about substantial change and in many states, state governments were replaced by national parties (Lokniti, 2004). However, some regional governments like the one in Bihar and Orissa have shown the path. In India, party system has covered a long journey from one party dominance to coalition government. And in this process democracy has further got consolidated. Coalition governments, which are generally associated with instability, inordinate delay is after initial hiccup running successfully. Change is imminent in party system and Indian democracy is no exception to this (Lijphart, 1996). However, the question arised as to whether it has consolidated democratic roots or it reflects the misuse of political system for narrow selfish purpose.

CONCLUSION:

Democracy has deepened further in last sixty years in India and its credibility has vindicated itself. Participation of weaker section especially S.C. and S.T. have increased manifold thereby consolidating democratic process. The pattern of representation to Loksabha and Rajyasabha reflects that every segment of the population is getting represented. Earlier, only educated middle class used to get chance to be elected as people’s representative. However, in recent years, the trend has changed and women, S.C., S.T. and farmers too, are getting chance to contest and win election. Political participation of minorities, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes have increased. One party dominance and its ill-effects are things of the past. Regional parties are ruling in many state and also part of ruling alliance at the central government. Defection, President Rule, election related violence etc. have become a rarity. Right to information, right to education, Panchayati Raj act have really empowered and enlightened the common public.

However, it does not mean that all the changes had positive impact only. If we minutely analyze Indian electoral politics as well as party system, we find that along with some positive changes there is some negative development as well. The vote bank politics has laid to the decline of moral values from our politics. Caste, region, religion still play decisive role in electoral politics. Democracy not only ensures adult franchise but also ensures participation in political process. The question is whether Indian democracy has truly ensured the participation of every segment of the population in electoral process. Unless the fruits of democratic success are not shared with deprived and poorer section of the population, the goal of democracy cannot be said to be realized. In India context, the worrying aspect is that pace of development is very slow. Institutions which are considered essential for its successful functioning have declined over the years. For example, electoral system, despite serious effort has failed to invent any device to check the entry of anti-social elements in entering into electoral process which questions its legitimacy. Political parties still involve themselves in immoral practic3es in order to win always make use of primordial loyalties like caste, religion, region etc. The basic livelihood issues like unemployment, poverty eradication and other such issues have gone to the backburner.

Normally in a healthy democratic setup, elections are contested on issues relating to problems affecting people. However, in Indian democracy, it seems as a chimera. On the whole, Indian democracy is passing through a transitional phase and the pace of change is very fast. On the one hand many issues have been addressed, some new issues have cropped up and some old issues remain to be resolved. The need of the hour is that divisive tendencies are closely monitored and evaluated and long term and lasting strategy should be devised to address the socio-economic problem then only we would be able to establish a successful, egalitarian republic. Finally, in the words of eminent historian, Ramachandra Guha, it can be said, that Indian democracy is a work in progress and therefore we will have to wait and watch for new developments especially in the field of party system and politics in India.

REFERENCES:

1. Auyero, Javier (2006) ‘Introductory Note to Politics under the Microscope: Special Issue on Political Ethnography I’, Qualitative Sociology, 2, pp. 257-9. DOI: 10.1007/s11133-006-9028-7.

2. Banerjee, Mukulika (2007) ‘Sacred Elections’, Economic and Political Weekly, 28 April, pp. 1556-62.

3. Brass, Paul (1985) Caste, Faction and Party in Indian Politics. Volume Two: Election Studies, Delhi: Chanakya Publications.

4. Butler, David; Lahiri, Ashok; Roy, Prannoy (1995) India Decides Elections 1952-1995, Delhi: Books & Things.

5. Chandra, Kanchan (2004) ‘Elections as Auctions’, Seminar, 539.

6. Chandra, Kanchan (2008) ‘Why voters in patronage democracies split their tickets: Strategic voting for ethnic parties’, Electoral Studies, 28, pp. 21-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2008.06.006

7. Chhibber, Pradeep; Petrocik, John R.K. (1989) ‘The Puzzle of Indian Politics: Social Cleavages and the Indian Party System’, British Journal of Political Science, 19(2), pp. 191-210. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123400005433

8. Dikshit, S.K. (1993) Electoral Geography of India, With Special Reference to Sixth and Seventh Lok Sabha Elections, Varanasi: Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan.

9. Eldersveld, Samuel; Ahmed, Bashiruddin (1978) Citizens and Politics: Mass Political Behaviour in India, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10. Hauser, Walter; Singer, Wendy (1986) ‘The Democratic Rite: Celebration and Participation in the Indian Elections’, Asian Survey, 26(9), pp. 941-58. DOI: 10.1525/as.1986.26.9.01p0412r

11. Jaffrelot, Christophe (2008) ‘‘Why Should We Vote?’ The Indian Middle Class and the Functioning of the World’s Largest Democracy’, in Christophe Jaffrelot& Peter Van der Veer (eds.), Patterns of Middle Class Consumption in India and China, Delhi: Sage.

12. Jayal, Niraja Gopal (2001) ‘Introduction’, in Niraja Gopal Jayal (ed.), Democracy in India, Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-49.

13. Jayal, Niraja Gopal (2006) ‘Democratic dogmas and disquiets’, Seminar, 557.

14. Kondo, Norio (2007) Election Studies in India, Institute of Developing Economies: Discussion Paper no-98.

15. Lijphart, Arend (1996) ‘The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation’, The American Political Science Review, 90(2), pp. 258-68. DOI: 10.2307/2082883

16. Lokniti, Team (2004) ‘National Election Study 2004: An Introduction’, Economic and Political Weekly, 18 December, pp. 5373-81.

17. Mitra, Subrata K. (1979) ‘Ballot Box and Local Power: Electoral Politics in an Indian Village’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 17(3), pp. 282-99.Mitra, Subrata K. (2005) ‘Elections and the Negotiation of Ethnic Conflict: An American Science of Indian Politics?’, India Review, 24, pp. 326-43.

18. Rao, Bhaskara (2009) A Handbook of Poll Surveys in Media: An Indian Perspective, Delhi: Gyan Publications.

19. Shastri, Sandeep; Suri, K.C.; Yadav, Yogendra (2009) Electoral Politics in Indian States: Lok Sabha Elections in 2004 and Beyond, Delhi: Oxford University Press.http://www.facenfacts.com/NewsDetails/1937/emerging-trends-in-indian-electoral-politics-and-party-system-part-2.html

20. Yadav, Yogendra (2007) ‘Invitation to a dialogue: What work does ‘fieldwork’ do in the field of elections?’, in A.M. Shah (ed.), The Grassroots of Democracy: Field Studies of Indian Elections, Delhi: Permanent black, pp. 345-68.

Received on 28.03.2019 Modified on 30.04.2019

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(2):729-738.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00120.7