news details |
|
|
| Present profile of party system in India | | |
Dr. Rajkumar Singh
The Constitution of India gave citizens of the country the right to elect their own Government and the Parliamentary democracy needs parties which are eligible to be elected by the broadest possible strata of the population. In such a situation the necessity of parties becomes very much clear. The working of the Party system as well as the role of political leaders significantly influences the process of modernisation so crucial to developing societies like India. In fact, the political parties evolve on the local dynamics, ideological past and socio-cultural as well as political expediency. The development of Indian Party system can be traced to the freedom movement days which resulted in the wide-ranging political recruitment, vast political socialisation and mobilisation of the masses. The Indian National Congress led the freedom struggle more as a mass movement for political emancipation than as political party. The ideological multiplicity and other contradictions within the Congress itself resulted in the development of parallel political parties/movements. Some of the Political parties have their origin from before India’s independence, for example, Indian National Congress, Forward Bloc, Akali Dal, National Conference and some other parties. Some of these parties were either social or political organisation before India’s independence and they became political parties after India’s independence. However, many of the present parties were established after independence.
Background of the party system
Since the inauguration of its republican constitution in 1950, India, like other developing countries, presented an exciting scenario of Party system. On account of the continental size of the country and due to the large scale diversities based on religions, language, region caste, history and physical features, the makers of Indian constitution opted for the Parliamentary form of government. The heterogeneous and pluralist character of Indian society impelled them to form a liberal and secular constitution. Along with parliamentary democracy they also decided to have a federal system instead of unitary system. Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the federal government and the states. The government abides by constitutional checks and balances. But to maintain unity integrity and development of the Indian polity they also decided to have a strong centre in this federal system. It was seen as a basic requirement for accelerating the process of modernisation, economic growth and institutionalising political democracy.
Apart from this, keeping in view the vastness and diversity of the country and the enormity and variegated nature of the problems confronting the nation, Indian Republic envisaged the existence of multi-party system, which represents the multiethnic and culturally plural character of Indian society. They introduced the single ballot simple majority electoral system that is generally considered essential for the success of Parliamentary democracy. This type of system envisages majority government which, in turn, is based on the game of numbers. The Party which gets majority of seats in the lower house of the legislature is asked by the Head of State to form the government. This government does not have a fixed term but continues to exist so long it enjoys the confidence of the lower house of the parliament. The term of the Indian Parliament is, however, fixed for five years. But when no Party gets majority of seats in the legislature, it becomes difficult to form a government in such a situation. A coalition of parties is then thought upon to tide over the crisis created by a hung legislature. A number of parties in that situation come together and form a coalition to claim support in the legislature.
Comparison with Western party system
But the multi-party system obtaining in India is basically different from that prevalent in western countries like France and Italy. In a model multi-party system seldom, any single party is able to obtain majority of seats in the legislature and such a system is more often than not results in the formation of a coalition government. In contrast, initially, India marked a departure from such a model. Scholars designated Indian Party system as “one dominant party system” and the concept was popularised in the 1960s by W.H. Morris Jones and Rajni Kothari. In a classic study they held the view that a dominant party system is a multi-party system, in which free competition among parties occurred but in which the Indian National Congress enjoyed a dominant position, both in terms of the number of seats that it held in Parliament in New Delhi and the state legislative assemblies, and in terms of its immense organisational strength outside the legislature. From 1952 to 1967, the peculiar party system generally described as the one-party dominant system as only the Congress was voted time and again with an overwhelming Parliamentary majority on plurality of votes in democratically contested elections. The Congress by virtue of being a pioneer in the freedom struggle, became an increasingly effective election winning machine. In 1952 the Congress had absolute majority in 18 out of 22 state assemblies. In the second and third general elections the Congress Party retained its hold on masses and occupied the seats in Lok Sabha more than required for making the government.
Features of Indian party system
But suddenly things began to change and the seeds of present owes were sown during the last three or four years of Nehru’s era itself. The process of the decline of Congress got further accelerated after the 1962 Parliamentary and assembly elections on account of the national humiliation caused by the defeat at the hands of China in 1962. At the time and thereafter Nehru was criticised by opposition parties and several Congress members for country’s security lapses. Already during Nehru’s lifetime, the Chief Ministers consolidated their own position and ignored central direction on policies that did not suit them. With the crumbling of a united central leadership, the States ‘Satraps’ have practically been forced to act more antonomously. The overall situation in the Party and government deteriorated markedly after the death of Nehru in 1963. The post-Nehru elections took on a different character because the great leader, who had lost public esteem, because of defeat in Sino-Indian war, was no longer at the helm. Lal Bahadur Shastri succeeded Nehru. The short-lived Shastri era was essentially a continuation of the tragic, twilight years of Nehru. In fact, things grew a lot worse because language became a highly explosive issue soon after Shastri became the Prime Minister. He was handicapped moreover by the general feeling that Nehru’s shoes were too big for him. And just when, in the wake of the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, he looked like coming into his own, this most undramatic of men passed into history in highly dramatic circumstances. After Shastri Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister of the country in January 1966. This period may be rightly termed as the advent of a political development with many non-Congress national political parties coming to the fore and the rise of regional political parties in most state of India. In later years the hegemony of the Congress had to face a serious challenge from the national opposition parties as well as from the regional parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
