• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

B. A. PART-II POLITICAL SCIENCE (SEMESTER-IV) LESSON NO. 2.1 AUTHOR : DR. HARIDWAR RAI PARTY SYSTEM IN INDIA - GENERAL FEATURES, PROBLEMS It has rightly been observed that the political parties are the lifeline of modern politics. It is regarded as axiomatic that any country which either is modern or wants to be so would channel its political life in some type of party expression. La Palombara and Myron Weiner hold that the political party is a "Creation of moden and modernizing political system." They believe that the phenomenon of political party in one form or other is omnipresent. But there is no agreement among the scholars regarding the classification of political parties. For quite some time party systems have been classified by counting the number of parties whether one, two or more than two. Recently, however, instruments of power, academic discussion of party systems have centred round the questions of the degree of competition among parties. La Palombra and Weiner propose, for the competitive party system, A four- fold classification which drops altogether the numercial base, precisely "on the assumption that the traditional distinction betwen two party and multi-party patterns has not let to sufficiently meaningful insights." The best classification yet offered seems to be that the Giovani Sartori who has intelligently put it with an eye to 'how many' and 'how strong'. The traditional three-fold division is replaced by a seven-fold taxonomy which distinguishes among the following categories of party politics— 1. One-Party system 2. Hegemonic party system 3. Predominant party system 4. Two-party system 5. Moderate multipartism 6. Extreme multipartism 7. Atomised party system The first three categories result from the break-up of the 'one party' lump of the traditional scheme. Whereas properly called, one party politics outlaws any other party, the hegemonic system permits the existence of subordinate parties under the conditions that the systems are, instead those systems in which the same party happens to win over time, on a competition basis, the absolute majority of seats. Thus, a predominant party system is a system in which not only other parties are permitted to exist but do exist as legitimate if not necessarily effective competitor of the predominant party system. The minor parties are truly independent antagonists of the predominant party system. Therefore, actually it is a plural party system in which rotation does not occur. It simply happens that the 1 B. A. PART-II (SEMESTER-IV) 2 POLITICAL SCIENCE dominant party manages to win every time, an absolute majority of seats in parliament and its predominance basically stems from the fact that it is consistently supported by a winning majority of voters. On the other hand, Sartori retains the traditional two party category but has broken down the traditional multi-party category. When the number of relevant parties is limited from three to five parties are likely to be 'moderate' in their platform and their competition tactics whereas an extreme fragmentation—more than five parties—generally reflects and elicits a pattern of immoderates politics in which extremistic appeals largely condition the overall drift of the politics. Finally, 'atomized' party system indicated the point at which we no longer need an accurate counting. It is that threshold beyond which the number of parties whether ten, twenty, thirty or more, makes little difference. Indian Party System Party system which prevailed in India till the first quarter of the year 1977 can be placed under the predominant party system which was called as 'one party dominance system' or the 'Congress rule'. It was so called because the Congress party had been only ruling party in the country since independence. This system of one party dominance was competitive one in which the Congress party was factionally divided which was both sensitive and responsive to margin of pressure. The opposition was no match to the Congress and so it did not constitute an altenative to ruling periphery in the form of parties of pressure. To quote Rajni Kothari, in such a system the role of the opposition parties is to constantly pressurise, criticise, censure and influence it by influencing opinion and interests inside the margin and above all exert a latent threat that if the ruling group too stays away from the balance of effective public opinion, and if the functional of system within it is not mobilised to restore the balance, it will be displaced from power by the opposition groups.' The main characteristic of the Congress system were— 1. Plurality within the Congress party which made it more representative, provided it with ample flexibility and imparted it strength to sustain internal competiton. 2. Apart from this it was prepared to absorb movements from outside the party and thus prevent other parties from gaining strength. The identification of the freedom movement with the Indian National Congress made the Congress a dominant entity in Indian politics. The compulsion of the national struggle prevented it from becoming a rigidly organized party. It remained a composite movement permitting to coexistence within its ranks of socially distant and ideologically diverse elements held together by their commitment to the national objective of independence. Moreover, the Congress had developed not only as movement of protest against the colonial regime but also against some of the most B. A. PART-II (SEMESTER-IV) 3 POLITICAL SCIENCE stubborn features of traditional society. Regeneration was as much at heart of its programme as was national independence. This was the dual inheritance from the national movement of being an authoritative spokeman of the national independence as well as an affirmed agent to criticism and change of ruling party. The Congress also showed a remarkable flexibility in respect of its political programme which defeated all attempts at providing real alternative to it. But adopting socialistic pattern resolution, it stole the thunder from the PSP, by modifying its agrarian policy in practice, it prevented the Swatantra party from mobilizing the land owning classes against it. Even the Communists were forced to choose between cooperating with the Congress, or else face its wrath and public disgrace. The years between 1967 and 1971 were of severe strain for the Congress. The system was challenged and the Congress was dislodged from power in many states and its rank and file were facing disintegration from within. However, it regained its dominant position thereafter under the leadership of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Until 1974 things were cool enough for the Congress, but thereafter the political scene began to change. Inflation was galloping black-marketing and adulteration were spreading and corruption was taking deep roots in the country. The Congress did not show signs of coping with the demands of the people. The wide spread agitation and mass protests had succeeded in dislodging Gujarat Ministry. Now they were threatening the downfall of the Bihar and U.P. Ministries. Mrs. Gandhi, along with her kitchen cabinet, got panicked and imposed constitutional DIR under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution on June 26, 1975. The MISA and DIR were used blatantly to intern the opposition leader and others who questioned the legitimacy of the Congress rule, the promulgation of the emergency. Among the leaders who were jailed were Jaya Parkash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Chandra Shekhar, Atal Bihari and other prominent leaders of the opposition parties except those of Communist Party of India. The emergency was an open assault on the people's values and institutions. All the democratic institutions like the judiciary, the press and radio were stifled, people felt themselves impotent in the face of police oppression. Thus, when on January 18, 1977 Mrs. Indira Gandhi declared her intention to hold geneal elections in March and decided to relax provisions of the emergency including censorship of the press and release of a number of politial detenu, she unwillingly, let loose the forces which led to the total reversal of her own as well as her party's fortune. The Janata party was formed within 48 hours of the release of important political leaders arrested during the emergecy. They took a vow to avenge the excesses committed on them during the emergency. All the opposition leaders assembled under the banner of Janata Party, the call for which was given by J.P. The merger of prominent opposition paties like Congress (O), Jana Sangh, BLD and S.S.P. was political event of far reaching significance. Thus, the process of polarisation which took off on the event of 1971 Lok Sabha elections in the form of 'National Democratic Front' was completed by the emergence of the Janata Party. B. A. PART-II (SEMESTER-IV) 4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pattern of Electoral Alliance The arch type of electoral alliances and adjustments that took place in 1977 Lok Sabha elections accelerated a fresh trend towards the process of polarization among the political parties of India. While the Congress decided to fight the election largely on its own, it made alliance with the CPI and AIADMK where possible. The rest of the parties, rather all non-Congress or anti-Congress drew closer. It indicated a healthy trend as it reduced the splitting up of the non-Congress opposition parties. It also contained vast possibilities for transforming political forces into distinct channels and providing a viable national alternative to the Congress in India. Reacting with phenomenal fastness the Bharatiya Lok Dal, Bharatiya Jana Sangha, Congress (O) and Socialists reached a decision to unite for the election purpose under the label of Janata Party with the expectation that after the elections they would take steps to merge to form a single party. The emergence of Janata Party with Morarji Desai at the helm of its affairs, generated sufficient self confidence among the opposition parties and renewed their legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Load more

  100

Copy Link