Introduction
The system of political parties underwent drastic changes since the country gained its independence and became a democratic republic. The old parties transformed in their modern versions while plenty of new parties appeared as well. The dilemma in the multi-party system is caused by the caste system and population diversity.
India — overview of the country and its politics
The Republic of India is a seventh largest country in the world by its geographical borders and the second most populated country (“India Country Profile — Overview”, 2015, par. 1). The population of the country comprises more than one billion people. India is also known for being the most populated democracy in the world (“India Country Profile — Overview”, 2015, par. 2). The country is newly industrialized. Despite its economic flourishing, it stills faces the urgent problems of poverty, malnutrition, terrorism, and improper governance (“India Country Profile — Overview”, 2015, par. 4).
India is a federal parliamentary constitutional republic with Pranab Mukherjee being a current president. The President is the head of the state while the Prime Minister is the head of the government (“Types of Governments”, n.d., par. 1). The Constitution is the primary law of the country that defines all regulations.
Currently, India has a multi-party system. There are numerous national and regional political parties. A local party has the authority in one particular state. A party should represent at least four different states to become national (“Types of Governments”, n.d., par. 1). The primary mission of all political parties is to serve and protect interests of the nation in various aspects.
Multi-party system
A political party is an organized group of people who share the same political opinion and follow the common aim in the controlling of the country (Hofmeister and Grabow, 2011, 8). The most important function of every party is to represent the interests of the citizens among the political elite.
Besides, political parties handle the achievement of better economic, political, educational, and other prospects of the country (Hofmeister and Grabow, 2011, 15). A multi-party system is the final type of party system in the country. In this kind of the system, several parties exist in the government, and none of them receives the majority of seats. Some dominance is usually achieved with the help of coalitions (Hofmeister and Grabow, 2011, 8).
The multi-party system has both advantages and disadvantages. The first plus refers to the fact that voters have many options (Caramani, 2014, 224-225). A variety of political parties presupposes the numerous political principles. As a result, the citizen can find the party that meets his or her personal opinions (Barrington, 2012, 264). The second advantage relates to increasing chances to represent the interests of different minorities more effectively.
The third positive reason — fewer chances of the development of dictatorship (Barrington, 2012, 264-265). Nevertheless, the multi-party system has several disadvantages as well. First, no party can receive the majority of seats in the multi-party system. Consequently, the coalition is the must in such a situation. Different parties have to join their votes to form alliances (Caramani, 2014, 224-225). These coalitions are fragile and unstable, and it impedes the general political environment in the country.
Second, small extreme parties often become significant constituents of the government. Extreme parties face no difficulty in gaining the necessary amount of votes (Barrington, 2012, 264). Then, some other major party may need their votes to form the coalition. In such a way, extreme parties may rule the country. Finally, the excessive variety of political parties leads to the disparities of interests and activities (Barrington, 2012, 264-265).
Political parties in India
Historical background of the development of the multi-party system
The party system in India has changed drastically in the last two decades. Politicization of people from less privileged groups of society became the most significant change in the current system. The nature of the relationship between country and its citizens has also altered (Kesalu, 2013, 56-57). It is necessary to have an insight into the evolution of the Indian party system in pre and post-independence years.
The party system of India commences with the formation of the Indian National Congress in 1882. The Congress became popular among people as far as it represented the interests of the indigenous population and became the primary opposing force to the British imperialism (Rana, 2014, par. 3). The political activity of the Congress during the pre-independence period should be divided into three stages.
The first period (1885-1905) was characterized by the privileged dominance of the Congress. The next phase occurred since 1905 until 1916 (Kesalu, 2013, 58-59). The opinions between political representatives became diverse. Some of them believed that the country would gain independence through persuasion while others were intended to fight for their rights.
During the third stage (1916-1945), the Indian Independence Movement took place (Kesalu, 2013, 58-59). As a result, the British governor and General of India announced the separation of the British India into India and Pakistan. On August 15 in 1947, the Indian Independence Act was signed (Kesalu, 2013, 59).
Since that time, the Indian post-independence era began. The Congress became the leading political party due to its active participation in the independence movement (Kesalu, 2013, 59). Nevertheless, many political parties had already existed in the country. They comprised four major political groups that were interested in the gaining of votes in the first general election. The first group included the Congress, the Socialist Party, and Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party.
Marxist parties and the Communist Party of India represented the second group (Kesalu, 2013, 60). Religious, political parties formed the third group. They were Bharatiya Jan Sangh (BJS), Ram Rajya Parishad, and Hindu Mahasabha. Regional parties like Akali Dal, Jharkhand party, and Tamilnadu Congress formed the fourth group. Despite this variety, the Congress became the dominant political party and remained its domination until 1967 (Kesalu, 2013, 60).
In 1967, the fourth general election showed that the Congress’s authority declined. The regional parties popularized the idea of the decentralization of power. Congress’ organizational abilities were weak, and citizens lost trust in it (Kesalu, 2013, 60). In 1980, numerous parties appeared. Bharatiya Janata Party was established in 1980.
The activity of BJP made it the principal rival of the Congress. More often large parties were divided into smaller regional representatives. The coalition era began in 1989 (Kesalu, 2013, 60-61). The democratization of the society led to the increasing formation of various political parties that formed a unique diversity of the Indian multi-party system. All these parties represented interests of different ethnic, social, and religious groups.
Current typology of political parties
There are almost one thousand registered political parties in India and 50 of them have the status of National or State parties (Dutt, 2006, 62). All national and state parties are recognized while other parties are known as not recognized. It also should be noted, that there are two houses of parliament in India. Rajya Sabha or the Upper House serves the interests of the separate states. Lok Sabha or the Lower House is formed to monitor and fulfill the needs of all people on the national level (Dutt, 2006, 51).
There are six recognized national parties. They are Bharatiya Janata Party, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Bahujan Samai Party, and National Congress Party (Dutt, 2006, 62). Almost fifty parties are State parties.
Some of them are All India Forward Bloc, Indian Union Muslim League, Sikkim Democratic Front, Zoram Nationalist Party and others. There are also unrecognized parties that affect the politics in India to some extent — Lok Satta Party, Manipur Peoples Party, Jana Sena Party, and many others (Dutt, 2006, 62-65).
The caste system as the factor that impedes Indian multi-party system
The role of castes is a significant factor that predetermines the functioning of the multi-party system. There are more than three thousand castes in India. Their number varies in different regions (Shan, 2004, 5). In general, they are divided into four groups. They are the learned people, the warriors, agriculturalists and traders, and those who serve (“The Caste System”, n.d., par. 5). Castes are hereditary. It means that one belongs to the high or low caste since birth.
The Indian Constitution abolishes the caste system. Despite this fact, every political party makes use of the caste system. This tradition has a long history, and that is why it is deeply rooted in all aspects of social and political life (“The Caste System”, n.d., par. 10). No sphere limits the impact of caste. In the political life, it commences with the electoral process.
For instance, the Communist Party of India always chooses the representative from the most influential caste as the candidate for elections (Gulabsingh and Palekar, 2014, 2). The problem is that the most prominent representative is not always the most capable person in the party. Such an individual is interested in his caste enrichment. Thus, such an approach to choosing candidates is one of the factors that comprise the dilemma in the party system.
Gulabsingh and Palekar (2014) also write that “when a ministry is formed in the State or at the Centre, caste considerations are always kept in mind. Every chief minister tries to ensure that all dominant castes in the State are adequately represented in his council of ministers” (2). This fact also exemplifies the injustice in the multi-party system.
Sub-castes are also known as “jati”. They represent smaller localized groups within the particular large caste (Johnson and Johnson, n.d., par. 1-3). They are essential for receiving the needed minority of votes by the party.
The candidate from the sub-caste knows the primary concern of people, their problems, desires, traditions, and ways of life. It is easy to use all this information to create a campaign that will attract the attention of the target group. Parties can create distinct banners or advertisements that reflect the interests of this or that group and gain the favor of the voters.
Population diversity and the party system dilemma
Another crucial aspect that affects Indian party system is the great diversity of the population. When there are many representatives from various social and ethnic groups, there is an immense number of interests. This situation is directly connected to the multi-party system. However, it is necessary to examine the dilemma of the multi-party system through the several perspectives of diversity.
Indian political culture and its manifestation through multi-party system
The population is divided into elite and masses (Hoveyda, 2010, 14). These two groups participate in the political process and represents different types of political culture. These kinds of political culture enhance the divergence of opinion within the party system as well. Indian political culture is heterogeneous.
It is divided into the elite culture and mass culture. Hoveyda (2010) writes that “elites are associated with liberal education and related values, institutions of the representative government and values of citizenship; while the masses are viewed as traditional, regional and conservative, though also oriented towards modern values and institutions” (15). There are differences between elite culture and mass culture that impede the successful development of the country.
Military and civil bureaucracy, educated intelligentsia, and political leaders comprise the elite political culture. Mass culture consists of traditional castes, and it is more interested in the local and regional levels of governance (Hoveyda, 2010, 15-16). Mass culture became widely spread due to the processes of democratization and the policy of power decentralization. These aspects increased the level of involvement of people from various social strata in the governmental activities.
On the one hand, the formation of political parties by different people was a good sign of democracy and the efficient implementation of the multi-party system. On the contrary, it increased the inequality between people. Thus, those who belonged to wealthy castes could become involved in politics and increase their status and financial resources while others remained in the same disadvantageous position (Hoveyda, 2010, 16).
One more distinctive feature of mass political culture refers to the dominance of caste, religious, provincial, and linguistic factors. All these features of mass culture differ it from the elite culture. Consequently, their goals are not the same and cannot be achieved with the help of each other.
Thus, the elite political culture emphasizes the significance of developing the country on the national and global level (Hoveyda, 2010, 16-17). Such a plan includes the formation of the advanced infrastructure system, the representation of state schemes, and economic growth. The mass political culture needs support in the form of subsidized services, water, or electricity (Hoveyda, 2010, 16-17).
It is obvious that political orientations of the elite and mass political cultures are far from being the same. Some voters are more interested in having enough water. That is why they will vote for parties from the mass political culture. Other people realize the necessity to develop the overall economy of the country.
In this case, they will vote for parties from the elite political culture. What is more significant, the parties themselves are not ready to achieve any consensus. They focus only on their goals. The coalitions are not of great assistance in this case. Though parties combine their votes, it is still not enough for the political stability within the country (Hoveyda, 2010, 17).
Ethnic diversity and its relation to the dilemma
India is a home for representatives from many dissimilar religious, ethnic, and social classes of people. Such aspect as ethnicity can also shed the light on the problem of the country’s multi-party system. A particular attention should be paid to the notion of the political secularism.
The so-called “ethinification” of the party system means the intentional direction of political parties to receive support from the particular ethnic group (Huber and Suryanarayan, 2014, 5).
Elites can use ethnicity as a target to attract as many voters as possible and form the necessary coalition. Such schemes work well in countries where it is challenging to receive the majority of seats by one party (Huber and Suryanarayan, 2014, 2). It is obvious that such plan is of great advantage for Indian political parties. Religious beliefs are significant constituents that comprise the ethnicity of every individual in the country.
Hinduism is the most widespread religion in India (Ghosh, 2015, par. 2). More than eighty percent of all population in India are Hindus. Muslims comprise ten percent while Christianity — almost three percent (Ghosh, 2015, par. 2). The primary problem with Hinduism refers to the fact that there is no universal religion. People from different religious minorities proclaim themselves Hindus. There are Hindu and Muslim political parties in the country (Ghosh, 2015, par. 5).
The key concern between them has a religious background. The Bharatiya Janata Party is the largest party that directly demonstrates its Hindus roots and follows the policy of the Hindu nationalism (Dutt, 2006, 62). The results of elections prove the religion-based politics. It has been found out that only a few votes for the BJP are observed in regions where the Muslim population is prevailing.
Secularism has become a popular trend in many Western societies. The idea of separation the government from the religious organizations became widespread due to several reasons Maclure and Taylor, 2011, 11-12). First, the Church can impede the scientific progress and forbid to conduct particular types of researches. Second, the necessity to be under the patronage of the church does not appeal to many individuals.
Consequently, the religion got detached and became a private affair of everyone (Maclure and Taylor, 2011, 11). The role of religion in the Indian society should not be underestimated. No secularist tendencies take place in the country due to the significance of worship. Faith has always been a prominent stimulus for the national awakening. Thus, Gandhi inspired people with the idea of political freedom with the help of religious texts (Moradian and Whiteshouse, 2000, par. 20-25).
The idea of democracy in relation to political parties
The idea of democracy in India is a controversial issue. The country proclaims itself the largest democracy in the world. The concept of democracy is interconnected with the activity of political parties in India. Political parties are often regarded as both “heroes and villains of the country’s democratic experiment” (Diamond and Gunther, 2001, 206). All citizens of India strongly support the idea of democracy. Nevertheless, the democracy is still more like an illusion rather than the reality in the country.
It is also worthwhile mentioning the research conducted by Rudolph and Rudolph. The authors investigate the new dimensions of Indian democracy since the 1990s. They have pointed out five primary aspects that reflect the achievement of justice in the Indian society. The issues that are related to political parties include the modification of the party system, the rise of states, and the coalition government. India has a federal system that assists in maintaining peaceful coexistence of people from various ethnic and cultural groups.
The federal system of India can be compared to the European Union countries rather that to the U.S.’s states (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 53-54). This statement is proved by the fact that there are particular correspondences between them. The residents of England and Italy, for instance, as well as Hindu and Tamils speak different languages and share some history.
They have different socioeconomic profiles and various cultural heritage (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 54). Considering all these factors, both India and European Union promote peaceful living among the residents of states.
The transformation into the multi-party was the second manifestation of the Indian democracy. The end of the ruling of one dominant party symbolized the appearance of new features of the country (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 54-55). As a result, people from all social classes, ethnic, and religious groups became able to form the political parties and represent the interests of their minorities.
The third representation of democracy refers to the establishment of the coalition government (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 55). Coalitions are inevitable in the country where the number of political parties makes it impossible to gain the majority of seats by one particular party. Thus, parties unite to become more valuable and possess more power. Besides, the aim of every coalition government is to reduce the risks of extremism (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 55).
For instance, BJP commenced its political activity as the party whose primary concern was Hindu nationalism. Due to the lack of power, the party had to look for partners. One secular party from South India became the partner of BJP and, in such a way decreased the possibility of the excessive concentration on Hindu nationalism issues (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 55-56).
The country experienced recent rapid economic growth. However, this growth has not influenced the standard of living of people. Residents of India are destitute. The general income per capita is below the threshold (“Effects of Poverty in India: Between Injustice and Exclusion”, 2013, par. 1). Such a situation resembles the features of the dictatorship but not of the democracy.
India has an immense number of ethnic minorities that have different languages, culture, traditions, and beliefs. Besides, the cases of inter-community violence are usual thing in India. People belong to different castes, and this is the major differentiator of the whole society until nowadays. Religious conflicts can occur as well. Also, the level of corruption in the country is not like it should be in democratic societies (Oldenburg, 2007, 5-7).
These distinctive characteristics of India explain the necessity to have the multi-party system. On the one hand, various political parties should represent such socio-cultural diversity. Otherwise, it will be impossible to take into account the interests of all people. Democracy presupposes the rule of masses through the representatives. The only possible option, in this case, is to employ a multi-party system (Oldenburg, 2007, 7).
On the other hand, there are many flaws in the system. The first problem refers to the fair play in the election. There are no evidence that elections are fair and not corrupted (Oldenburg, 2007, 7-8). Besides, many people in India are still illiterate or have the inadequate education. They cannot make profound decisions due to the lack of knowledge and ability to comprehend the situation. When the parties are already chosen, their promises, in most cases, remain just promises (Oldenburg, 2007, 8).
All these issues undermine the idea of democracy in the Indian multi-party system. Oldenburg has conducted research and examined that corruption in courts is a typical practice. For instance, many politicians are accused of participating in some illegal activity. Nevertheless, none of them was convicted in the commitment of the crime (Oldenburg, 2007, 9). Democracy is impossible in such conditions.
Conclusion
India is the second most populated country in the world with the most diverse society. The party system of the country has changed drastically since independence. India started as the country with one dominant party, the Indian National Congress, and gradually developed the multi-party system. Such a transformation of the government is a direct manifestation of the democratization.
However, such factors as the caste system and the population diversity influence the implementation of the multi-party system significantly. On the one hand, the multi-party system is the best option for the country with such diversity. On the contrary, the caste inequalities and ethnic diversity make it impossible to achieve any consensus among parties.
Works Cited
Barrington, Lowell. Comparative Politics: Structure and Choices. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Caramani, Daniele. Comparative Politics. Oxford: OUP, 2014. Print.
Diamond, Larry and Richard Gunther. Political Parties and Democracy. Baltimore: JHU Press, 2001. Print.
Dutt, Sagarika. India in a Globalized World. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006. Print.
Effects of Poverty in India: Between Injustice and Exclusion 2013.
Gulabsingh, Sandeep and Sana Palekar. “The Role of Caste in Indian Politics.” Research Directions 1.8 (2014): 1-3. Print.
Ghosh, Abantika. Census: Hindu Share Dips Below 80%, Muslims Share Grows but Slower. 2015.
Hofmeister, Wilhelm and Karsten Grabow. Political Parties. Singapore: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2011. Print.
Hoveyda, Abbas. Indian Government and Politics. Delphi: Pearson Education India, 2010. Print.
Huber, John and Pavithra Suryanarayan. Ethnic Inequality and the Ethnification of the Political Parties: Evidence from India. 2014. PDF File.
India Country Profile — Overview 2015.
Johnson Donald and Jean Johnson. Jati: The Caste System in India. n.d.
Kesalu, Satri. “Genesis and Evaluation of Political Parties in India.” International Research Journal of Social Sciences 2.2 (2013): 56-62. Print.
Maclure, Jocelyn and Charles Taylor. Secularism and Freedom of Conscience. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2011. Print.
Moradian, Meneejeh and David Whiteshouse. Gandhi and the Politics of Nonviolence. 2000.
Oldenburg, Philip. “India’s Democracy: Illusion or Reality?” Education About Asia 12.13 (2007): 5-11. Print.
Rana, Kamal. Growth of Party System in India. 2014.
Rudolph, Susanne and Lloyd Rudolph. “New Dimensions of Indian Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 13.1 (2002): 52-66. Print.
Shan, Ghanshyam. Caste and Democratic Politics in India. London: Anthem Press, 2004. Print.
The Caste System. n.d.
Types of Governments. n.d.