Indian Party System is unique. It does not fit in any kind of the party systems. It is defined by the singular nature of Indian Politics on the one had and the nature of the state-society relationship on the other. In the last two decades, there has been a substantial change both in the nature of Politics as well as in nature of relationship between the state and the society. One of the utmost manifestations of this change is visible in the context of the politicisation of greater number of people, especially those belonging to the less privileged section of the society. That explains change in the nature of the Party system as well. The distinctive features that defined a party system of India during the first two decades after independence, no more to be seen at present.

In order to understand the present nature of the party system, it is important to trace its history and to refer to its political logic in the context of the changing state-society relationship.

Keywords: Ideology, Socio-Economic, Electoral dominance, unsubstantial change, Homogeneity, Coalition Government.

Introduction: Party system in a democracy normally reforms to the pattern of infraction and competition between political parties. In India the pattern of interaction and competition among Political parties has given way to the multi-party system. This kind of characterisation of the party system, is however, more accurate as of now than that existed a few decades ago.

What existed then was the impeccable hegemony of the Congress party and this was well characterised by Kothari and Jones as a ‘Dominant Party System’ that is multiparty system in which free competition among political parties occurred but it was the Indian National Congress which enjoyed a dominant position both in terms of the number of seats it held in the Parliament and the state legislative assemblies and in terms of its immense organisational strength. Kothari coined the term the ‘Congress System’. And Jones called it a ‘Congress Dominated System’.

1. Understand the nature of the party system in India and Identify its various characteristics;

2. Analyse the changing nature of the party system and explain the emerging patterns;

and

3. Discuss the socio-economic and the political factors underlying the changing nature of party politics.

Nature of Party System: First Two Decades after Independence: Rajni Kothari has argued in his ‘Politics in India’ that the party system evolved from an identifiable political centre. This political centre, carved during the nationalist movement, was comprised of the political elite sharing common socio-economic background i.e. educated, urban, upper-caste people belonging mainly to middle and upper classes.

 The common social background of the elite resulted in the homogeneity that became a defining feature of the political centre as well as of the party system. The ruling party and the opposition, coming from the same background, shared the social perceptions and converged social on many issues. The Indian National Congress was the Intuitional manifestation of this political centre not only was it an important expression of the nationalist movement but also a dynamic political organization that formed the indigenous base for the political system. Accommodating almost all political groups of political importance, it provided a very crucial political space for political negotiations and bargaining.

Dominant Party Systems: Basic Characteristics:

The party system during the first two decades after independence was termed as the Single Dominant Party System. It was a multiparty system where the ruling party played and overwhelmingly dominant role. Although a number of other political parties existed and operated politically, yet the. Central space of politics was occupied by the Indian National Congress only. The dominance of the congress was determined by its immense organisational strengths as well as its capability to capture large number of seats both in the Union Parliament and the state legislatures.

Dominance of the Congress as the ruling party did not mean absence of competition.

The numerous parties in opposition provided competition. Yet, such competition did not result in effectively challenging the dominant position of the ruling party. Morries Jones aptly described this phenomenon as ‘dominance coexisting with competition but without a trace of alteration. In electoral terms, it implied that although a number of opposition parties entered the electoral arena but none of them singly or in combination could secure substantial number of seats to replace the congress as the ruling party.

These parties were fragmented and poorly represented in the Union and the state legislatures. Congress continued to return its candidates in large numbers, in fact, in proportionately large numbers than the votes polled in its favour.

Due to their inability to provide an alternative to the ruling party or even to challenge its position of dominance, the opposition parties did not play the traditional role of opposition. On the contrary, their role was limited to that of constantly pressurising,criticising the ruling party. The parties in opposition, therefore, operated as the parties of pressure.

One of the important features of the Congress party that helped it to sustain its position of dominance was its capacity to represent divergent social groups and interests. As it drew its support from different sections of society, it played the role of agreat umbrella party. During the nationalist movement it had accommodated diverse groups into its fold and had stressed on the need for their unity with in the same organisational structure. It had therefore assumed the character of a board coalition. In the post-independence period, it continued to absorb the dominant social elements and balance different interests that helped it to maintain its unchallenged position of power.

Through its accommodative and adaptive politics, if could curb the role and relevance of opposition.

Changed Socio-Economic Profile: Dislocation of Political Centre: Change in the nature of the party system in the decades after 1960s, according to Rajini Kothari, was the consequence of the ‘changed socio-economic and demographic profile of the polity.’ Such a change in the profile of the polity was a consequence of the political mobilisation of the masses as well as the emergence of new political classes. The political mobilization of the masses was a logical consequence of the electoral politics based upon the principle of universal adult franchise. Frequently held elections helped in increasing the political consciousness of mass of Indians, especially those belonging to the backward and lower castes.

Party System after 1967: The nature of the Indian Polity as well as the party system underwent a substantial change after 1967. This change has been described in varied terms.

According to Kothari, this was the beginning of the decline of the dominant party system. While Morris-Jones attributes this to the emergence of ‘a Market Polity’ in which the number of opposition parties were brought fully into the market place and competition that had previously occurred within the Congress, was now brought into the realm of interparty conflict. A number of new political forces and formulations started emerging making the electoral politics more competitive. All this led gradually to the decline of Congress.