The chain of events underscoring the pan-India impact of the West Bengal verdict refuses to halt. Some leaders are understandably worried that their parties are breaking, while some others are busy in making new ones. In such a turbulent time, what is being ignored is our abysmal neglect towards the institutionalisation of political parties—a process all democratic societies must address.
To start with, one wonders whether we really need so many political parties. Consider this: we have six national parties, 67 state parties and 2,854 registered parties unrecognised in either of the other categories. Such a bumper crop makes one thing clear: our laws make establishing a political party an unserious exercise, even promoting a frivolous approach.
Forget the also-rans; even most of the recognised national and state parties are bereft of any clear ideology, well thought-out policy perspectives, defined organisational structure and proper framework for functioning. Obviously then, questions just don’t come up about conducting regular meetings of party executive bodies, making efforts at cadre building, or organising their training. Our existing laws are silent on the ways and means of running a political party, even while making their formation almost a child’s play. No wonder then that, with the sole exception of the BJP, most other recognised political parties have faced vertical splits.
It’s insightful to understand why parties break. Heavy dependence on a single dynasty, lack of any ideology or a sense of purpose, deterioration of organisational bonding and, above all, the absence of deterrence to defection in the form of popular opinion are the factors responsible. India is no exception in this—these factors are at play in almost the entire democratic world.
First, let’s talk about dynasty. If we accept that dynastic parties are here to stay, then we also have to accept that our democracy is in for facing endless challenges. The most dynastic parties—from the Congress, NCP, Trinamool, TDP, Shiv Sena, Samajwadi Party and DMK to the various Janata Dals and even Akali Dal—have faced vertical splits of varying degrees of seriousness. Such parties are bound to face fragmentation as no dynastic succession has ever been free from competition and consequent confrontation.
When a dynasty dominates, ideology takes a back-seat. And parties bereft of ideology hamper the very cause of democracy as they take away the element of choice almost completely.
It’s a worry that political parties are increasingly losing their distinctive characteristics. Two decades back, Bruno Waterfield, Brussels correspondent for a British newspaper, had commented that parties in the West offered almost no competing alternatives. He portrayed politicians as careerists, an empty cadre of elite manager-politicians and described them as “identikit managers of a cut-and paste age”! In a situation like this, what sense of purpose for party functionaries can we talk about?
Parties are breaking also because there is little loyalty—to an ideology as well as an organisation. Allegiance to a leader was always temporary. But the transactional relationship between the cadre and a leader has eroded emotional bonds within an organisation.
Earlier, most political parties were born out of a social or political movement. It was during these movements that activists used to develop camaraderie and fellow-feeling. Today, precious little remains in political parties to bind an individual in a way that would make the very thought of defection dreadful.
Nuances in styles of functioning shape organisational ethos, which in turn determines a party’s culture. At present, most major political parties have similar organisational cultures, hence no outfit is truly alien to a politician. This factor has made defections much easier.
Add to this the absence of any deterrence in public opinion in a constituency, and the crisis becomes acute. The relationship of an elector with the elected has also become extremely transactional. This has added to the ‘ease of defection’, leading to seamless splits.
The nature of party-people interfaces has undergone drastic changes. Professionally-managed parties leave little scope for volunteers to spare time for party work. The professional approach in party management has also altered the nature of inter-party relationships. At times, it involves fierce hate-mongering whereas, on other occasions, it just remains make-believe, with an element of match-fixing. The popular belief that all politicians are hand-in-glove with each other has not helped prevent the increasing tendency of intense dislike towards the entire political class.
While parties break for many such reasons, the making of one remains a supremely daunting task. Now that many are speculating on the formation of a Gen Z party, one must remember that there are several examples of how non-political groups in India realise sooner than later that the limitations to their NGO-like efforts could be overcome only through the formation of a political party.
The latest example is that of Arvind Kejriwal. Before that, in 2004, Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan and her colleagues decided to take their battle to the electoral arena and fight elections as an independent political party. In 2006, Dr Jayaprakash Narayana converted his NGO, Lok Satta, into a political party.
Earlier, in the mid-1970s, the Navnirman Yuvak Samiti, which had spearheaded a popular drive to oust Chimanbhai Patel’s government in Gujarat as well as the Sampurna Kranti movement led by Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan had formed political parties to fight elections. The All Assam Students Union that led the state’s anti-infiltration (of Bangladeshis) movement in the 1980s, later established the Asom Gana Parishad to contest elections.
Organisations like Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti and Shetkari Sanghatana, both from Maharashtra, were not established as political parties. But they later thought it wise to contest elections. However, neither Anna Hazare or student-movement-born parties like the All Jharkhand Students Union could endure as political entities.
The reasons for parties breaking or failures in party-making are not far to seek. Unless and until parties equip themselves with clear ideologies, crystallised policy perspectives and lofty ideals that serve as a source of motivation, and structured efforts to build cadres through healthy interpersonal relations with leaders, nobody can prevent the breaking of older outfits or the making of newer ones.
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe | Senior BJP leader
(Views are personal)
(vinays57@gmail.com)
