Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:14:12.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Party System Institutionalization in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2014

By
Csaba Nikolenyi
Edited by
Allen Hicken  and
Erik Martinez Kuhonta
Csaba Nikolenyi
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Allen Hicken
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Erik Martinez Kuhonta
Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Evidence from the history of electoral and party competition in post-independence India leads us to nuance some of the arguments that Hicken and Kuhonta (2009) advance about the determinants of the institutionalization of Asian party systems. Among others, they claim that the Asian experience teaches us that (1) “to get highly institutionalized party systems it may be necessary to have some form of authoritarian party in power at an earlier point in time”; (2) that “more elections [do not] necessarily lead to greater institutionalization”; and (3) that there is “no relationship between electoral institutions and government type with institutionalization.” The Indian case study helps us understand some of the limitations of these claims. First, drawing on conventional wisdom in the literature of the Indian party system, we point out that authoritarianism, marked by Indira Gandhi’s ascent to political leadership, actually led to a deinstitutionalization of the dominant party, the Congress, as well as the party system. As such, the Indian case shows that the type of authoritarianism and specifically the type of authoritarian party that is in power make an important difference for the future institutionalization of the party system. Similarly to what we find in the Philippines under the Marcos regime, the Indira Gandhi episode highlights that authoritarian interruption may not promote future party system institutionalization unless it is defined by the incumbency of an institutionally strong authoritarian party. Conversely, an authoritarian leader, such as Marcos and Indira Gandhi, who is bent on undermining the institutional foundations of political institutions that might become alternative loci of opposition will be equally capable of undermining the future institutionalization of the party system.

Type
Chapter
Information
Party System Institutionalization in Asia
Democracies, Autocracies, and the Shadows of the Past
 , pp. 189 - 211
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartoloni, Stefano, and Mair, Peter. 1990. Identity, Competition, and Electoral Volatility: The Stabilization of European Electorates 1885–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chakrabarty, Bidyut. 2006. Forging Power: Coalition Politics in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandra, Kanchan. 1999. Post-Congress Politics in Uttar Pradesh: The Ethnification of the Party System and Its Consequences. In Wallace, Paul and Roy, Prannoy (Eds.), Indian Politics and the 1998 Elections: Regionalism, Hindutva, and State Politics, pp. 55–105. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Chandra, Kanchan. 2004. Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Head Counts in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep. 1999. Democracy without Associations: Transformation of the Party System and Social Cleavages in India. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep, and Kollman, Ken. 1998. Party Aggregation and the Number of Parties in India and the United States. American Political Science Review 92 (June): 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chhibber, Pardeep and Kollman, Ken. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep, and Nooruddin, Irfan. 2000. Party Competition and Fragmentation in Indian National Elections: 1957–1998. In Wallace, Paul and Roy, Prannoy (Eds.), Indian Politics and the 1998 Elections: Regionalism, Hindutva, and State Politics, pp. 36–54. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Fickett, Lewis P. 1993. The Rise and Fall of the Janata Dal. Asian Survey 33(12): 1151–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Harold A. and Ganguly, Sumit (Eds.). 1993. India Votes: Alliance Politics and Minority Governments in the Ninth and Tenth General Elections. Boulder: Westview Press.
Graham, Bruce D. 2006. The Challenge of Hindu Nationalism: The Bharatiya Janata Party in Contemporary Indian Politics. In de Souza, Peter Ronald and Sridharan, E. (Eds.), India’s Political Parties, pp. 155–172. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hardgrave, Robert. 1970. The Congress in India: Crisis and Split. Asian Survey, 10(3): 256–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardgrave, Robert and Stanley, Kochanek. 2000. India; Government and Politics in a Developing Nation. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Heath, Oliver. 2005. Party Systems, Political Cleavages, and Electoral Volatility in India: A State-Wise Analysis, 1998–99. Electoral Studies 24(2): 177–199.Google Scholar
Heginbotham, Stanley. 1971. The 1971 Revolution in Indian Voting Behavior. Asian Survey, 11(12): 1133–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicken, Alan, and Kuhonta, E.. 2009. Reexamining Party System Institutionalization through Asian Lenses. Typescript.
Indian National Congress Party. Report of the Committee on Party Finances. Available at , access date May 19, 2014.
Jaffrelot, Christophe. 1998. The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Jaitley, Arun. 2003. Statement of Object and Reasons, The Constitution (Ninety-First Amendment) Act, 2003. New Delhi: Lok Sabha.Google Scholar
Kashyap, Subhash C. 2003. Anti-Defection Law and Parliamentary Privileges. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing.Google Scholar
Kochanek, Stanley. 1968. The Congress Party of India: The Dynamics of One-Party Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochanek, Stanley. 1976. Mrs. Gandhi’s Pyramid: The New Congress. In Hart, Henry C. (Ed.), Indira Gandhi’s India, pp. 93–124. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kohli, Atul. 1990. Democracy and Discontent: India’s Growing Crisis of Governability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linden, Leigh. 2004. Are Incumbents Really Advantaged? The Preference for Non- Incumbents in Indian National Elections. Columbia University Manuscript.Google Scholar
Lok, Sabha. 1985. Lok Sabha Debates, January 30, 1985: 183. New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat.
Mainwaring, Scott, and Scully, Timothy (Eds.). 1995. Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Malhotra, G. C. 2005. Anti-Defection Law in Indian and the Commonwealth. New Delhi: Metropolitan Book.Google Scholar
Malik, Yogendra K., and Singh, V. B.. 1994. Hindu Nationalists in India: The Rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications.Google Scholar
Manor, James. 1988. Parties and the Party System. In Kohli, Atul (Ed.), India’s Democracy: An Analysis of Changing State-Society Relations, pp. 62–98. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Manor, James. 2005. In Part, a Myth: The BJP’s Organizational Strength. In Adeney, Katherine and Saez, Lawrence (Eds.), Coalition Politics and Hindu Nationalism, pp. 55–73. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, Oliver. 1978. “The Collapse of the Indian National Congress”. Pacific Affairs, 51: 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris-Jones, Wyndraeth H. 1978. From Monopoly to Competition in India’s Polity. In Morris-Jones, Wyndraeth H. (Ed.), Politics Mainly Indian, pp. 144–159. Madras: Orient Longman.Google Scholar
Nikolenyi, Csaba. 2005. Institutional Change and Its Consequences: The Rational Foundations of Party System Change in India. In Lecours, André (Ed.), New Institutionalism: Canadian Contributions, pp. 202–221. Toronto: The University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Nikolenyi, Csaba. 2008. Recognition Rules, Party Labels and the Number of Parties in India: A Research Note. Party Politics 14(2): 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolenyi, Csaba. 2009. Party Inflation in India: Why Has a Multi-Party Format Prevailed in the National Party System? In Grofman, Bernard, Bowler, Shaun, and Blais, André (Eds.), Duverger’s Law of Plurality Voting: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States, pp. 97–114. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolenyi, Csaba. 2010. Minority Governments in India: The Puzzle of Elusive Majorities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nooruddin, Irfan, and Chhibber, Pradeep. 2008. Unstable Politics: Fiscal Space and Electoral Volatility in the Indian States. Comparative Political Studies 41(8): 1069–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nossiter, Thomas J. 1988. Marxist State Governments in India: Politics, Economics and Society. London and New York: Pinter Publications.Google Scholar
Panebianco, Angelo. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Mogens. 1983. Changing Patterns of Electoral Volatility in European Party Systems, 1948–1977: Explorations in Explanation. In Daalder, Hans and Mair, Peter (Eds.), Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change, pp. 29–66. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rajya Sabha. 1985. Rajya Sabha Debates, January 31, 1985: 99–102. New Delhi: Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
Rodriguez, Valerian. 2006. The Communist Parties of India. In de Souza, Peter Ronald and Sridharan, E. (Eds.), India’s Political Parties, pp. 199–252. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Saxena, Rekha. 1996. Party System in Transition. In Singh, Mahendra Prasad and Saxena, Rekha (Eds.), India’s Political Agenda: Perspectives on the Party System, pp. 49–81. Delhi: Kalinga Publications.Google Scholar
Singh, Mahendra Prasad. 1990. From Predominance to Polarized Pluralism: The Indian Party System. Think India 2:70–78.Google Scholar
Singh, Mahendra Prasad. 1981. Split in a Predominant Party: The Indian National Congress in 1969. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.Google Scholar
Shridharan, E. 2003. Coalitions and Party Strategies in India’s Parliamentary Federation. Publius 33(4): 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shridharan, E. 2005. Coalition Strategies and the BJP’s Expansion. Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 43(2): 194–221.Google Scholar
Shridharan, E., and Varshney, Ashutosh. 2001. Towards Moderate Pluralism: Democracy and India’s Political Parties. In Diamond, Larry and Gunther, Richard (Eds.), Political Parties and Democracy, pp. 206–237. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Subramanian, R. S. 2008. Developing and Testing a Theory of Legislative Party Fragmentation. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Weiner, Myron. 1967. Party Building in a New Nation: the Indian National Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Yadav, Yogendra. 1996. Reconfiguration in Indian Politics: State Assembly Elections, 1993–95. Economic and Political Weekly 31(2–3): 94–105.Google Scholar
Yadav, Yogendra. 2000. Understanding the Second Democratic Upsurge: Trends of Bahujan Participation in Electoral Politics in the 1990s. In Frankel, Francine et al. (Eds.), Transforming India: Social and Political Dynamics of Democracy, pp. 120–145. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yadav, Yogendra, and Palshikar, Suhas. 2006. Party System and Electoral Politics in the Indian States, 1952–2002: From Hegemony to Convergence. In de Souza, Peter R. and Sridharan, E. (Eds.), India’s Political Parties, pp. 73–116. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×