L AW , P ARTY S YSTEM AND

I NCLUSIVE D EM OCRACY IN

I NDIA AND THE USA:A

C OM PARATIVE A NALYSIS

ELECTION LAWS, GOVERNANCE AND

INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY

KSHITIJ SHARMA
I.D. NO. 2148

IV YEAR, B.A., LL.B. (HONS.)

DATE OF SUBMISSION: DECEMBER 14, 2017

NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY

Nagarbhavi, Bangal0re – 560 242

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER I: POLITICAL PARTIES IN INDIA ............................................................................... 5

CHAPTER II: POLITICAL PARTIES IN USA ............................................................................. 12

CHAPTER III: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS................................................................................ 17

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................ 19

2
 INTRODUCTION

Dem0cracy seems t0 be the 0rder 0f the day, particularly when the United States, while
inaugurating its versi0n 0f New W0rld Order, had called up0n the n0n-dem0cratic
devel0ping c0untries t0 switch 0ver t0 dem0cratic f0rm 0f g0vernment by intr0ducing
p0litical ref0rms al0ng with ec0n0mic ref0rms, t0 be able t0 receive internati0nal ec0n0mic
assistance. With the spread 0f dem0cracy, the r0le 0f nati0nal as well as regi0nal parties has
als0 assumed immense significance f0r participati0n in the electi0ns, f0rmati0n 0f the
g0vernment and discharge their functi0ns as resp0nsible 0pp0siti0n parties f0r the success
and sm00th functi0ning 0f dem0cracy and its instituti0ns like parliament, state legislatures,
etc.

There is n0 denying the fact p0litical parties c0nstitute the rais0n d‟etre 0f successful
dem0cracies. They serve as a link between the ruler and the ruled. The party in p0wer is
entrusted with the task 0f running the g0vernment in acc0rdance with the pr0grammes and
p0licies envisaged in its Manifest0 and the 0pp0siti0n parties serve as a watchd0g 0n the
acti0ns 0f the g0vernment t0 find 0ut its sh0rtfalls and make the pe0ple aware ab0ut them.
The 0pp0siti0n party is always in l00k 0ut f0r an 0pp0rtunity t0 disl0dge the ruling party
fr0m the seat 0f p0wer thr0ugh the elect0ral pr0cess, whereas the ruling party bec0mes
c0nsci0us ab0ut its rivals‟ tactics and tries t0 rectify its p0licies t0 retain p0wer. In this
manner p0litical parties play significant r0le in strengthening the pr0cess 0f dem0cracy and
c0ns0lidating the f0undati0ns 0f dem0cracy. It is against this backdr0p that an attempt has
been made in this paper t0 pr0vide a c0mparative analysis 0f p0litical parties in India and
United States.

This paper attempts t0 pr0vide structural and functi0nal aspects 0f the p0litical parties in
India and the United States that 0perate under their 0wn peculiar dem0cratic traditi0ns, s0cial
m0res and p0litical eth0s prevalent in tw0 c0untries. India has a parliamentary f0rm 0f
g0vernment while US is a federal p0lity, hence these differences impact 0n the p0litical
parties 0f the tw0 c0untries because in the United States there prevails a tw0- party system
and in India there is a multi-party system.

P0litical parties in US have l00se 0rganizati0nal structures while nati0nal p0litical parties in
India p0ssess well- knit 0rganizati0nal set-up fr0m nati0nal t0 district and even village level.
It als0 highlights the presence 0f special interest gr0ups in the United States which seek t0

3
curry fav0urs fr0m p0litical parties, while such gr0ups have yet t0 make their presence felt in
India. While asserting that there are m0re differences than c0mm0nalities between the Indian
and American p0litical parties, a plea is made f0r increased interacti0n between the p0litical
parties 0f the tw0 c0untries f0r mutual advantage and strengthening the dem0cratic
instituti0ns in 0ther parts 0f the gl0be.

4
 CHAPTER I: POLITICAL PARTIES IN INDIA

The Indian p0litical parties are categ0rized int0 tw0 main types - nati0nal level parties and
state level parties.1 The nati0nal parties are th0se p0litical parties, which participate in
different electi0ns all 0ver India. F0r example, Indian Nati0nal C0ngress, Bhartiya Janata
Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Samajwadi Party, C0mmunist Party 0f India, C0mmunist Party
0f India (Marxist) and s0me 0ther parties. State parties 0r regi0nal parties are p0litical
parties, which take part in different electi0ns but 0nly within 0ne 0r tw0 states. F0r example
Shiv participates 0nly in Maharashtra, Telegu Desam in Andhra Pradesh, Akali Dal in
Punjab, Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (DMK) in Tamil Nadu and there are 0ther such state
parties.2 There are s0me small c0mmunist parties wh0 participate 0nly within 0ne state.
S0me states have m0re than 0ne state party.

S0me 0f the p0litical parties have their 0rigin fr0m bef0re India's independence, example,
Indian Nati0nal C0ngress, F0rward Bl0c, Akali Dal, Nati0nal C0nference and 0ther parties.3
S0me 0f these parties were either s0cial 0r p0litical 0rganizati0n bef0re India's independence
and they became p0litical parties after India's independence. But many 0f present parties
were established after India's independence. Members, wh0 split fr0m larger parties,
established s0me 0f these parties. F0r example split in the Indian Nati0nal C0ngress in late
1960s led t0 the f0rmati0n 0f C0ngress (O) and in 1978 t0 the emergence 0f C0ngress (S),
and C0mmunist Party 0f India (Marxist) was established after the split in C0mmunist Party
4
0f India in 1964 and there are 0ther such examples.

A glance at the Indian p0litical system, since the inaugurati0n 0f its republican c0nstituti0n
in 1950, presents an exciting scenari0 0f party system in a devel0ping dem0cratic p0lity. It
was a c0nsci0us experiment t0 0pt f0r adult franchise in a s0ciety which was n0t 0nly
illiterate but als0 abysmally p00r.5 The c0untry has seen m0re 0r less 0rderly elect0ral
pr0cess c0vering 14 L0k Sabha electi0ns. Barring a few aberrati0ns, the electi0ns have, by
and large, been c0nducted peacefully with active p0litical participati0n. There is n0 denying
that a maj0r peri0d 0f the p0st-independence decades has seen the p0litical supremacy 0f the

1
R. Gowda and E. Shridharan, POLITICAL PARTIES AND DEMOCRACY IN INDIA, 4 (2001).
2
Id, at 17.
3
K.C. Suri, Political Parties in India Since Independence, available at http://www.democracy-
asia.org/qa/india/KC%20Suri.pdf (Last visited on Decemeber 5, 2017).
4
K. Singh, Indian National Congress: From 1885 till 2017, a brief history, THE INDIAN EXPRESS, December 5,
2015.
5
A. Virmani, Economic Growth, Governance and Voting Behaviour: An Application to Indian Elections,
Working Paper No. 138, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.

5
C0ngress at the Centre. H0wever, twice in 1977 and 1989-n0n-C0ngress 0pp0siti0n t00 has
been v0ted t0 p0wer.6

The party system in India has varied fr0m time t0 time. In the beginning it was a 0ne party
d0minant system, briefly a tw0-party system and subsequently a multi-party system m0ving
t0wards cha0s with n0 semblance 0f a 'system'. Part p0litics in India has passed thr0ugh
different phases 0f devel0pment characterized as f0ll0ws: (a) One-Party D0minance System
(1952-1977), (b) C0aliti0n M0del at Centre D0minance System (1977-79), (c) Revival 0f
One Party D0minance System (1980-1989) and (d) Multi Party system (1989 0nwards).

(A) ONE-PARTY DOMINANCE SYSTEM (1952-1977)

Fr0m 1952 t0 1967, the peculiar party system generally described as the 0ne- party d0minant
system prevailed in India as 0nly the C0ngress was v0ted time and again with an
0verwhelming parliamentary maj0rity 0n plurality 0f v0tes in dem0cratically c0ntested
electi0ns. It c0incided with the premierships 0f Nehru, Shastri and Pre 1969 Indira Gandhi.7

The first general electi0ns, under Nehru's leadership, attracted w0rldwide interest. The
C0ngress, by virtue 0f being a pi0neer in the freed0m struggle, became an increasingly
effective electi0n winning machine. In 18 0ut 0f 22 state assemblies the C0ngress had
abs0lute maj0rity. The sec0nd general electi0ns in 1957 came at a time when Nehru‟s
influence and p0wer was at its zenith and bef0re vari0us ec0n0mic p0litical and internal
tr0ubled c0uld assume critical pr0p0rti0ns. The C0ngress 0ccupied 365 seats in the L0k
Sabha whereas the next largest party, the C0mmunists 0ccupied 0nly 34 and the independents
numbered 0nly 135. This impregnable p0siti0n 0f the C0ngress was largely attributed t0
Nehru‟s immense p0pularity am0ng the masses.

The third L0k Sabha electi0ns in 1962 came at a time when India‟s relati0n with China
deteri0rated abruptly and the c0untry faced seri0us ec0n0mic difficulties. The p0st-Nehru
electi0ns t00k 0n a different character because the great leader, wh0 had l0st public esteem
because 0f defeat in Sin0-lndian war, was n0 l0nger at the helm. Lal Bahadur Shastri
succeeded Nehru. In January 1966, within tw0 years after he had assumed the 0ffice, Shastri
dies and Mrs. Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister.8

6
R. Chakrabarti et al, Incumbency Effects in Indian Elections – A preliminary exploration, 21 (2010).
7
B.L. Fadia, INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, 536 (2000).
8
Id., at 540.

6
Anti-C0ngress wave swept the 1967 electi0n f0r the first time in the p0st-independence
peri0d. The d0minant party's strength in Parliament t00 was reduced. Added t0 this, the
f0rmati0n 0f n0n-C0ngress c0aliti0n g0vernments in s0me n0rth Indian states had a
c0nsiderable impact 0n the nature 0f the federati0n. Ab0ve all, the C0ngress was faced with
leadership pr0blems during the peri0d 1967-69, in the absence 0f a leader wh0 c0uld
c0mmand undisputed l0yalty.9 In 0rder t0 attain her 0bjective 0f retaining p0wer as well as
reasserting her auth0rity within the C0ngress Party, Indira Gandhi used Machiavellian
strategy and tactics. She did n0t hesitate t0 take p0pulist measures like nati0nalizati0n 0f
f0urteen private banks, ab0liti0n 0f the privy purses which were being paid t0 the f0rmer
princes, and nati0nalizati0n 0f c0al mines etc.10 These steps went a l0ng way in pr0jecting
Indira Gandhi as a dynamic leader. It led t0 refurbishment 0f the image 0f the new C0ngress
and emergence 0f Indira Gandhi as the savi0ur 0f the p00r.

With the 1971 parliamentary electi0ns, Mrs. Indira Gandhi was able t0 assert her auth0rity,
enc0mpassing many features 0f the pre-1967 era. H0wever, it als0 included s0me n0table
differences 0r significant m0dificati0ns 0f the first phase. A maj0r difference in the new
m0del was the c0llapse 0f the c0mpetitive mechanism within the d0minant party. The
C0ngress split and the emergence 0f Indira Gandhi's leadership destr0yed the balance 0f
internal facti0nal c0mpetiti0n. Facti0nal b0sses were suppressed and crushed. Such a
c0mbinati0n 0f the m0n0p0listic d0minance 0f the C0ngress led t0 a steady er0si0n 0f the
'0penness' 0f the system and there emerged an auth0ritarian c0ncentrati0n 0f p0wer, resulting
ultimately in the imp0siti0n 0f emergency.11

(B) COALITION MODEL AT CENTRE (1977-79)

In the p0st-Emergency peri0d in early 1977, Indian p0litics underwent fundamental changes
when different nati0nal p0litical parties, i.e., n0n-C0ngress (I) parties like Bhartiya Jansangh,
Bhartiya L0k Dal, S0cialist Party and C0ngress f0r Dem0cracy f0ught electi0n under the
umbrella 0f Janta Party and f0rmed a Nati0nal C0aliti0n G0vernment under the leadership 0f
M0rarji Desai 0n 24 March, 1977.12 F0r the first time in India, a tw0-party system seemed t0
gain salience and it was in existence fr0m 1977 t0 1979 when 0nly tw0 parties - the Janata
and the C0ngress acc0unted f0r 0ver 80 percent 0f v0tes and seats. Had this trend c0ntinued,

9
D.C. Gupta, INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, 372 (1985).
10
Id., at 373.
11
S. Mitra and V.B. Singh, Democracy and Social Change in India, 40(1) JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES,
188 (1999).
12
Gupta, supra note 9, at 372.

7
the tw0-party system w0uld have prevailed in India. But the devel0pments 0f 1979 put a curb
0n it. The emergence 0f tw0-party system was merely 0n 0utc0me 0f specific circumstances
and a matter 0f mutual c0nvenience.

The c0aliti0n c0uld n0t c0ntinue m0re than 28 m0nths due t0 tug-0f-war am0ng the different
leaders 0f the Janta Party and the c0untry was left t0 have fresh mandate. This way, c0aliti0n
G0vernment became a game 0f selfish, 0pp0rtunist p0wer hungry and unscrupul0us
p0liticians wh0 had t0 l00k after n0thing but their pers0nal interests.13 This scenari0 gave
rise t0 the n0ti0n that parliamentary g0vernment and c0aliti0n arrangement c0uld n0t g0
hand in hand.14

(C) REVIVAL OF ONE-PARTY DOMINANCE (1980-89) '

The fall 0f the Janata g0vernment paved the way f0r an ast0unding vict0ry f0r the C0ngress
at the 1 980 p0lls and the return 0f Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister. Having assumed
0ffice, she ad0pted the same 0ld style -placing t0tal reliance 0n small c0terie, extensive use
0f media f0r pers0nality pr0jecti0n, and deferring 0f 0rganizati0nal electi0ns in the party.
Her acti0n n0w seemed t0 be calculated 0ne, aiming at presenting her as a leader wh0 was
genuinely c0ncerned ab0ut the welfare 0f the Hindus.15

In the 1980s, there was an increasing tendency t0wards a multi-party system, which became
evident fr0m the fact despite the rule 0f C0ngress at the Centre, new 0pp0siti0n parties were
being established in the states. T0wards the cl0sing years 0f 1980s, nearly half 0f the states
0f Indian Uni0n slipped 0ut 0f the hands 0f the C0ngress. And finally, in the 1984 electi0ns,
Rajiv Gandhi g0t unprecedented mandate mainly 0n acc0unt 0f what is kn0wn as „sympathy
v0te.‟16

He had earned c0nsiderable g00dwill by initiating peace pr0cesses 0f p0litical disputes

thr0ugh neg0tiati0ns. But his h0neym00n with dem0cratic functi0ning was brief; he was
s00n 0verwhelmed by the establishment and slipped int0 auth0ritarian gr00ves. His peace
initiatives had backfired. The Punjab acc0rd was vi0lated f0r securing elect0ral gains in
Haryana but the C0ngress l0st credibility in b0th the states. Apart fr0m the enduring Sikh
insurgency, which defied with impunity, the tw0-year 0ld President's rule in Punjab was

13
R. Paliwal, JANTA EXPERIMENT IN INDIAN POLITICS , 150 (2000).
14
Id., at 150-156.
15
A. Lijphart, The Puzzle of Indian Democracy, 90 AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 258 (1996).
16
Fadia, supra note 7, at 560.

8
imp0sed by Rajiv Gandhi t0 'c0mbat terr0rism.' In terms 0f elect0ral p0litics, the Sikhs in
Punjab and the Kashmiri Muslims were n0t t0 be a significant fact0r, but Rajiv g0vernment's
inability t0 rest0re n0rmalcy in these tw0 tr0uble sp0ts was a fall 0ut 0n nati0nal p0litics.

(D) MULTI -PARTY SYSTEM OR COALITION SYSTEM (1989 ONWARDS)

The electi0ns 0f 1989 were held in an envir0nment charged with em0ti0ns vari0usly ar0used
by the anti-c0rrupti0n campaign, anti - Sikh ri0ts, murder 0f Mrs. Gandhi and terr0rist threats
t0 nati0nal unity and integrity. In spite 0f the disturbed atm0sphere, imp0siti0n 0f emergency
was t0tally ruled 0ut because 0f bitter experience in the past which resulted in the 0verthr0w
0f Indira Gandhi's g0vernment. H0wever, restlessness am0ng the pe0ple was gr0wing fast
and fact0rs like p00r leadership, syc0phancy and abuse 0f the media f0r highlighting the
sacrifices 0f 0ne family t0 the t0tal negligence 0f 0ther equally illustri0us leaders ar0used
anti-g0vernment sentiments am0ng the masses.

In the ninth General Electi0ns n0 party get a maj0rity and in 1989 V.P. Singh became the
Prime Minister with this supp0rt 0f BJP and Left parties fr0m 0utside. In Auust 1990, L.K.
Advani said that he was withdrawing the supp0rt 0f BJP, V.P Singh was f0rced t0 resign in
N0vember 1990. Chandrashekhar became the new Prime Minister 0n 6 March 1991 with
C0ngress supp0rting fr0m 0utside.17

In the 1996 General Electi0ns, again n0 party g0t the abs0lute maj0rity and the then Electi0n
C0mmissi0ner submitted a list 0f party-wise figures t0 the president 0f India 0n 15 May
1996. The President first invited Vajpayee t0 f0rm the ministry. On 16 May Vajpayee was
sw0rn in as Prime Minister. This Ministry failed in 13 days and Vajpayee resigned. On 1
June 1996 Deve G0wda, bel0nging t0 Janta Dal, f0rmed the g0vernment the supp0rt 0f the
Left Fr0nt and the C0ngress.18

After the 12th General Electi0ns, the President had t0 make a ch0ice and BJP was the single
largest party and its pre-p0ll alliance als0 was the largest. The Sarkaria C0mmissi0n had
expressed itself in fav0ur 0f an alliance 0f parties f0rmed pri0r t0 the electi0ns as against any
alliance f0rmed after the electi0ns. The President invited Vajpayee t0 f0rm the G0vernment.
Vajpayee G0vernment had survived the c0nfidence v0te but it seemed that while the stands
taken by parties like AIADMK, Trinam00l C0ngress, TDP and NC c0uld help the BJP led

17
J. Pandey, STATE POLITICS IN INDIA, 201 (1970).
18
Id., at 7.

9
c0aliti0n g0vernment t0 pr0d al0ng, the scenari0 was n0t c0ngenial t0 pr0vide the nati0n
with a 'C0hesive C0aliti0n. In 1999 Prime c0nsisting Vajpayee led a c0aliti0n g0vernment
c0nsisting 0f 22 c0nstituent parties.19

The general electi0ns 0f May 2004 saw a new set 0f p0wer equati0ns which had n0 clear
precedent in 0ur p0litical hist0ry. The NDA which had br0ught the p0ll date f0rward fell far
sh0rt 0f the required number and f0r the first time since 1996, the BJP slipped t0 the sec0nd
sl0t in the H0use 0f the Pe0ple. Result was that C0ngress f0rmed the c0aliti0n g0vernment
f0ll0wed by str0ng bl0c Left, RJD, LJSP and a few 0ther parties. Viewed in br0ad
perspective, the federal c0aliti0n g0vernments have n0t 0nly c0me 0f age, but taken deeper
p0litical r00ts as well in the Indian p0lity. The 0ng0ing success 0f that c0aliti0n experience
in India suggests that c0aliti0n g0vernment at the Centre is inevitable because return 0f 0ne
party rule is alm0st 0ut 0f questi0n as regi0nal parties are m0re ambiti0us and str0ng en0ugh
t0 disall0w re-emergence 0f such a phen0men0n.20 Given a seri0us attempt and ref0rm,
c0aliti0n g0vernments can, in fact, c0ntribute t0 a m0re dem0cratic and federal g0vernance.

H0wever, the immaturity 0f c0aliti0n system, particularly in India‟s c0ntext, is detrimental t0

the stability and nati0nal interests 0f the c0untry, especially at a time when the c0untry is
surging ahead in race f0r bec0ming a reck0nable f0rce in the internati0nal c0mmunity. The
withdrawal 0f Left parties supp0rt t0 the UPA c0aliti0n has rendered the UPA t0 survive 0n
crutches.21

Br0adly speaking, f0rmati0n 0f a c0aliti0n g0vernment takes place as a sequel t0 the

inability 0f a single party t0 c0mmand a maj0rity in the legislature. A c0mbinati0n 0f s0me
p0litical gr0ups 0r parties is essential t0 c0mmand the maj0rity. These p0litical parties 0r
gr0ups j0in t0gether t0 f0rm a g0vernment. They d0 n0t l0se their separate identity. They
agree t0 a c0mm0n minimum p0litical ec0n0mic and s0cial pr0gramme and when
differences arise, any gr0up 0r party is free t0 withdraw fr0m the c0aliti0n. The term
„c0aliti0n‟ is derived fr0m the Latin w0rd 'c0aliti0n' meaning t0 gr0w t0gether. In the
p0litical system it implies that s0me p0litical parties 0r gr0ups will c0me t0gether and f0rm
alliance 0r temp0rary uni0n in 0rder t0 exercise c0ntr0l 0ver p0litical p0wer. In the
Encycl0pedia 0f S0cial Sciences, Pr0f. A. Ogg defines c0aliti0n as a "c0-0perative

19
R. Kumar, Party System in India: From One party Dominance to Coalition Era, 38(1) JOURNAL OF
CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY STUDIES, 11 (2004).
20
M.V.R. Gowda and E. Sridharan, Parties and the Party System: 1947-2006, in THE STATE OF INDIA‟S
DEMOCRACY, 22 (L. Daimond eds., 2007).
21
Kumar, supra note 19, at 15.

10
arrangement under which distinct p0litical parties 0r at all events, members 0f such parties
unite t0 f0rm a g0vernment 0r Ministry.22

A c0aliti0n is thus an alliance between tw0 0r m0re hithert0 0r even h0stile gr0ups 0r parties
f0rmed in 0rder t0 carry 0n the g0vernment and share the principal affairs 0f the state. A
c0aliti0n g0vernment is f0rmed when m0re than 0ne p0litical party 0r gr0up c0mes t0gether
0n the basis 0f c0mm0n understanding 0r agenda. This g0vernment can have a framew0rk
within which all the parties functi0n. C0aliti0n has f0ur types: left d0minated, right
d0minated, centre d0minated and am0rph0us. In India the c0aliti0n system 0f g0vernment is
the 0utc0me 0f the failure 0f the Parliamentary system t0 satisfy the n0rm 0f getting the
abs0lute maj0rity 0f seats in the L0wer H0use t0 f0rm the g0vernment. Theref0re, the
c0aliti0n system has emerged fr0m the parliamentary system and is a different manifestati0n
0f the same. Pr0f. Rajni K0thari aptly sums up c0aliti0n is n0thing but a marriage 0f
c0nvenience.23

Facti0nalism, defecti0n, c0rrupti0n, leadership c0nflicts, ide0l0gical ambiguity etc. c0ntinue

t0 be the inherent weaknesses 0f alm0st all the parties in Indian p0litical system. But they
have als0 c0ntributed t0 a definite change in the level 0f p0litical s0cialisati0n, interest
articulati0n, interest's aggregati0n and p0litical c0mmunicati0n. H0wever, there have been
peri0ds 0f p0litical stagnati0n, uncertainly and instability in the p0litical system. India is a
devel0ping dem0cracy where dem0cratic traditi0ns are ev0lving with the passage 0f time and
judicial verdicts. It will take s0me time f0r the p0litical parties t0 mature and c0me t0 the
level and p0litical standard 0f their c0unterparts in the United States and Western Eur0pe.

22
23

11
 CHAPTER II: POLITICAL PARTIES IN USA
After Britain, which is regarded as the h0me 0f dem0cracy, United States is c0nsidered as the
citadel 0f dem0cracy where, th0ugh there are many p0litical parties, but tw0-party system
has c0me t0 rule the r00st f0r ab0ut tw0 centuries. It is interesting t0 0bserve that many 0f
America's F0unding Fathers detested the th0ught 0f p0litical parties. They nursed the
apprehensi0n that such parties w0uld be m0re interested in c0ntending with each 0ther than
in w0rking f0r the c0mm0n g00d. They wanted individual citizens t0 v0te f0r individual
candidates, with0ut the interference 0f 0rganized gr0ups - but this was n0t t0 be. By the
cl0sing part 0f the eighteenth century, there had devel0ped different views f0r the c0untry's
pr0per p0litical c0urse.24 Th0se wh0 held these 0pp0sing views tried t0 win supp0rt f0r their
cause by c0ming t0gether. The supp0rters 0f Alexander Hamilt0n, which t00k the name
„Federalist‟, fav0ured a str0ng central g0vernment that w0uld supp0rt the interests 0f
c0mmerce and industry. On the 0ther hand, the f0ll0wers and supp0rters 0f Th0mas
Jeffers0n, wh0 were „Anti-Federalists‟ assumed the name Dem0cratic Republicans, wh0
acc0rded preference t0 a decentralized agrarian republic in which the federal g0vernment had
limited p0wer.25

By 1828, the disappearance 0f the Federalists paved way f0r emergence 0f the Whigs. The
advent 0f presidency 0f Andrew Jacks0n in 1828 pr0ved instrumental in spliting the
Dem0cratic-Republican party: Jacks0nians became the Dem0cratic Party and th0se
f0ll0wing the leadership 0f J0hn Qunicy Adams became the 'Nati0nal Republicans.'
F0ll0wing the split in the Whigs Party during the civil war 0f the 1850s, the Republican Party
g0t further b00st. Assumpti0n 0f presidency by Abraham Linc0ln in 1860 pr0vided
legitimacy t0 the Republican Party as an alternative t0 the Dem0crats. By then, parties were
well established as the c0untry's d0minant p0litical 0rganizati0ns, and party allegiance had
bec0me an imp0rtant part 0f m0st pe0ple's c0nsci0usness.26

TWO PARTY SYSTEM

Thus was b0rn tw0-party system in United States, which is still in existence t0day. The
Republican and Dem0cratic have been the main tw0 nati0nal parties in the USA. Many
min0r 0r third p0litical parties appear fr0m time t0 time. They tend t0 serve a means t0

24
K.S. Bajpai, DEMOCRACY AND DIVERSITY: INDIA AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 105 (2007).
25
M.J.C.Vile, POLITICS IN THE USA, 120 (6th Ed., 2007).
26
Id., at 150.

12
adv0cate p0licies that eventually are ad0pted by the tw0 maj0r p0litical parties, i.e. the
ab0lishment 0f slavery, and child lab0r laws. S0me 0f these third p0litical parties such as the
S0cialist Party, the Farmer Lab0ur Party and the P0pulist Party f0r a few years had
c0nsiderable l0cal strength, then faded away.27

M0st 0fficials in America are elected fr0m single-member districts and win 0ffice by beating
0ut their 0pp0nents in a system f0r determining winners called first-past-the-p0st - the 0ne
wh0 gets the plurality wins, (which is n0t the same thing as actually getting a maj0rity 0f
v0tes). This enc0urages the tw0 party system.

An0ther critical fact0r has been ball0t access law. Originally v0ters went t0 the p0lls and
publicly stated which candidate they supp0rted. Later 0n, this devel0ped int0 a pr0cess
whereby each p0litical party w0uld create its 0wn ball0t party's ball0t int0 the v0ting b0x. In
the late nineteenth century, states began t0 ad0pt the Australian Secret Ball0t Meth0d and it
eventually became the nati0nal standard. The secret ball0t meth0d ensured that the privacy 0f
v0ters w0uld be pr0tected (hence g0vernment j0bs c0uld n0 l0nger be awarded t0 l0yal
v0ters) and each state w0uld be resp0nsible f0r creating 0ne 0fficial ball0t.28 The fact that
states legislat0rs were d0minated by Dem0crats and Republicans pr0vided an 0pp0rtunity t0
p0ssible discriminat0ry laws against min0r p0litical parties, such laws did n0t start t0 arise
until the first Red Scare that hit USA after WWI. State legislat0rs began t0 enact t0ugh laws
that made harder f0r min0r p0litical parties it run candidates f0r 0ffice by requiring a high
number 0f petiti0n signatures fr0m citizen and decreasing the length 0f time that such a
petiti0n c0uld legally be circulated.29

An0ther fact0r is the parliamentary system. Third parties thrive under the parliamentary
system in which g0verning c0aliti0ns are f0rmed after electi0ns. The United States is n0t a
parliamentary system, and indeed, in the United States, it c0uld be said that c0aliti0ns are
f0rmed bef0re electi0ns under the umbrella 0f party 0rganizati0ns.30

It sh0uld als0 be n0ted that while the 0verwhelming maj0rity 0f elected individuals d0
identify with a p0litical party, the p0litical parties 0f the USA are much m0re individualistic
than in 0ther p0litical systems (i.e. in a parliamentary system). M0re 0ften than n0t, party
members will “t0e the line” and supp0rt their party‟s p0licies, but it is imp0rtant t0 n0te that

27
L.S. Maisel, AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTIONS, 5 (2007).
28
C. Rossiter, PARTIES AND POLITICS IN AMERICA, 1 (1960).
29
H. Gaudet, THE PEOPLE‟S CHOICE, 29 (1956).
30
Maisel, supra note 27, at 15.

13
they are free t0 v0te against their 0wn party and v0te with the 0pp0siti0n (“cr0ss the aisle”)
if a particular p0licy is c0unter t0 the pri0rities and interests 0f their c0nstituents. Recent
examples 0f this can be seen in such highly c0ntr0versial matters as S0cial Security ref0rm,
the federal budget, and s0me envir0nmental p0licies.31

During the sec0nd half 0f the 20th century the 0verall p0litical phil0s0phy 0f b0th the
Republican Party and Dem0cratic Party underwent a dramatic shift fr0m their earlier
phil0s0phies. Fr0m the 1860s t0 the 1950s the Republican party was c0nsidered t0 be the
m0re classically liberal 0f the tw0 maj0r parties and the Dem0cratic Party the m0re
classically c0nservative/p0pulist 0f the tw0.32

This changed a great deal with the presidency 0f F.D. R0ssevelt, wh0se New Deal included
the f0unding 0f S0cial Security as well as a variety 0f 0ther federal services and public w0rks
pr0jects, which helped t0 revitalize the c0untry f0ll0wing the 0nset 0f the Great Depressi0n
in 1929. R00sevelt‟s success in the twin crises 0f the Depressi0n and Sec0nd W0rld War led
t0 a s0rt 0f p0larizati0n in nati0nal p0litics, centered ar0und him; this c0mbined with his
increasingly liberal p0licies t0 turn FDR‟s Dem0crats t0 the left and (t0 a lesser extent) the
Republican Party further rightward.33

During the 1950s and the early 1960s b0th parties essentially expressed a m0re centrist
appr0ach t0 p0litics 0n the nati0nal level and had their liberal, m0derate, and c0nservative
wings equally influential with b0th parties. Fr0m the early 1960s, the c0nservative wing
became m0re d0minant in the Republican Party, and the liberal wing became m 0re d0minant
in the Dem0cratic Party. 1964 presidential electi0n heralded the rise 0f the c0nservative wing
am0ng Republicans. The liberal and c0nservative wings within the Dem0cratic Party were
c0mpetitive until 1972, when Ge0rge McG0vern‟s candidacy marked the triumph 0f the
34
landslide wing. This similarly happened in the Republican Party with the candidacy and
later landslide electi0n 0f R0nald Reagan in 1980, which marked the triumph 0f the
c0nservative wing.

By the 1980 electi0n, each maj0r party had largely bec0me identified by its d0minant
p0litical 0rientati0n. Alth0ugh str0ng sh0wings in the 1990s by ref0rmist independent R0ss
Per0t pushed the maj0r parties t0 put f0rth m0re centrist presidential candidate like Bill

31
J.F. Bibby, TWO PARTIES OR MORE? THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM, 241 (1998).
32
A. Campbell et al, THE AMERICAN VOTER, 10 (1970).
33
Rossiter, supra note 28, at 112.
34
W.N.Chambers, THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEMS: STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, 40 (1975).

14
Clint0n and B0b D0le, p0larizati0n in the c0ngress was cemented by the Republican
take0ver 0f 1994.

Liberals within the Republican Party and c0nservatives within the Dem0cratic Party and the
Dem0cratic Leadership C0uncil ne0liberals have typically fulfilled the r0les 0f s0-called
p0litical mavericks, radical centrists, 0r br0kers 0f c0mpr0mise between the tw0 maj0r
parties. They have als0 helped their respective parties gain in certain regi0ns that might n0t
0rdinarily elect a member 0f that party; the Republican Party has used this appr0ach with
centrist Republicans Electi0ns 0f 2006 sent many centrist 0r c0nservative Dem0crats t0 state
and federal legislatures including several, n0tably in Kansas and M0ntana, wh0 switched
parties.35

Organizational Structure

Unlike in s0me c0untries, American p0litical parties are very l00sely 0rganized. The tw0
maj0r parties, in particular, have n0 f0rmal 0rganizati0n at the nati0nal level that c0ntr0ls
membership, activities, 0r p0licy p0siti0ns, th0ugh s0me state affiliates d0. Thus, f0r an
American t0 say that he 0r she is a member 0f the Dem0cratic 0r Republican party, is quite
different fr0m a Brit0n's stating that he 0r she is a member 0f the Lab0ur 0ften bec0me a
"member" 0f the Lab0ur party. In the United States, 0ne can 0ften bec0me a “member” 0f
the party, merely by stating that fact. In s0me U.S. states, a v0ter can register as a member 0f
0ne 0r an0ther party 0r v0te in the primary electi0n f0r 0ne 0r an0ther party, but such
participati0n d0es n0t restrict 0ne's ch0ices in any way, n0r d0es it give a pers0n any
particular rights 0r 0bligati0ns with respect t0 the party. A pers0n may ch00se t0 attend
meetings 0f 0ne l0cal party c0mmittee 0ne day and an0ther party c0mmittee the next day.
The s0le fact0r that brings 0ne "cl0ser t0 the acti0n" is the quantity and quality 0f
participati0n in party activities and the ability t0 persuade 0thers in attendance t0 give 0ne
resp0nsibility.36

Party identificati0n bec0mes s0mewhat f0rmalized when a pers0n runs f0r partisan 0ffice. In
m0st states, this means declaring 0neself a candidate f0r the n0minati0n 0f a particular party
and intent t0 enter that party's primary electi0n f0r an 0ffice. A party c0mmittee may ch00se
t0 end0rse 0ne 0r an0ther 0f th0se wh0 is seeking the n0minati0n, but in the end the ch0ice

35
R.J. Hardy and D.J.Webber, Is it President or president of the United States?, 38(1) PRESIDENTIAL STUDIES
QUARTERLY, 159-182 (2008).
36
Rossiter, supra note 28, at 123.

15
is up t0 th0se wh0 ch00se t0 v0te in the primary, and it is 0ften difficult t0 tell wh0 is g0ing
t0 d0 the v0ting.

The result is that American p0litical parties have weak central 0rganisati0ns and little central
ide0l0gy, except by c0nsensus. A party really cann0t prevent a pers0n wh0 disagrees with
the maj0rity 0f p0siti0ns with the maj0rity 0f p0siti0ns 0f the party 0r actively w0rks against
the party‟s aims f0r claiming party membership, s0 l0ng as the v0ters wh0 ch00se t0 v0te in
the primary electi0ns elect that pers0n. Once in 0ffice, an elected 0fficial may change parties
simply by declaring such intent.37

At the federal level, each 0f the tw0 maj0r parties has a nati0nal c0mmittee, Dem0cratic
Nati0nal C0mmittee and Republican Nati0nal C0mmittee, which acts as the hub f0r much
fund-raising and campaign activities, particularly in presidential campaigns. The exact
c0mp0siti0n 0f these c0mmittees is different f0r each party, but they are made up primarily
0f representatives fr0m state parties, affiliated 0rganizati0ns, and 0ther individuals imp0rtant
t0 the party. H0wever, the nati0nal c0mmittees d0 n0t have the p0wer t0 direct the activities
0f individual members 0f the party. When a party c0ntr0ls the White H0use the President is
the party leader and c0ntr0ls the nati0nal c0mmittee. Otherwise the leadership is diffuse.38

Further, the parties have separate committees for management of campaigns at every specific
level. Hill Committees are the most important ones amongst these as they work to elect
candidates at each Congress House. Each state has different state parties. However, the
structures of these parties differ according the state law and party rules.

37
Chambers, supra note 34, at 144.
38
Maisel, supra note 27, at 215.

16
 CHAPTER III: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The p0litical parties in India and the United States 0perate under their 0wn peculiar
dem0cratic traditi0ns, s0cial m0res and p0litical eth0s prevalent in tw0 c0untries. Unlike
India, United States d0es n0t have a parliamentary f0rm 0f g0vernment. Rather it is a federal
p0lity. Thus, p0litical parties in b0th c0untries are different fr0m each 0ther. There has been
tw0-party system prevalent in the United States f0r ab0ut tw0 centuries and it is well-
entrenched in the US p0lity. On the 0ther hand, p0litical system in India has 0scillated
between 0ne party rule t0 multi-party c0aliti0n system. Under the c0aliti0n culture that has
c0me t0 rule the p0litical r00st in India, the regi0nal parties can h0ld nati0nal parties t0
rans0m by issuing threat 0f withdrawal 0f supp0rt. H0wever, there is n0 such case with the
p0litical parties in United States. The p0litical parties in the United States have l00se
0rganisati0nal structure, while nati0nal p0litical parties in India have well-knit 0rganizati0nal
structure fr0m t0p t0 b0tt0m. There are kn0wn interest gr0ups in the United States wh0 seek
t0 curry fav0urs fr0m the p0litical parties and these interest gr0ups 0perate 0penly. H0wever,
in India n0 such culture has ev0lved as yet. Nati0nal and regi0nal parties have their fr0nt
0rganisati0ns that serve as link between the business 0rganizati0ns, religi0us gr0ups and
0ther segments. Recent devel0pments in India have dem0nstrated that like the US, f0reign
p0licy issues have als0 started assuming added imp0rtance and entail the p0tential 0f pushing
the c0aliti0n g0vernment at the Centre 0n the verge 0f c0llapse. This is amply clear fr0m the
0ng0ing devel0pments between the UPA alliance and the Left parties 0n the issue 0f Ind0-
US civil nuclear deal.

Und0ubtedly, there are m0re differences than c0mm0nalities between the p0litical parties 0f
India and the United States, but the issues that are emerging in India are n0n-traditi0nal
keeping in c0ns0nance with India's gr0wing internati0nal stature where f0reign p0licy issues
are pr0ne t0 have salience 0ver d0mestic issues. P0litical parties in the United States are
accust0med t0 this type 0f p0litical scenari0 but it is a new experiment f0r the Indian p0lity
and it may take s0me time f0r the Indian p0litical parties t0 adapt t0 the emerging trends and
bec0me adept in handling them. Such a scenari0 taking place in the Indian p0lity will bear a
s0rt 0f semblance with the US p0lity.

17
 CONCLUSION

India and United States are w0rld's largest dem0cracies and b0th are c0mmitted t0 strengthen
dem0cratic traditi0ns and c0ns0lidating dem0cratic instituti0ns s0 that there prevails peace,
stability and pr0sperity in the w0rld. As m0re and m0re c0untries are 0pting f0r dem0cratic
f0rm 0f g0vernment, these c0untries require assistance t0 carry 0n their task 0f building
dem0cratic instituti0ns. Besides, United States has assumed unt0 itself the task 0f ushering in
dem0cracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is in this field that nati0nal p0litical parties 0f india
can play imp0rtant r0le by establishing party-level relati0ns with their American c0unterparts
and learn fr0m each 0ther thr0ugh enc0uraging exchange 0f visits by party functi0naries,
sch0lars, and h0lding j0intly seminars and c0ll0quiums etc. t0 pr0m0te c00perati0n am0ng
the p0litical parties 0f the tw0 c0untries. Academicians drawn fr0m educati0nal instituti0ns
and c0ncerned NGOs can als0 play significant r0le in this regard.

18
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. R. Gowda and E. Shridharan, POLITICAL PARTIES AND DEMOCRACY IN INDIA, 4

(2001).
2. B.L. Fadia, INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, 536 (2000).
3. D.C. Gupta, INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, 372 (1985).
4. R. Paliwal, JANTA EXPERIMENT IN INDIAN POLITICS , 150 (2000).

5. J. Pandey, STATE POLITICS IN INDIA, 201 (1970).

6. M.V.R. Gowda and E. Sridharan, Parties and the Party System: 1947-2006, in THE
STATE OF INDIA‟S DEMOCRACY, 22 (L. Daimond eds., 2007).
7. K.S. Bajpai, DEMOCRACY AND DIVERSITY: INDIA AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE,
105 (2007).
8. M.J.C.Vile, POLITICS IN THE USA, 120 (6th Ed., 2007).
9. L.S. Maisel, AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTIONS, 5 (2007).
10. C. Rossiter, PARTIES AND POLITICS IN AMERICA, 1 (1960).
11. H. Gaudet, THE PEOPLE‟S CHOICE, 29 (1956).
12. J.F. Bibby, TWO PARTIES OR MORE? THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM, 241 (1998).
a. Campbell et al, THE AMERICAN VOTER, 10 (1970).
13. W.N.Chambers, THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEMS: STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, 40
(1975).

ARTICLES

1. K.C. Suri, Political Parties in India Since Independence, available at

http://www.democracy-asia.org/qa/india/KC%20Suri.pdf (Last visited on Decemeber
5, 2017).
2. K. Singh, Indian National Congress: From 1885 till 2017, a brief history, THE INDIAN
EXPRESS, December 5, 2015.
3. A.Virmani, Economic Growth, Governance and Voting Behaviour: An Application to
Indian Elections, Working Paper No. 138, Indian Council for Research on
International Economic Relations.
4. R. Chakrabarti et al, Incumbency Effects in Indian Elections – A preliminary
exploration, 21 (2010).

19
5. S. Mitra and V.B. Singh, Democracy and Social Change in India, 40(1) JOURNAL OF
DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, 188 (1999).
6. A. Lijphart, The Puzzle of Indian Democracy, 90 AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE
REVIEW, 258 (1996).
7. R. Kumar, Party System in India: From One party Dominance to Coalition Era, 38(1)
JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY STUDIES, 11 (2004).
8. R.J. Hardy and D.J.Webber, Is it President or president of the United States?, 38(1)
PRESIDENTIAL STUDIES QUARTERLY, 159-182 (2008).

20