Political Science International Relations NOTES

(Party System)
– by Vaibhav Mishra

National & Regional Political Parties in India

Political Parties and Party System

Unique features of political parties in India

• Zoya Hassan

• Paul brass (Paradox)

• Yogendra Yadav (institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization.)

Nature of Indian party system has multiple stages

Congress Dominance

Breakdown of Congress system

• Internal

• External

Present status and future

• Suhas Palshikar

Political Parties and Party System

Political parties are essential institutions for representative democracy. Political parties perform
various roles. For example formation of government, formation of opposition, political education,
political socialization etc.

On one hand there are scholars like Laski who believe that political parties are essential for
democracy. On the other, there are leaders like Gandhi MN Roy and Jaiprakash Narayan who
believe in a party-less democracy.

Party system is not based on number of parties but it is based on number of parties having
systemic relevance.

For example at the time of independence there were multiple parties but Indian party system was
known as one party dominant system.

Unique features of political parties in India and their difference from parties in the western
countries

According to Zoya Hasan political parties in India reflect many unusual features.

• No concern for ideology – there is a growth of catch-all parties.

• Rather than policy-oriented, parties are office-oriented

• The disconnect between people and parties.

1
• Connection between political parties and corporate groups including among the communist
and socialist parties. NOTES
• Some parties have unique nomenclature like AIADMK.

• None of the parties have any grand design

Views of Paul Brass

• Indian parties reflect paradoxical features. There is a blend of Western bureaucratic structure
with indigenous political practices and institutions. Political parties lack intraparty democracy.

Views of Yogendra Yadav

• Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as
deinstitutionalization. On one hand, their reach is increasing but on the other hand, the depth
and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to
the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of a democratic
nation and nation-building.

Nature of Indian party system has multiple stages

Stage 1. Up till 1967. Congress system

Stage 2. From 1967 to 1977. Breakdown of Congress system.

Stage 3 1977 in 1979. Two-party system.

Stage 4 from 1979 to 1989. The emergence of a multi-party system.

Stage 5 1989 till 2014. Multi-party democracy system, age of coalition politics.

Stage 6 2014 onwards. BJP dominant party system.

History of Party System in India

At the time of independence, India had multiple parties but the Indian party system as described
by Morris Jones used to be known as a one-party dominant system.

Letter on Rajni Kothari has coined the term ‘Congress system’. It shows the dominant status of
Congress. no other party with the exception of Kerala and Kashmir could form the government
even at the state level. Rajni Kothari calls Congress, a party of consensus and other parties as
parties pressure.

Rajni Kothari calls Congress a Rainbow coalition. Congress itself was a Grand coalition. Congress
programme could incorporate the interest of the different sections of the society. The status of
opposition parties was like pressure groups. There located outside the margins of the party
system.

Reasons for the Congress system

The hegemony of the Congress was because of its role in the Indian National Movement. Congress
became a mass party under the leadership of Gandhiji. Congress maintained centrist agenda.
Congress rejected communalism as well as communism.

2
Nehru maintained a democratic intellectual climate within the party. Nehru promoted freedom of NOTES
speech and expression within the party, the culture of toleration and accommodation. Nehru
showed sensitivity towards minorities. Most importantly Nehru could convince the Indian masses
that Congress is critical for the survival nation.

Breakdown of Congress system

Breakdown started in 1967 when Congress lost its majority in nine States. In 8 states for the first
time the non-Congress government could come to power and in the 9th State Congress could form
a government only in the coalition.

Why the decline of Congress system?

Internal and external factors.

Internal factors:

1. De-institutionalization of democracy within the party

2. Concentration of power in the hands of a single leader

3. Lack of intraparty democracy.

4. Intra-party elections have taken place only thrice since 1972. (before 2022, last contested
election was held in 2000 )

5. Congress last the touch with grassroots leaders. Newline Central leadership was dependent on
loyalists. There is no scope for internal criticism and descent.

External factors

1. As suggested by Yogendra Yadav, the decline of Congress is linked to the deepening of

democracy.

2. 1st democratic upsurge has resulted in OBCs coming out of the party.

3. 2nd democratic upsurge resulted in the Dalits coming out of the party.

Today Congress remains the party of minorities and Scheduled Tribes community. At present
Congress’ social base comes from minorities and even in the 2014 election 35% of minority words
had gone to Congress. Other causes for the decline of the Congress system also includes Green
Revolution and state reorganisation. this has resulted in the strength of OBCs and the rise of the
regional parties.

Present status of congress

According to Suhas Palshikar, Congress is not in a state of decline, rather the 2014 election mark
the death of Congress. The number of seats which country got in the 2014 election is even less
than the number of seats Congress could get after the emergency. Congress’ social base, as well as
territorial base, has shrunken.

According to Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Congress should leave the majority and minority complex.
Congress should know how to make strategic alliances. Instead of the party of defence, Congress

3
should emerge as a party of transformation. The party should go back to the role of organising
social movements and should not restrict itself to electoral calculus. NOTES

Rise of regional parties (Since 1989)

Institutional factors

Social and economic factors

Consequences.

The nature of party system in India since 1989

Politics does not operate in a vacuum; similarly, parties also do not operate in a vacuum. The party
system gets influenced by all factors internal and external. The Indian party system is also
changing in the context of the changing external and internal development. India, which is known
as one-party dominance system, got transformed into a multi-party system. From 1989, the era of
coalition politics started. From 1977 itself we see the process of fragmentation and regionalization.

Causes for the rise of regional parties

There are institutional factors:

• Delinking of parliamentary and state legislative elections. It has given opportunities for
Regional parties for mobilization of people on local issues.

• India’s Federal system: State governments deal with those issues which are of day to day
relevance. This also gives an advantage to the regional parties. The leaders associated with
regional parties are in Greater contact with the people at the Grass root level.

• Linguistic reorganisation of states has given rise to the dominant caste forming their own
regional parties.

Social and economic factors:

• The Green Revolution gave rise to the intermediate caste asserting their power even in the
political sphere.

• The deepening of social cleavages as a result of the continuous mobilization of people on

ethnic grounds.

• The growing politicization of religion

• The growing consciousness about rights and democracy

• The suspension of democracy and the introduction of emergencies also led to the
fragmentation of Congress and the strengthening of regional parties.

Consequences
Regionalization of Indian political party system has resulted into both negative as well as positive
consequences.

1. It led to the rise of coalition politics.

2. Coalition politics in the absence of healthy coalition culture has given rise to

4
 1. Party paralysis

2. Increased role of money and muscle power.

NOTES

3. Politicization of the post of speaker.

4. Decline of parliament.

On the other hand, regionalization has resulted into,

1. Our democracy becoming more representative.

2. Regionalization has strengthened the federal axis of Indian political system. It has
strengthened the bargaining power of state governments.

Some of the other consequences include:

• Regional issues dominate over national concerns.

• Greater role for state even in foreign policy.

Rise of Right
History of BJP.

Causes of the rise of BJP.

Hanson: Middle class anxiety

James Manor: Congress demise

Christophe Jaffrelot: Hindu Insecurity

From 2 seats in 1984 to 282 seats in 2014 and 303 seats in 2019, there is no question on the rise of
right in Indian politics.

Thomas Blom Hanson in his book SAFFRON WAVE has explained the phenomenal rise of BJP and
the forces of Hindutva.

Milan Vaishnav also suggests that there is a big change in the electoral behaviour of people in
India. For long, Indian politics was based on the agenda of secularism and minoritism. The
present Indian politics is a rejection of both minoritism and Congress version of secularism and
the assertion of majoritarianism in combination with the concern for good governance and
development.

5
 NOTES

Causes of the rise of BJP

1. Globalization.

• NRIs provide huge support to BJP’s policies.

• Globalization has given rise to ethnic politics worldwide, leading to strengthening of

religious identity.

• The rising fear of Islamic fundamentalism.

• Economic policy which matches with globalization.

• The growth of middle class in India

2. Decline in Congress.

3. Demise of the left.

4. Organizational strength till grassroot level.

5. Nationalistic rhetoric.

6. Strong leadership and Internal Party Democrcy

6
History of BJP
NOTES
BJP is a successor to Jana Sangha formed in 1951 by Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. The other
prominent leader was Pt. Deendayal Upaddhyaya. Party believed that strong opposition was
necessary for democracy. So they wanted to give strong challenge to Nehruvian consensus.

Jan Sangha was part of Janata Party govt. In 1980, over the disputes of association with RSS and
policy of secularism, Jana Sangha members came out of Janata Party and formed BJP on 6 April
1980.
BJP is influenced by cultural nationalism, Gandhian socialism, positive secularism. Unlike Hindu
Mahasabha, positive secularism of BJP aims at giving equal protection to all religions.

Integral Humanism of Pt. Deendayal Upaddhyaya

• According to Pt. Deendayal Upaddhyaya, western ideas are not suitable for India because they
have not been part of India’s history.

• India should adopt modern science but not the western way of life. He gives the example of
Japan, which has modernized without adopting western culture.

• Integral Humanism is a philosophy based on Indian way of life. It is a philosophy which

integrates mind, body and soul.

History of BJP
According to Hanson, rise of BJP is not a religious phenomenon, nor is it a strictly political
phenomenon. It is happening in the backdrop of the democratic transformation taking place
in the country. As lower castes and OBCs are mobilizing themselves, the amorphous Indian
middle class becomes anxious. Even lower class Hindus got attracted towards BJP’s
majoritarianism rhetoric, constructed in the name of nationalism, cultural pride, order,
development and leadership.

According to James Manor: With the decline of Congress, people were left with two options: Left
or BJP.
Left ideology lacked imagination. Left also lacked leadership. Right appeared to be a better option
from all perspectives.

According to Christophe Jaffrelot: The sense of insecurity among the Hindus as Congress
policies were seen as minority appeasement. Congress, which was once an umbrella party, has
been reduced to the status of party of minority.

Left Parties in India

Problems with Indian left

Left Parties in India

Praful Bidwai, in his book Phoenix Movement: Challenges Confronting Indian Left. Suggests
that the decline of left is an old story. It is surprising that left in India could never take root despite
the prevalence of mass poverty. It is also surprising that youth in India is attracted towards right
rather than toward left. 2019 elections showed the worst performance of left. Left managed to get
only 5 seats and 2.33% of vote share. The best performance of left was in 2004 when they got 64
seats.

7
Initially left was the major opposition to the Congress. It’s vote share was double the vote share of
Jan Sangha (rightist party). Today rightists are in position to form government on its own. BJP has NOTES
given a halt to coalition politics. But unfortunately today, the left has got completely marginalized.

There have been following problem with Indian left

• Because of their shifting stand during Indian freedom struggle, left could never gain the
trust of Indian masses.

• Neither then, nor now left has presented any serious understanding of the peculiar
circumstances of Indian Politics. They are still dependent on imported doctrines.

• The principle of democratic centralism, which does not allow dissent and internal debate,
has been the factor for weakening of left. Left in India also has high command culture.

• Left leaders do not have grassroot base. Most of them have been picked up from
universities.

• Left agenda was initially hijacked by INC and now by AAP. Congress was a better version of
Indian form of socialism and AAP is a better version of new left.

• There is a lack of internal solidarity among the left parties.

• The main feature of the left politics is politics of social movements as radical democracy. But
left has confined itself to the electoral politics.

• Left in India has not done the politics of class or development. It has also done the politics of
religion and caste.

• Globalization has made left ideology redundant. Left ideology does not meet the ambitions
of youth in India.

• Left foreign policy is completely redundant. Left has taken up the foreign policy left by
Congress. Today the strongest advocate of non-alignment is not Congress, rather Indian left.

• Left foreign policy is based on anti-globalization, anti-Americanism.

• Left also lacks leadership. For 2014 elections, none of the left leaders was among the top
preference for Prime Ministerial post.

• Globalization has created foot loose workforce. Hence it is difficult to build and organize trade
unions.

• Left lost in W.B. because the left govt. in W.B. used force on his own constituency and favoured
its adversarial class (corporate class).

The AAP as part of a global phenomenon

Globalisation has engulfed the world over the past 25 years, especially after the fall of the USSR. It
has been projected as the pillar of capitalism, and there has been a lot of focus on urbanisation —
an offshoot of globalisation — which has caused enormous socio-economic changes. While the
endeavour for high growth has provided opportunities to many people and lifted several out of
poverty, it has also had its own set of challenges.

8
As Thomas Piketty wrote in his book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” inequality is present in
most of the major cities in the world. This has created a situation where there are large chunks NOTES
of people in cities who are unemployed or impoverished; people who have been promised
opportunities but have been neglected since income is concentrated in the hands of a few. These
people are now becoming a vocal majority, asking questions about how economics is
fundamentally functioning in the world. We have seen this in New York, Sao Paulo, Hong Kong,
London and Paris, and New Delhi is no exception.

Movements across the world An example of political movements riding on this sentiment is the
rise of the Workers’ Party in Brazil. The emergence of Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva (Lula) was
synonymous with a left-of-centre “bottom-up” kind of participatory politics which broke the
conventional stereotype of democracy in South America. Mr. Lula who was President in 2002 and
has been an integral part of his party since its early days. The Workers’ Party emerged while
addressing the negative effects of urbanisation which plagued the city of Sao Paulo.

Besides Brazil, countries in Europe have faced similar movements that have addressed
inequality. The rise of Syriza, the leftist anti-austerity party in Greece, has been another example
of the growing frustration with crony capitalism that thrives in most countries. According to
records, in 2013, Greece had 62 per cent of its population in its cities. Its leader Alexis Tsipras
moved beyond the core left ideology and focussed on the impact of the debt crisis and inequality
in Greece, to win a landmark election a month ago.

Another example is the protests in Hong Kong. The emergence of these protests was not just
about universal suffrage; it was about a larger issue of urban inequality and lack of opportunities
for the country’s citizens. Almost 1.3 million people (19 per cent) of Hong Kong live below the
poverty line and the income distribution Gino coefficient was at 5.4 in 2011. Even in the United
States, there have been growing concerns in cities such as New York and Los Angeles over the
increasing levels of urban inequality. One in every three children lives in poverty according to U.S.
Census Bureau, and according to the Census’ American Community Survey, the top 5 per cent of
households earned 88 per cent as much as the bottom 20 per cent. The Occupy Wall Street
movement, even though it fizzled out, was an indicator that inequality triggered by basic issues is
at the centre of social issues concerning major metropolitan cities across the world.

Urbanisation in India Most of these movements have resulted from city-based urban issues. The
after-effects of urbanisation have resulted in small movements which have transformed into
national movements over time. Issues such as inequality and unemployment have been rampant
in Indian urban places also. India has been urbanising at a rapid pace: according to the 2011
Census, 31.6 per cent of the population has been urbanised — this is an increase from the 11.1 per
cent of almost a century ago. According to a report by the UN State of the World Population report,
over 40.76 per cent of the population will be urban by 2030. In addition, according to the United
Nation’s World Urbanisation Report 2014, India is projected to add an astounding 404 million
urban people which is almost one third of its overall population today. With rapid urbanisation
comes rapid migration to and between cities, and issues such as inequality, emerging from these
conditions, could transform into a national movement.

3rd FRONT
3rd front is a fluid category. It’s combination keep on changing. It is primarily the collection of
regional parties. 3rd front is not insignificant. It continues to have significant share of votes

9
and has dominant presence at state level. Since 3rd front represents OBCs as well as other
sections like Muslims, Dalits, 3rd front is always an important force. NOTES

3rd front has also formed government at the union level 2 times.
• In 1989, National Front Govt. was formed with the support of BJP.

• United Front Govt. in 1996, with the support of Congress and CPI(M).

However, 3rd front could never provide stable government. It has never been stable internally. It
emerges before elections and dissolves after elections.

In 2008, 3rd front formed United National Progressive Alliance.

In 2014, 14 parties formed 3rd front as an alternative to corrupt Congress and communal BJP.

However it was dissolved within 24 hours.

In 2019 elections, 3rd front was formed under the banner of Mahagatabandhan. And even
Congress was part of it. It was, however, ineffective to influence election outcome.

Issues:
• Heterogenous composition

• Lack of uniform agenda

• Mostly group of regional and caste parties

• Lack of leadership

• Failed to rise above parochialism

• Political opportunism

• Lack of sense of ownership

• Lack social coalition at grass root.

Regional Parties
According to Milan Vaishnav, rise of regional political parties is an eternal theme of Indian politics.
Regional parties operate within limited geographic area and bank on language, minority, religion
etc. Number of regional parties in India is much larger due to large variety.

According to Sudha Pai, regional parties are rooted in regional ground. They should not be seen as
a byproduct of regionalism, rather phenomenon in its own right. It is a result of linguistic
reorganization, decline in congress system, uneven development etc

Coalition Politics in India

Unique features of India’s coalition culture

Consequences of Coalition Politics in India.

Is coalition is desirable in India?

10
Coalition government is the feature of parliamentary form of government. It emerges in the
situation of hung assembly or parliament. William Riker has explained the coalition as ‘power NOTES
sharing arrangement’.

It is not unique to India. It is a regular feature of countries in continental Europe. In Europe, Italy’s
coalition culture come near to India’s coalition culture.

Coalition is not new to India. Coalition governments were formed even in 1937. Congress itself was
a ‘grand coalition’. Even Janata Party was a coalition of many non-Congress parties. Coalition
politics has become a regular feature of national level from 1989 onwards. But it has been a
regular feature of the state level since 4th general elections.

Coalition politics at the state level has been more mature than the coalition politics at the union
level. Kerala & W.B. give one of the best examples of mature coalition culture.

Unique features of India’s coalition culture

Bidyut Chakravarty.

• In western nations, coalition is "coalition by design." In contrast, the coalition in India is still
looking for a design and is "coalition by political calculations.”

• Coalitions are power-sharing arrangements, therefore in western nations; we typically see the
smallest coalition that can win. However, a "oversized coalition" has developed in India.

• In western countries, ideological convergence is taken into account. But in India Rainbow
coalition have been formed. (Different ideology).

• In case of India, negative coalitions have been the regular feature. Coalitions have been
formed not to run the government but to stop someone else from coming to power. Once that
objective is achieved, it becomes difficult to maintain the solidarity as there is little ideological
coherence.

• The core (main) party has not followed the practice of consultation with the partners of
coalition.

Consequences of Coalition Politics in India

Unfortunately, coalition politics has had more unfavourable effects. The problem does not rest in
the coalition rather problem lie in India's coalition culture. Among the unfavourable effects are:

• Policy paralysis.

• Decline of parliament.

• Decline in post of speaker.

• Decline in dignity of speaker.

• Judicial activism.

• Presidential activism.

• Frequent elections.

o Horse trading. Defection.

11
• Increasing role of money and muscle power.

• Increasing use of ethnic mobilization.

NOTES

• Weakening of institution of PM. (In a coalition, there are more than one PMs. For a particular
faction, their own leader is PM).

• Increase in corruption.

Is coalition is desirable in India?

Since coalition is not avoidable in a country like India with huge diversity, it is more important to
think about how to make coalition work rather than thinking over its desirability.

Coalition itself is not bad. Coalition makes democracy more representative, consociational.
However coalition may impact national interest of country if it does not have healthy coalition
culture. Hence we have to think how to bring healthy coalition culture.

We can learn from countries like Germany which shows sound coalition culture. We can
incorporate some of the features found in Germany, rather than basing India’s parliamentary
system entirely on Westministerial model. In Germany, Chancellor enjoys a stronger status in
comparison to the PM of British model. Since the major problem of coalition politics is political
instability. Hence we can constitute the system of ‘constructive vote of no-confidence’. We can also
think of Japanese model where PM is elected by members of the lower house.
We should rather shift to Chancellors model because in coalition politics, the position of PM
becomes weak. Coalition partners get huge bargaining power. Role of PM gets reduced to
manager of coalition rather than leader. This is avoided in Chancellor system. The Chancellor
determines the policies of different department. Ministries have to work as per the policy directed.
Cabinet system comes into practice only when there is a conflict between two ministries.

Former PM Manmohan Singh used to suggest that India lacks Coalition Dharma.

Electoral Behaviour
The study of electoral behavior is a result of the growth of behavioral movement in political
science.
According to Milan Vaishnav, the study of electoral behavior in India is a challenging task because
of size and diversity. We can also put forward the argument of Kenneth Arrow who has given
‘impossibility theorem’. In case of elections, it is difficult to determine the preference, when voters
have more than 3 choices.

Still India is a interesting case study of the electoral behavior.

It is a big puzzle, why do Indians vote. And vote in such a huge numbers. And when despite voting,
nothing gets translated into any concrete achievement as far as governance and development is
concerned.

It is a big puzzle, why do Indians vote. And vote in such a huge numbers. And when despite voting,
nothing gets translated into any concrete achievement as far as governance and development is
concerned.

Mukulika Banerjee and her team has conducted ethnographic survey of Indian voters. Survey gives
many interesting findings.

12
1. Many voters consider that act of voting is an assertion of their citizenship right and duties.

2. Elections are the time when power inversion takes place.

NOTES

3. People think that it is better to choose and reject who govern them.

4. Some vote out of feeling of revenge.

5. Some vote because members of their caste or community are contesting.

6. Some vote because they think that election commission is doing great job.

7. Some feel the edifice of democracy in India will collapse otherwise.

8. Some even consider voting as their sacred duty.

Trends in electoral behaviour

According to study, poor are more sophisticated and strategic voters than the rich. Poor people
have higher dependency on government welfare provisions. They have been found to be more
aware and understand the value of their vote than the educated middle classes, who vote for not
anything in return but as a duty towards nation.

According to LOKNITI (a part of CDSS), we can see following trends in India’s electoral behaviour.
Caste and religion remain the major long term determinant.

Corruption and anti-incumbency does not matter.

No difference in the preferences of men & women, rural & urban.

According to Yogendra Yadav, people in India are moving from identity politics to identity plus
politics. It includes concern for identity as well as development.

Assessment of Indian voters

Prannoy Roy, Ashok Lahiri, David Butler in their book titled A Compendium Of Indian Elections show
that the voting behavior of Indians is many times more mature than the voting behavior of voters
in western countries.

According to M P Singh, the credit for success for India’s democracy go to the great common sense
shown by ordinary voters in India. He suggests that we cannot say that verdict of any election was
ever wrong. People always voter for the best possible option.

Composition of 17th Lok Sabha

Party Seats % share of votes

BJP 303 37.36%

INC 52 19.49%

DMK 23 2.26%

AITC 22 4.07%

13
Socio-Economic Profile of Legislature
NOTES
Parliament is a mirror of society. Profile of parliament gives us many valuable indications about
the nature of society and the changing direction of society.

There is no difference in profile of members of parliament and state legislature. There is no

difference in the profile of members of upper house and lower house.

Upper house – peter sober.

Lower house – peter drunk.

3 Phases
Shankar and Rodrigues have divided the changing profile of MPs in 3 phases.

1st Phase. Till 1967:

• In terms of caste, Brahmins dominated the parliament. OBCs, women and minorities were
under represented.

• Representation in proportion of population for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes ensured their presence.

• In terms of education, most of them were graduates from foreign universities, including the
members of scheduled caste community.

• In terms of profession, lawyers were more in number and the 2nd position was of
agriculturalists.

2nd Phase. 1967 – 1989

The phase of transition:

• As a result of state reorganization, green revolution and deepening of democracy, there was a
rise of intermediate caste. A phenomenon described by Yogendra Yadav as 1st democratic
upsurge.

• Now OBCs became the most dominant section. In terms of profession, agricultaralists were
in majority and 2nd was of social service members.

• Earlier professionals were joining politics and politics was not a source of income but now the
trend started where the politics became the full time profession. The trend started
because of JP movement and Sanjay Gandhi youth congress. Youth entered the politics at the
time of career formation.

• Number of graduates from foreign universities have declined. Nothing changed as far as the
representation of minorities and women is concerned. Representation of women got
stagnated around 8-10% of total seats.

3rd Phase. From 1989

The phase of plebeianization (mobocracy)

• Prof. Yogendra Yadav explains it through the term ‘2nd democratic upsurge’.

14
• Parliament continues to be dominated by OBCs. And in terms of profession, by agriculturalists
and social workers. NOTES
• Not much change with respect to women and minority representation.

• Number of graduates have increased.

• Since 1990s, there has been too much presence of persons from criminal background. A
phenomenon known as ‘criminalization of Indian politics’.

Profile of 17th Lok Sabha

Profession 2014 2019

Agricultural background 27% 38%

Social workers 24% 39%

Business background 20% 23%

Education 2014 2019

Studied till 12th 17% 27%

Graduates 75% 72%

Post graduates 42% 29%

Criteria 2014 2019

Average age 50-55 yrs. 54 yrs.

First timers 58% [316 MPs] 49% [267 MPs]

Women MPs 11.3% [62 MPs] 14% [78 MPs]

Criminal cases 34% [185 MPs] 43% [233 MPs]

Accused of serious crime 16% [87 MPs] 29% [159 MPs]

15