National and regional political parties
Political Parties — Meaning & Functions
Working definition
A political party is an organised group that seeks to capture political power through elections and government formation.
A political party is “an association organised in support of some principle or policy which by constitutional means it endeavours to make the determinant of government.”
Robert M. MacIver
A political party is “an organised collection of persons that claim or share the same political ideals and attempt to dominate the government by operating as a political unit.”
R. N. Gilchrist
Functions
Contest elections · form governments · act as opposition · make laws · shape public opinion · recruit leaders · aggregate interests · articulate social demands · connect people with government · provide access to welfare schemes.
Harold Laski treats parties as indispensable to democracy. Against this, Mahatma Gandhi, M. N. Roy and Jayaprakash Narayan supported party-less democracy, stressing direct popular participation.
Theories of Political Parties
| Theory | Key thinker(s) | Core idea |
|---|---|---|
| Normative | Edmund Burke | Parties are groups united by common principles and national purpose. |
| Cadre & Mass | — | Cadre parties: elite-based, disciplined, limited membership. Mass parties: broad membership, grassroots mobilisation. |
| Cleavage | Seymour Martin Lipset & Stein Rokkan | Parties rest on social cleavages: centre vs periphery, state vs church, landed vs industrial interests, owner vs worker. |
| Institutional | Maurice Duverger | Electoral systems shape party systems. First-Past-The-Post tends to two-party competition; proportional representation to multi-party systems. |
| Rational choice | — | Parties maximise votes, power and influence. Median voter theorem pulls them to the centre; issue positioning adapts to voters. |
| Cartel party | Richard Katz & Peter Mair | Established parties use state resources to protect themselves from new competitors. |
| Organisational | Robert Michels | The iron law of oligarchy — power inevitably concentrates at the top. |
| Functional | Giovanni Sartori; Otto Kirchheimer | Aggregation, articulation, socialisation, recruitment. Kirchheimer’s catch-all party dilutes ideology to attract broad electorates. |
| Marxist | V. I. Lenin | Parties express class interests; bourgeois vs proletarian. Lenin saw the Communist Party as the vanguard of revolution. |
“In every party, the tendency towards oligarchy is inevitable. Democratic processes within parties are essential to counter this trend and ensure accountability.”
Robert Michels
India is an anomaly to Duverger’s law: First-Past-The-Post operates here with a multi-party system.
Recognition of Parties — the ECI Criteria
India has a multi-party system. Parties are classified as national, state and regional. The Election Commission of India registers parties and grants symbols.
| National party (any one) | State party (any one) |
|---|---|
| 2% of Lok Sabha seats from at least three states. | Three seats, or 3% of Assembly seats. |
| Or 6% vote share plus four Lok Sabha seats. | Or one Lok Sabha seat for every 25 seats allotted to the state. |
| Or recognition as a state party in four or more states. | Or 6% vote share plus one Lok Sabha and two Assembly seats; or 8% vote share in the state. |
Evolution of the Indian Party System
Party system
A party system refers not only to the number of parties but also to their relevance, competition, alliances and power relations.
M. P. Singh maps the phases: movement party system (1920–1947); Congress System (1952–1969); confrontation between Indira Gandhi’s Congress and the Jayaprakash Narayan movement; differentiation between national and state party systems in the 1980s; federal coalition system since 1989; BJP-led dominant (fourth) party system after 2014; and the re-emergence of coalition politics after 2024.
From movement to dominance to coalition — and back. Movement party (1920–47 · freedom struggle) → Congress System (1952–69 · one-party dominance) → Confrontation & state systems (1967–89 · splits, regional rise) → Federal coalitions (1989–2014 · NF, UF, NDA, UPA) → BJP fourth system (2014 · then allies return, 2024).
The Congress System
Rajni Kothari called Congress dominance the Congress System. It worked as a broad umbrella party: it combined government and opposition functions within itself, reduced opposition parties to pressure groups, accommodated left and right tendencies, held a centrist ideology, represented multiple interests and became the central institution of Indian politics.
The Congress System was “dominance coexisting with competition but without a trace of alteration.”
W. H. Morris-Jones
Congress won majorities in 1952, 1957 and 1962 and stayed dominant until 1967. Despite a vote share below 48%, First-Past-The-Post converted it into large seat majorities.
Breakdown of the Congress System
From 1967 the system unravelled: Congress lost dominance in several states; regional parties and leaders emerged; lower classes and agricultural communities pushed back; Charan Singh-led parties rose in the North; reservations for backward classes became an alternative agenda. Congress split in 1969. The Emergency (1975–1977) damaged its legitimacy, and the Jayaprakash Narayan movement mobilised anti-Congress politics. The Janata Party (1977, a merger of five parties) followed; the 1989 election brought the Janata Dal-led National Front under V. P. Singh.
W. H. Morris-Jones called the post-1967 shift a market polity, where competition moved from within Congress to inter-party conflict.
The BJP System & the Fourth Party System
The 2014 election marked a new phase. Chhibber and Verma read it as the arrival of the fourth party system: the BJP became the system-defining pole, Congress was marginalised, the Left declined and many regional parties lost ground. Hindutva, welfare, leadership and nationalism combined; Narendra Modi’s leadership became central, backed by media strategy, organisation and finance.
| Congress System (1952–69) | BJP / fourth system (2014– ) |
|---|---|
| Broad social coalition, national agenda, electoral dominance, weak national opposition. | Shares the same broad coalition, national dominance and weak national opposition. |
| Flexible and accommodative. | Firmer ideological grounding in Hindu nationalism. |
| Dominance was internally plural. | Dominance is more centralised. |
| Opposition survived as pressure within the party. | Regional parties still challenge the BJP in many states. |
The 2024 Lok Sabha reset the picture: the BJP won 240 seats and the NDA reached 293, forcing reliance on the Janata Dal (United) and the Telugu Desam Party and reviving coalition bargaining. The fourth system weakened but did not disappear — Milan Vaishnav and Caroline Mallory argue many of its attributes remain intact despite the correction.
Intra-Party Democracy
Intra-party democracy
Internal transparency, participation and accountability within political parties.
Problems in India
High-command culture · dynastic leadership · centralised nominations · weak internal elections · factional manipulation · money and muscle power · ideological flexibility without accountability · limited Election Commission authority under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act.
Robert Michels’s iron law of oligarchy explains the concentration of power. Susan Scarrow argues internal democracy strengthens party legitimacy, and Giovanni Sartori calls parties schools of democracy. Critics counter: Maurice Duverger warns it can weaken cohesion, Leon D. Epstein stresses the cost to efficiency, and John H. Aldrich warns internal processes can be captured by interest groups or charismatic figures.
Reform track
The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission notes over-centralisation distances authority from accountability; the Law Commission’s 170th Report and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution call for legislation on internal democracy and party functioning. Add transparency in finance, internal elections, candidate-selection reform, anti-defection reform and an enforceable legal framework.
The Party System — Assessment
The Indian party system mirrors the country’s federal, social and electoral complexity. It began with Congress dominance, moved into multi-party competition, entered coalition politics after 1989, became BJP-centric after 2014 and returned to coalition bargaining after 2024. Caste, religion, region and class continue to shape competition. First-Past-The-Post did not produce a simple two-party system because India’s social cleavages are regionally varied.
Regional Parties & Federalism — Meaning
Regional party
A party that operates primarily within a state or region and represents local interests, identities or aspirations.
They may be regionally located, regionalist, caste-based, linguistic, religious-regional or tribal parties, or statehood movements turned parties.
DMK · AIADMK · Shiromani Akali Dal · National Conference · PDP · Shiv Sena · Telugu Desam Party · Assam Gana Parishad · Trinamool Congress · Samajwadi Party · Bahujan Samaj Party · Rashtriya Janata Dal · Biju Janata Dal · TRS / BRS
Regional Parties — Causes of Rise
Decline of Congress · linguistic reorganisation · over-centralisation · regional economic inequalities · caste mobilisation · assertion of Dalits and OBCs · sons-of-the-soil movements · uneven development · cultural protection · local leadership · coalition politics.
Vidyut Chakraborty argues local leaders were closer to common people and more concerned with local issues; Surendra Mohan that central leadership failed to protect cultural identities and address regional inequalities; Douglas Verney links their rise to the decline of Congress and the unravelling of the Janata Party; N. T. Rama Rao argued regional parties better understand state-specific problems. E. Sridharan identifies parliamentary–state election linkages, the federal system, grassroots connections and linguistic state organisation.
Regional Parties — Claims & Agenda
Three core claims: national parties do not address specific regional interests; regional pride, honour, culture and identity must be protected; the Centre should devolve more powers.
Agenda — statehood, autonomy, special packages, cultural rights, language protection, caste representation, minority protection, resource control, employment for locals and federal devolution.
Hard claims — secession, radical restructuring, strong autonomy. Soft claims — decentralisation, protection, fiscal devolution, greater representation.
Regional Parties — Role & Impact
They shape coalition formation, national policy, Rajya Sabha negotiations, federal bargaining, resource distribution, language policy, identity recognition, welfare design and constitutional federalism.
Zoya Hasan notes more than 18 regional parties have held power at state and national levels; Christophe Jaffrelot calls them kingmakers after the 1990s; E. Sridharan that they reshape Centre–State bargaining; Vernon Hewitt and Shirin M. Rai that national dependence on them reduced the misuse of President’s Rule; Niraja Gopal Jayal sees subaltern identity-based parties broadening democratic frontiers, and Prakash Sarangi the opening of democratic space.
Positive
Strengthened federalism · increased regional representation · brought local issues into national politics · reduced over-centralisation · mobilised weaker sections · gave voice to linguistic and cultural communities · improved Centre–State bargaining · moderated exclusionary national parties during coalition periods.
Negative
Can promote narrow regionalism and parochial politics · weaken national policy coherence · cause coalition instability · use money and muscle power · deepen social and regional divisions.
Zoya Hasan warns that parties lacking their own ideology may mobilise existing fault lines; Milan Vaishnav calls the rise of regional parties an “eternal theme” of Indian politics. The real question is not whether regional parties should exist, but whether they can balance regional aspirations, federal cooperation, national integration and inclusive development.
Conclusion
Indian politics is best read as a continuing negotiation between social diversity and democratic institutions. Parties have moved from Congress dominance to coalition politics, BJP dominance and renewed coalition bargaining; pressure groups from elite lobbying to mass protest; voting behaviour from loyalty and identity alone to identity plus welfare, development and leadership. Representation has broadened socially but remains distorted by money, criminalisation and the under-representation of women and minorities. Indian democracy has survived because it has absorbed conflict through elections, parties, federalism and movements. Its next task is to convert representation into responsiveness, and electoral participation into substantive social justice.