Popular participation and the challenges parties face

Detail

1. The participation puzzle: low trust, high involvement

• SDSA survey (2007). SDSA is the State of Democracy in South Asia study. It asked ordinary people in South Asian countries what they think of democracy and its institutions.
• Trust is low.
• In South Asia, more people say they have little or no trust in political parties than say they have some or great trust.

• Worldwide too, parties are among the least trusted institutions.

• Participation is high.

• More Indians say they are members of a party than people in Canada, Japan, Spain or South Korea.

• Over three decades, the share of Indians who are party members has risen. So has the share who feel "close to a party".

• The paradox: people distrust parties, yet they keep joining them and backing them. In a big, diverse democracy, parties are still the main route into politics.

• Cartoon question (NCERT): a cartoon shows people turning away from parties. Does it match the data? Only partly. It matches the trust data. It does not match the membership data, which shows rising involvement.

2. The four challenges to political parties

These four problems explain why people distrust parties even while they take part in them.

(a) Lack of internal democracy

• Internal democracy means a party runs itself democratically. It keeps member lists, holds regular meetings and elects its office-bearers and leaders through fair internal elections.
• What goes wrong:
• Power sits with one leader or a few leaders at the top.
• Parties keep no membership registers. They hold no regular organisational meetings and no regular internal elections.

• Ordinary members are not told what happens inside the party. They have no real say in decisions.

• How this plays out:

• Leaders take the big decisions alone.
• Personal loyalty to the leader counts for more than principles or policy.

• Members who disagree have no voice inside, so dissenters leave and often form new parties or join rivals.

• Women and tickets (margin question). The top leadership picks candidates, so groups without a voice inside the party get few tickets (party nominations).

• In the 2024 Lok Sabha election, only about 10% of all candidates were women. This was up from 3% in 1957 [2].
• 800 women contested in 2024, against 726 in 2019. 152 of the 543 constituencies had no woman candidate at all [4].
• By party (2024): the BJP had the highest share among national parties (16%). Among regional parties contesting more than 20 seats, the BJD (33%) and the RJD (29%) led [2].

• 74 women won (14% of the 18th Lok Sabha), slightly fewer than the 78 elected in 2019 [3].

• Legal response (seats, not party tickets). The Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam) was notified on 28 September 2023 [6].

• It reserves one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha, the state Legislative Assemblies and the Delhi Assembly. This one-third includes seats already reserved for SC and ST women [6][8].
• Vote: 454 for and 2 against in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha passed it unanimously [7].
• When it starts: only after the first census after the Act is published, followed by a fresh delimitation (redrawing of constituency boundaries) [8].
• How long it lasts: 15 years, which Parliament can extend by law. Reserved seats rotate after every delimitation [8].
• What it leaves out: it does not cover the Rajya Sabha, state Legislative Councils or a separate OBC women's quota [8].
• Later change proposed: the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, introduced in the Lok Sabha on 16 April 2026, would let the reservation use a delimitation based on the 2011 census. The aim is to apply it in time for the 2029 election [9].
• The limit for parties: the Amendment reserves seats in the House. It does not force parties to give more internal posts or tickets to women in unreserved seats.

(b) Dynastic succession

• Dynastic succession means a party's top posts pass down within one family, almost like a family business, instead of going to workers who rose through the organisation.
• Why it happens: with no fair internal procedure, leaders can favour family members and close relatives.
• Why it is harmful:
• It is unfair to ordinary workers, who have few routes to the top.

• It puts people without enough experience or popular support into positions of power.

• Not only an Indian problem: dynastic politics is found in older democracies too.

(c) Money and muscle power

• Money and muscle power means using wealth (money power) and force or criminal influence (muscle power) to win elections.
• How it works:
• Parties choose candidates who have money or can raise it.
• Rich people and companies that fund parties gain influence over party policy.

• Parties sometimes back candidates with criminal records because they can win.

• Cartoons in NCERT:

• Italy: Silvio Berlusconi, a former Prime Minister, owned a large media empire. The cartoon shows how wealth and media control can turn into political power.

• USA: the "Corporate America" elephant cartoon (the elephant is the Republican Party's symbol) shows big business steering a party.

• Reform proposal: the Law Commission's 255th Report, "Electoral Reforms" (2015) [5]:

• It proposed changes on candidate spending limits, disclosure duties for candidates and parties, penalties for parties and state funding of elections.

• It linked good governance to inner-party democracy, horizontal accountability and decriminalisation of politics.

• The data and legal responses on this challenge are covered under electoral reforms.

(d) Lack of meaningful choice

• Lack of meaningful choice means voters cannot pick between clearly different options, because the main parties offer similar ideas and policies.
• Ideological convergence means parties drift towards the same positions:
• Britain: the Labour and Conservative parties now differ very little, especially on economic policy.

• India: most major parties agree on the basic direction of economic policy (liberalisation and market reforms since 1991).

• The same leaders keep switching parties. Voters cannot make a real choice when today's leader of Party A may lead Party B tomorrow.

3. Indian illustrations

High-command culture and centralised parties

• High command means the small group of central leaders who take a party's key decisions.
• Under Indira Gandhi, the Congress high command chose Chief Ministers instead of letting state legislators elect them. NCERT's cartoon calls this the "new manner of choosing CMs".
• Sudipta Kaviraj's view (NCERT Class 12): after the late 1960s the Congress became centralised and undemocratic. Elected bodies inside the party lost power to the leader.
• The result: CMs and party office-bearers owed their posts to the leader, not to members or legislators. This is the "lack of internal democracy" challenge in a real Indian case.

Counter-example: the 1966 leadership contest

• After Lal Bahadur Shastri died in January 1966, two leaders competed for the post of Prime Minister: Indira Gandhi and Morarji Desai.
• Indira Gandhi won a secret ballot of Congress MPs, backed by more than two-thirds of them.
• What it showed (NCERT): this was a sign of democratic maturity. Power passed peacefully through a real internal vote.
• Exam point: the same party could choose its leader through an internal election in 1966 and later through high-command nomination. So internal democracy in a party can weaken over time.

Defections and ideological fluidity

• Legislators who keep changing parties are the clearest sign of the "lack of meaningful choice" challenge.
• "Aya Ram, Gaya Ram" (Haryana, 1967) became the slogan for frequent floor-crossing.
• Response: the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law), added by the 52nd Amendment (1985) and tightened by the 91st Amendment (2003). It is covered in detail in the anti-defection section.
• Further proposal: the Law Commission (255th Report, 2015) proposed that a member who defects for money or office should be barred from office and from contesting elections for a set period [5].
• Remedies for all four challenges (internal elections, ECI rules, state funding, the Tenth Schedule) are covered in the reforms section.

Prelims Hooks

• SDSA (2007): more South Asians have little or no trust in parties than some or great trust. Yet more Indians report party membership than people in Canada, Japan, Spain and South Korea.
• NCERT's four challenges: lack of internal democracy, dynastic succession, money and muscle power, lack of meaningful choice. "Too many parties" is not one of them (a common trap).
• 2024 Lok Sabha election: about 10% of candidates were women (800 of 8,360), up from 3% in 1957 [2][4]. 74 women MPs (14%) were elected [3].
• Women's share of party candidates (2024): BJD 33%, RJD 29%, BJP 16%, the highest among national parties [2].
• 106th Amendment, 2023: one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies (not the Rajya Sabha or Legislative Councils). It lasts 15 years and starts after the post-Act census and delimitation [6][8].
• 1966: Indira Gandhi defeated Morarji Desai in a secret ballot of Congress MPs.
• Berlusconi cartoon is about money and media power (Italy). The "Corporate America" elephant is about business influence on the US Republican Party.
• Law Commission 255th Report (2015) covered electoral reforms: inner-party democracy, party finance and disqualification of defectors [5].

Mains Points

• Low trust, high participation: people distrust parties but keep joining them. This shows that parties are still necessary in a democracy, and that the answer is to reform them, not reject them. That makes the case for laws on inner-party democracy (the 255th Law Commission Report, 2015) [5].
• Internal democracy versus party discipline: compulsory internal elections, membership registers and ECI oversight would weaken dynasties and high-command control. The cost is that they could split parties. The Tenth Schedule makes leaders stronger still, because legislators must follow the whip.
• Women's representation: women were only about 10% of candidates and 14% of MPs in 2024 [2][3]. This shows that party gatekeeping holds women back. The 106th Amendment reserves seats but does not change how parties pick candidates, and it is delayed by the census and delimitation link [8][9]. A legal quota for women in party tickets is one reform proposal.
• Post-1947 history (GS-I): the change from Congress's 1966 secret-ballot contest to the high command's nominated CMs shows how a party's internal democracy can wear down. This links to Kaviraj's thesis that the Congress became centralised.