Open Forum
New Delhi, 3 November 2017
Inner Party Democracy
NO MODEL WORTH A COPY
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
Addressing a festive gathering at the BJP
headquarters last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged the media to raise a
debate on “internal democracy in political parties” – an essential prerequisite
for democratic system of government. The issue arising from unconcealed family
leadership and its absolute control in a number of parties has suddenly gained extraordinary
significance in the context of the forthcoming elevation of Rahul Gandhi as the President of the oldest
political party in the country, the Congress, though no reference was made to
this.
Modi has asked the media to particularly watch
how the parties function, how leadership emerges, and how democratic values and
ideologies are practised within the parties. In his view, democratic processes involved
in decision-making in parties deserve more attention than party funding which
is widely debated. He also observed that only through political parties, a
person could go up or come down in a democracy like India.
There can be no dispute over his contention
that parties with a “true democratic spirit” are essential for a healthy
democracy in the country as the world has seen the fate of many countries in
the West and the East that have gone through dictatorial single party regime.
The practice of declaring a leader as
“permanent head” is a noteworthy undemocratic contribution to the party system
itself by some parties in India. It is enough to make the party undemocratic in
letter and spirit and to reduce it as a private property. Unfortunately, the
masses seem to trust the leader they adore as a demi-God and so are unable to
realise the consequences of supporting unquestioned leadership.
There are a total of 1841 parties registered
with the Election Commission -- 7 national, 49 State, and 1785 unrecognised. Not
all of them are serious contenders to power even at the State or local level.
But all are interested in having a group of supporters to some cause or
interests and in many cases to a particular leader.
The Representation of People Act 1951
prescribes that only an association or body of individual citizens of India
calling itself a political party and intending to avail itself of the
provisions of Part IV A of the Act regarding registration of political parties
is required to register with the EC.
For this, the association or body must have a
memorandum or rules and regulations which should contain a specific provision
that the association or body “shall bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of India as by law established and to the principles of socialism,
secularism, and democracy, and uphold sovereignty, unity, and integrity of
India”.
It may well be expected that the principle of
democracy mentioned in the provision first covers internal
democracy of the party so as to get equipped to uphold national democracy. Unfortunately,
caste associations, religious groups, social movements, and personality-based
groups like fan clubs of film stars transformed as political parties are common
in India. Some of them groomed in a tradition of hero worship continue to
indulge in non-democratic modes of functioning in parties.
Democracy does not come into operation
automatically or spontaneously in any organisation. Democratic principles and regulations have to
be adopted consciously and followed vigorously with eternal vigilance. Even the
founder’s charisma, wisdom, and commitment to the welfare of the people cannot
guarantee a party’s democratic set up and functioning unless party rules
provide for that and followed strictly by the organisation. On the contrary,
charisma may work against inner organisational democracy and lead to the
party’s demise along with the charismatic leader.
Multi-party democracies, theoretically, do
not give much room for emergence of charismatic leadership. But, the reality in
India falsifies the proposition as most of the parties are restricted in space
and interests. Competitive skill, knowledge, commitment, and virtue are
required for leadership and scope for participation, opportunities, and
recognition for all members are needed for growth of parties.
The Prime Minister, in the talk referred to, also
urged the media to discuss how values and ideology are imparted in political
parties. He cited at “different voices” heard within the BJP contrasting it
with similarity of views that prevailed from central leaders to junior-most
members of the party in the Jan Sangh era. He attributed this loss of
“unanimity” within the party to its expansion that has made “intense training
sessions” and “regular communication” within the party impossible.
Inner party democracy and inner ideological
unity exist in different proportions in political parties in India and abroad.
They are set in the constitution of committees and selection of leaders, the process
for formulation of ideology and policies, identification of candidates to
contest elections, extent of transparency and participation in decision-making,
and freedom of discussion and criticism within the party. They are regulated by
law in some countries.
The Federal Republic of Germany is considered
a model for strong inner party democracy. Its Basic Law contains a provision
that requires political parties’ internal organisation “to conform to
democratic principle”. A person can be named as candidate of a party in a
constituency only if he or she has been selected in an assembly of party
members for selection of a candidate or in a special general assembly of party
representatives. Another provision prescribes that the candidate and the
representatives for the assemblies of representatives shall be selected by
secret ballot.
Parties that have emerged from labour
movements in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand are founded on an understanding
that policies would be decided by members and approved at the conference and
not the other way of originating from the party elite and endorsed by members.
But, parties grown in liberal traditions
consider external control detrimental to genuine party contests and are
reluctant to impose external regulations on political associations. Freedom of
the parties to set and govern their own internal structures and processes is
insisted by liberal parties.
The Spanish Constitution says that the
internal structure and operation of political parties must be democratic. Political
parties in Portugal are to be governed by the principles of transparency,
democratic organisation and management, and participation by all members. In
Finland, the Act on Political Parties adopted in 1969 prescribes that the
structure and management of political parties must be democratic and regulates
their functioning. A “plebiscitary model of intra-party democracy” is taking
shape in Canada.
Green parties have strong faith in grassroots
democracy and provide suitable institutions and processes for participation,
power sharing, and consensus decision-making. As these have their origin from
social movements, they stress decentralisation, local autonomy, and mass
participation.
In Indian politics, most of these
developments seem to be absent. Similar situations produce different types of
parties, and same causes yield opposite results. For example, smaller parties
in western countries are seen to encourage greater participation of members and
more transparency in functioning. But, there are more cases of autocratic
functioning and singular head in smaller parties in India. Even grassroots
movements fighting for people’s rights end up in solo performance.
There is no model worth copying from abroad.
Tight regulations may democratise the party organisation, but democratic
functioning depends on the spirit of members and supporters and the silent
public. –INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|