Political Parties: Class 10 Civics · Chapter 4

A few weeks before any election, you can tell which parties are in the race without opening a newspaper. Their flags flutter from rickshaws and balconies, their songs blare from jeeps, and their volunteers knock on your door with leaflets. For most citizens, parties are the part of democracy they see most often.

Parties have already appeared many times in this course. In Class 9 they fought elections and formed governments. In this book they shared power in Chapter 1, linked the Union with the States in Chapter 2 and turned social differences into political demands in Chapter 3. Now we study parties themselves, through six questions:

1. Why does a democracy need parties at all?
2. How many parties does a democracy need?
3. Which parties count as national parties in India?
4. What are State parties, and why have they grown?
5. What is going wrong with parties?
6. What can be done to improve them?

4.1 Why do we need political parties?

Ask ten people what they think of political parties, and most will complain. They object to corruption, noisy quarrels and broken promises, or to the way parties split people into rival camps. Yet ask the same people to name a party, and almost all of them can name several. Parties are among the best-known and least-loved institutions of democracy.

That raises a fair question. If parties are so unpopular, why does almost every country, large or small, rich or poor, have them? Could a democracy manage without them? Start with what a party is.

4.1.1 Meaning

A political party (राजनीतिक दल) is an organised group of people who share broad ideas about how the country should be run. They try to win elections so that they can form the government and turn those ideas into policy.

People disagree about what is good for society, so parties disagree too. Imagine a city that is short of water. One party may promise a big new dam. A second may promise to fix leaking pipes and harvest rainwater. A third may want water bills cut for poor households. Each tries to convince voters that its plan serves the city best, and the one that wins most support gets the chance to carry it out.

The word party itself is a clue: it comes from part. A party speaks for one part of society, for one set of views and interests, never for everyone at once. Its committed supporters are partisans, and their attitude, partisanship, means taking one side and finding it hard to see an issue from the other side.

Every party is made up of three kinds of people, as Fig. 4.1 shows. At the centre are the leaders, who decide the party's line and usually contest the top posts. Around them are the active members, who hold posts in local units, organise meetings and campaign at election time. On the outside are the followers, ordinary citizens who support the party and vote for it but take little part in its work.

4.1.2 Functions

Put simply, a party's purpose is to get its people into public office and to use the power that comes with it. In practice that takes seven jobs, pictured in Fig. 4.2.

1. They contest elections. Who decides which names go on the ballot? In India, usually a party's senior leaders or a small committee hand out ‘tickets’. In the USA, the party's own members and supporters vote in primaries to choose, and more countries are adopting that method. Either way, nearly every serious candidate in a democracy stands for a party.
2. They put forward policies. Think of a manifesto as a menu. Crores of citizens hold crores of opinions, which no government could act on one by one. A party bundles opinions that point the same way into one programme, and voters then pick between a handful of menus. Whichever party wins, its menu becomes the government's starting point.
3. They make laws. On paper the legislature makes laws; in practice parties decide how it votes. Legislators usually vote as their party leadership tells them, even on bills they privately doubt, so a party with a majority can usually pass the laws it wants.
4. They form and run governments. A party works like a training ground. Young members learn to organise, speak and negotiate, and the successful ones rise to lead the party. When it wins, they become the ministers who take the big decisions.
5. They act as the opposition. Losing an election does not make a party idle. In the House it questions ministers and debates bills; outside, it holds rallies against the ruling party's failures. This keeps the government on its toes.
6. They shape public opinion. When a party takes up an issue, say rising prices or a water shortage, its workers carry it to every street. Its student, women's, farmers' and workers' wings carry it into colleges, homes, fields and factories. Over time, many people come to see the issue the way the party frames it.
7. They link people to the government. Think of a missing ration card, a pension that has not arrived or a broken hand pump. A citizen with such a problem often finds a local party worker easier to approach than an official. Helping with these problems earns a party loyalty, and ignoring them can cost it votes.

4.1.3 Necessity

The list of functions already hints at an answer: we need parties because someone has to do these jobs. A sharper test is to imagine an election with no parties at all.

Imagine a Lok Sabha election with no parties, only 543 independents. When the results come out, nobody knows who will be Prime Minister: the winners must start bargaining from scratch, and bargain again over every bill. During the campaign, candidates could offer their own constituencies a road or a college, but not a new tax or foreign policy, since no single member could deliver one. Voters could reward or punish their own MP for local work. For the running of the country as a whole, though, there would be no one to hold responsible.

There is real-life evidence too. Several States hold panchayat elections in which candidates may not stand on party tickets. Watch such an election and you usually see the village line up behind two or three groups, each backing its own set, or panel, of candidates. Take parties away, and people rebuild them under another name.

Political scientists go further and call parties a necessary condition of modern democracy. The reason is size. A village meeting can decide things face to face. A country of more than 140 crore people must govern through elected representatives, and representatives on their own leave three gaps. Someone must collect the views of millions and turn them into proposals. Someone must join hundreds of separate representatives into a team that can govern and be held responsible. And someone must be ready to defend the government's policies, or to challenge them. Parties fill all three gaps. That is why they grew up alongside representative democracy and are found in democracies of every size and age.

4.2 How many parties should we have?

Starting a party in a democracy needs nobody's permission. Citizens who want one apply to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for registration under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Registering is easy, so the list is long. Your textbook says more than 750 parties are registered, but the number has since grown. In mid-2025 the ECI listed 2,854 registered parties that were not recognised. In August and September 2025 it removed 808 of them for not contesting any election for six years.

Yet a long list is not the same as real competition. Most registered parties never win a seat, and in a typical election only a few have any hope of forming the government. What matters, then, is the number of parties with a genuine chance of power. Countries fall into three broad patterns, each called a party system (दलीय व्यवस्था).

4.2.1 One-party system

A one-party system lets just one party hold power, whatever the law says about other parties. China is the best-known example. The Communist Party of China governs, and the eight smaller parties that legally exist must accept its leadership, so they never compete for power. Elections there cannot change who rules, and that is exactly why a one-party system fails the test of democracy. For voters to have a real say, at least two parties must be free to compete, and each must be able to win.

4.2.2 Two-party system

Some countries have many parties on the ballot but only two real contenders. Power passes back and forth between these two, while the rest win a handful of seats at best. This is a two-party system. In the United States the two are the Democrats and the Republicans; in the United Kingdom, the Conservative and Labour parties.

4.2.3 Multiparty system

A multiparty system is one where three or more parties can realistically win power, on their own or with partners. India is a clear example. Many of its governments have been coalition governments, formed by several parties together. Parties often team up before polling day, agreeing to fight the election as one group and to share power if they win. Such a group is an alliance or front (गठबंधन).11Your textbook's example is the 2004 Lok Sabha election. It had three major alliances: the Left Front, the NDA (National Democratic Alliance) and the UPA (United Progressive Alliance).

Coalitions have a mixed reputation. Critics say a multiparty system can be chaotic: many partners must be kept happy, and a government can fall when one partner walks out. Supporters reply that it gives many more interests, regions and opinions a voice in government. Fig. 4.4 puts the three systems side by side.

It is tempting to rank the three systems, but ranking misses the point. No country picks its party system from a menu. It grows out of the make-up of society, with its regional, religious, caste and language divisions. It also grows out of the country's political history and its rules for counting votes.22Where the candidate with the most votes wins each seat, as in India, the UK and the USA, there tend to be fewer big parties; where parties get seats in proportion to their votes, there tend to be more. This is a tendency, not a law: India has many parties because of its regional diversity. None of these can be changed overnight.

India's multiparty system reflects its size and variety: no two or three parties could hold together all its regions, languages and communities. Every country ends up with the system its own circumstances produce. There is no universal winner.

4.3 National parties

Federal democracies usually have two kinds of parties. Some exist in only one unit of the federation; others are present in several units or in all of them. India follows this pattern. A national party has branches in many States. Its big decisions, such as its programme, its alliances and its campaign plan, are taken by the national leadership, and the State branches go along with them.

4.3.1 Recognised parties

Registration puts a party on the Election Commission's books, but it brings few privileges. Parties that show real support at the polls earn more. The best known is a reserved election symbol, which no one but the party's official candidates may use, so voters can spot them on the EVM. These parties also get free broadcast time on Doordarshan and All India Radio during campaigns. Their candidates need only one proposer to file a nomination, and they may name up to 40 ‘star campaigners’. Parties that qualify are called recognised parties (मान्यता प्राप्त दल).

The Commission recognises parties by their votes and seats, under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The rule your textbook gives is the main route, and it is the one board-exam answers expect:

The textbook route is not the only one. A party can also qualify through seats alone, through a large vote share, or through recognition in several States, as Table 4.3 shows. Recognition is reviewed after elections, so parties can gain or lose it.

4.3.2 India's national parties

By the Election Commission's order of 10 April 2023, six parties are recognised as national parties. That order added the Aam Aadmi Party. It withdrew national status from the All India Trinamool Congress, the Communist Party of India and the Nationalist Congress Party, which kept State-party status where they qualified. The Commission's later publications in 2024 and 2025 list the same six.33Recognition is reviewed after elections, so check the current list on the Election Commission's website, eci.gov.in.

Table 4.4 lists them in alphabetical order. The ‘ideas’ column reports how each party describes its own aims; it is not a judgement of any party.

• AAP formed governments in Delhi (briefly in 2013–14, then from 2015 to 2025) and in Punjab (from 2022). It became a national party in 2023 after being recognised as a State party in Delhi, Goa, Gujarat and Punjab.
• BSP has its main base in Uttar Pradesh, where it formed the State government four times between 1995 and 2012.
• BJP led the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government of 1998–2004 and has led the NDA government at the Centre since 2014. It won a Lok Sabha majority on its own in 2014 and 2019; in 2024 it was the largest party but short of a majority.
• CPI(M) draws most of its strength from Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura. It led West Bengal's Left Front government for 34 years without a break (1977–2011).
• INC led the Union government for most years after Independence: 1947–77, 1980–89, 1991–96, and 2004–14 as head of the United Progressive Alliance. In 2024 it became the largest party in the opposition.
• NPP was the first party from the North-East to be recognised as a national party (2019). It has led the government of Meghalaya since 2018.

4.4 State parties

The Election Commission's list of State parties is far longer than its list of national parties, and it includes most of India's other major parties. ‘Regional party’, the everyday name for them, fits some better than others. The Asom Gana Parishad, which grew out of the Assam movement, and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu build their politics around one State's identity, language and interests. Others have wider ambitions. The Janata Dal (United) has contested elections in several States, and the All India Trinamool Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party held national status until 2023. Their base is regional; their outlook is not.

The chart in Fig. 4.6 tells the story. In every Lok Sabha election from 1989 to 2009, the largest party fell short of a majority, so whoever governed needed partners, and State parties were the obvious ones. As a result, since 1996 almost every major State party has spent some time in a coalition at the Centre. Their growth has made Parliament far more varied than in the first decades after Independence. Many political scientists argue that this has deepened federalism and democracy, because States now have a direct voice in national decisions.

4.5 Challenges to political parties

When roads are not built, prices rise or a scandal breaks, the finger usually points at parties. Dissatisfaction with parties is common across the democratic world, and India shares it. Most complaints fall under four headings, shown in Fig. 4.7. Each one weakens a party's ability to do the jobs listed in Section 4.1.2.

4.5.1 Lack of internal democracy

Picture a party member in a district town. She pays her membership fee, but she has never voted in a party election, because none has been held for years. She learns her party's candidate list from television. When she objects to a decision, she is told to fall in line or leave. This is what a lack of internal democracy (आंतरिक लोकतंत्र) looks like.

The pattern is common worldwide. Without records, meetings or elections, members have no lever to pull, so a handful of people take every decision in the party's name. Disagreeing with them becomes risky, and pleasing the leader becomes the surest way up.

4.5.2 Dynastic succession

Ask who is likely to lead a party twenty years from now. In a party with open internal elections, it could be any capable worker. In many parties, though, the honest answer is ‘someone from the leader's family’. This is dynastic succession (वंशवाद). It grows out of weak internal democracy: where there are no fair rules for promotion, those at the top can favour their relatives.

Two harms follow. Members who have worked for the party for years are passed over. And people with little experience or public support can end up in high office. The pattern is not only Indian; it appears in many democracies, old and new.

4.5.3 Money and muscle power

Elections are expensive, and the pressure to win invites shortcuts. A party choosing between a dedicated worker and a wealthy businessman may pick the one who can pay for the campaign. Donors rarely give for nothing: companies and rich individuals who fund a party expect to be heard when it makes policy. And a candidate with a criminal record may still get a ticket if local leaders think he can deliver votes. Across the world, people who value democracy worry that big money is buying too much influence.

4.5.4 Lack of meaningful choice

Picture a restaurant where every dish tastes the same: choosing would be pointless. Many observers worry that elections in much of the world are drifting that way. Big parties increasingly agree on fundamentals and compete on details and on who can deliver better; Britain's two main parties are often cited. In India, observers note that most major parties which have held power since the 1990s have kept broadly similar economic policies.

That leaves voters who want a sharply different path with little to vote for. The faces may not differ much either, when the same leaders move from party to party before elections.

4.6 How can parties be reformed?

Reforming parties runs into a catch. The people who would have to pass any reform law are themselves party leaders. Voters can throw one set of leaders out, but the replacements come from parties too. So if no party wants change, it is hard to see who could impose it. Citizens of every democracy face this catch. India's answers so far fall into two groups: steps already taken and ideas still on the table.

4.6.1 Steps already taken

The anti-defection law. Elected MLAs and MPs once switched parties freely, often in return for a ministerial post or cash. The 52nd Amendment to the Constitution (1985) added the Tenth Schedule to stop this defection (दल-बदल). Suppose a member gives up the party on whose ticket they were elected, or votes against the party's instructions in the House. That member can be disqualified and lose the seat. The main exception is a merger backed by two-thirds of a party's members in the House; the 91st Amendment (2003) removed an older exception for ‘splits’.

Defections have fallen since 1985. Critics point to a side effect, though: a legislator who disagrees with the party line now has little room to show it with a vote.

Affidavits. Voters now know far more about candidates than they did before 2002. Since Supreme Court judgments of 2002 and 2003, every candidate files an affidavit (शपथपत्र) with the nomination. It lists their assets and liabilities, educational qualifications and pending criminal cases, and journalists and citizens' groups analyse these at every election. Two weaknesses remain. No one routinely verifies each affidavit, although lying in one is an offence. And disclosure has not clearly reduced the role of money and crime.

Party organisation and accounts. The Election Commission has also told parties to hold internal elections and to file income-tax returns. On paper they comply. Critics say the internal elections are often unopposed formalities, so it is doubtful that they have made parties much more democratic inside.

4.6.2 Suggestions not yet accepted

• A law on parties' internal affairs. Every party would have to keep a register of members and follow its own constitution. It would need an independent body to settle internal disputes, and open elections to its top posts.
• More tickets for women. Parties would have to give about one-third of their tickets to women, and reserve places for women in their own decision-making bodies.
• State funding of elections. The government would meet part of parties' election costs. It could pay in kind, for example with vehicles, printing or broadcast time, or in cash, in proportion to the votes each party won at the previous election.

Parties have not accepted these suggestions so far. Even if they did, laws would not settle everything. A law can force a party to hold an internal election; it cannot force that election to be genuine. Heavy regulation may only teach parties new tricks for getting round the rules. And since parties control the legislature, a law they dislike is unlikely to be passed in the first place.

4.6.3 Pressure from outside, change from inside

Laws are not the only lever. Parties respond to votes, so anything that shows them that reform wins votes works in its favour: petitions, media exposure, campaigns by pressure groups and movements, even peaceful protests.

The other lever is membership. Criticising parties from the sidelines changes little; joining one and pushing from inside can change a lot. Democracies get better when more citizens take part, and take part well. Chapter 5 picks up this idea.