Politics of Representation and Participation | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Party System

The party system has become a universal feature of politics across the globe, regardless of whether a country is democratic or not. Political parties perform the crucial function of aggregating interests, and the study of these parties has developed into a highly specialized field known as stasiology.

• There are several prominent theories on political parties. One such theory is the normative approach, put forth by Edmund Burke. He argued that political parties are groups of individuals who share a common ideology and come together to promote the national interest. In contrast, behavioral scholars view political parties as powerhouses, with their primary goal being to attain power.
• In recent times, the importance of ideology has diminished, giving rise to so-called "catch-all parties," a term coined by Otto Von Kirchheimer. These parties aim to attract a wide range of voters by appealing to various interests and demographics, rather than adhering to a specific ideology.

Lenin’s theory of Political Party

Lenin's theory of the communist party is outlined in his pamphlet, WHAT IS TO BE DONE? Unlike Marx, who did not support the idea of a political party due to its potential to create hierarchy and contradict the principle of equality, Lenin believed that a communist party was necessary for revolution.

• According to Lenin, workers were not able to develop revolutionary consciousness independently, which is why the communist party would serve as the 'vanguard' of the revolution. He differentiated between the communist party and trade unions, with the latter being part of the bourgeois system. While trade unions could achieve minor concessions for workers, the communist party aimed to bring workers to power.
• The communist party, as envisioned by Lenin, was a secret society with the goal of overthrowing the state. It had a hierarchical, pyramid-like structure with local cells at the base. The top leadership would take guidance from the grassroots level, following a bottom-up approach.
• The principle of democratic centralism was central to the functioning of the communist party. People would communicate their demands to the top leadership, who would then formulate a feasible action plan. Once a decision was made by the leadership, it would be executed at all levels in a centralized manner.

Behavioural theories of Political Parties

• Robert Michels and the 'Iron Law of Oligarchy': Robert Michels, in his book "Political Parties," introduced the concept of the 'iron law of oligarchy.' He analyzed the internal functioning of socialist parties in Germany to examine the claim that Marxist parties operate on different principles. Michels concluded that there was no significant difference in their internal functioning, and all powers were concentrated in the hands of the top leadership. This led him to suggest that oligarchy is an iron law, with power always being in the hands of elites, and the masses never really shaping decisions. Thus, regardless of ideology, all parties operate in a similar fashion.
• Maurice Duverger and the Duverger's Law: In his book "The Political Parties" (1951), Maurice Duverger proposed the 'Duverger's Law,' which explains the relationship between the electoral system and the party system. According to this law, a country with a simple majoritarian electoral system will have a two-party system, while a country with proportional representation will have a multi-party system. However, India is an exception to Duverger's Law, as it has a multi-party system with a simple majoritarian electoral system.
• Duverger's Classification of Parties Based on Ideology:Duverger also provided a classification of political parties based on their ideology:
  • Mass Parties: These include liberal and communist parties.
  • Cadre-Based Parties: Rightist or conservative parties fall under this category.

Duverger's Classification of Parties Based on Internal Structure

Duverger discussed four types of internal structures in political parties:

• Branches: These are characteristic of liberal parties, which have a decentralized organizational structure with multiple branches or units.
• Cells: This type of structure is primarily associated with communist parties, where party members are organized into small groups or cells that operate at a local level.
• Caucus: This structure refers to a small group of leaders, elites, or junta primarily associated with rightist or conservative parties. In such a structure, decision-making is concentrated in the hands of a select few individuals.
• Militia: Some parties may have their armed wings like the fascist party of Mussolini or the Red Guards of the Communist Party of China. These armed wings are often used to enforce party policies and maintain control over the masses.

Types of Political Systems

According to Sartori, party system is not shaped by number of parties but number of parties having systemic relevance. Myron Weiner and Joseph LaPalombara have explained the type of party systems on the basis of the nature of electoral systems.

Comparison between western and non-western party systems

Western and non-western party systems exhibit varying characteristics due to the differences in their political, social, and economic contexts. This analysis aims to provide a general comparison between the two systems by constructing ideal types, while acknowledging the internal heterogeneity within each category.

I. Western Party Systems

• Institutionalization of Democracy: Western countries typically have a long history of democratic practices, leading to the institutionalization of democracy. Consequently, political parties in these countries tend to be democratic in their functioning, with internal democracy in the selection of leaders and candidates. The operations of these parties are transparent and financially accountable.
• Ideological Foundations: Political parties in western countries are primarily built on ideological lines. These ideologies guide their policies and political positions. The institutionalization of political parties ensures their continuity even after the death or retirement of prominent leaders.
• Two-Party and Multi-Party Systems: Western democracies follow two models of party systems: the two-party system (e.g., the United States) and the multi-party system (e.g., many European countries). Both models allow for stable governance and effective representation of various political ideologies in the decision-making process.

II. Non-Western (Third World) Party Systems

• Paradoxical Features: Political parties in non-western countries often exhibit paradoxical characteristics. While they may be modern and bureaucratic in their organization, their functioning is often traditional, reflecting the unique features of prismatic societies.
• Complex and Multi-Dimensional Politics: Politics in non-western countries tend to be more complex and multi-dimensional than in western countries. Factors such as religion, caste, language, and region play significant roles in shaping political affiliations and alliances.
• Non-Secular Ideologies and Lack of Intra-Party Democracy: Political parties in non-western countries may not have secular ideologies and often lack intra-party democracy. They may be controlled by dynasties or revolve around specific personalities. This can result in the absence of a clear succession plan or the dissolution of the party upon the death of the leader.
• Financial Accountability and Transparency: Non-western political parties often lack financial accountability and transparency in their operations. This can lead to corruption, nepotism, and the misuse of public funds for personal or political ends.

Pressure Group / Interest Group

Pressure groups and interest groups are terms used interchangeably to describe organizations that attempt to influence government policy without seeking formal positions in government institutions. These groups play a significant role in the political system by articulating the interests of various sections of society. The study of these groups, known as pluralism, has been a major focus of political sociologists, who recognize the importance of these groups in shaping the political landscape.

Invisible Empires: The Role of Pressure Groups

• Samuel Finer referred to pressure groups as invisible empires, highlighting their behind-the-scenes influence on government decision-making. While political parties engage in the process of interest aggregation by seeking to gain formal posts in government, pressure groups operate in the background, attempting to shape policy decisions in their favor.
• The concept of pressure groups has been central to pluralistic theories of democracy, which emphasize the role of these groups in liberal democratic systems. For instance, Robert Dahl argued that, due to the presence and impact of pressure groups, liberal democracies could be more accurately described as polyarchies.

Terminological Differences: Pressure Groups vs. Interest Groups

• While the terms pressure groups and interest groups essentially refer to the same concept, their usage differs based on the approach taken by political scientists. Traditional political scholars tend to use the term pressure group, while behavioral political scholars prefer the term interest group.
• The primary reason for this distinction lies in the focus of each term. The term pressure group emphasizes the techniques employed by these organizations, such as lobbying, to promote their interests. On the other hand, the term interest group focuses on the purpose of these organizations, which is interest articulation.
• The term interest group is considered more appropriate by behavioral political scholars, as it avoids ambiguity. Since the pressure technique can also be employed by opposition parties, social movements, and other entities, the term pressure group can lead to confusion. In contrast, the term interest group clearly denotes organizations whose primary purpose is to articulate the interests of specific sections of society.

Types of Interest Groups

1. Institutional Interest Groups: Institutional interest groups are those that are part of governmental institutions or have members who are part of governmental institutions. Examples of these groups include organizations of civil servants, military personnel, and government sector banks. They are considered the most powerful type of interest group because they operate within the system and are in the best possible position to influence government policies. Institutional interest groups are more prominent in developing countries due to the presence of "overdeveloped states." In contrast, they may not be as powerful in Western countries, where there is often minimal state intervention. However, this distinction is not absolute, as powerful institutional interest groups can still exist in democratic countries like the United States and Pakistan.
2. Non-Associational Interest Groups: Non-associational interest groups are those based on caste, community, religion, language, or race. Examples include the Jat Mahasabha, Kshatriya Mahasabha, and Gujjar Sabha. These groups are exclusive in nature, with membership based on ascriptive criteria such as birth. Non-associational interest groups play a more significant role in prismatic societies, which are characterized by a mix of traditional and modern elements.
3. Associational Interest Groups: Associational interest groups are organizations formed based on a specific interest, regardless of caste, color, nationality, ethnicity, or any other ascriptive criteria. Examples include Amnesty International, Greenpeace, FICCI, Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU), and SEWA. These groups are more prominent in Western countries but have become increasingly popular in developing countries since the 1990s due to globalization. There is a proliferation of these organizations in terms of number and scope of impact.
4. Anomic Interest Groups: Anomic interest groups refer to collective behaviors that cannot be classified as institutional, associational, or non-associational. The term "anomic" means normlessness, implying that these groups are characterized by a lack of clear structure or purpose. Anomic interest groups typically include crowd behavior or short-term associations, such as people protesting against a road accident. They are more visible in developing countries due to the lack of institutionalization of democracy.

Jean Blondel’s Classification

Almond’s model is static, it does not tell how pressure group politics evolves over a period of time hence Blondel proposed more dynamic model.

Social Movements

Social movements are a type of collective behavior, much like political parties and pressure groups. Political sociologists are primarily concerned with the study of social movements. These movements often have their ideology, leadership, and life cycle. They are mainly features of left-wing politics and are aligned with leftist ideologies. In liberal discourse, scholars often prefer to use the term 'resource mobilization' instead of social movements.

The Emergence of Modern Social Movements
Modern social movements originated in the West as a reaction against the exploitation of the working classes. Workers' movements were among the earliest social movements or left-wing movements. These movements are now referred to as "old social movements." In contrast, "new social movements" emerged in the West during the 1960s, focusing on developmental issues and quality of life concerns, such as environmental movements, human rights movements, civil rights movements, and peace movements.

Social Movements in Developing Countries
In developing countries, the prismatic nature of society means that old and new social movements are not entirely distinct and often overlap. For example, the Indian environmental movement combines aspects of both old and new social movements. As an old social movement, it addresses the livelihood concerns of the tribal and poor populations, but as a new social movement, it tackles issues like environmental protection.

Differences Between Old and New Social Movements

• Objectives: Old social movements are primarily concerned with bread and butter issues, while new social movements focus on quality of life issues, such as sustainable development.
• Class Composition: Old social movements are predominantly comprised of lower-class workers, while new social movements mainly involve members of the middle class.
• Leadership: Leadership in both old and new social movements has primarily come from the advanced sections of the middle class. However, this does not mean that lower classes have never provided leadership. For example, while Lenin came from the middle class, Mao emerged from the peasantry.
• Techniques: Old social movements primarily used political techniques, such as force, protests, and demonstrations. They took direct action to gain political and economic power. On the other hand, new social movements employ multiple mediums, such as art, literature, theater, street plays, and movies. Their main focus is not on capturing power but on raising awareness and consciousness.
• Ideological Orientations: Old social movements are materialistic in nature, while new social movements are post-materialistic.
  Herbert Marcuse is often considered the father of the new left or new social movements. Overall, social movements play a vital role in shaping society and politics, addressing various issues and concerns that affect people's lives.

Electoral systems - The significance of electoral systems

In today's world, representative democracy has become an essential aspect of governance, making electoral systems a crucial component of any democratic theory. An effective electoral system must be impartial, equitable, and ensure the least possible waste of votes. It is important to remember that democracy serves to safeguard the interests of minority groups. Therefore, the electoral system should provide ample opportunities for minority representation. True democracy is not characterized by majority rule, but rather by collaboration and consensus-building among different groups.

Majoritarian representation types

• Simple Majoritarian Representation System: The Simple Majoritarian Representation System is the least representative electoral system due to the significant wastage of votes. It operates on the principle of "winner takes all," which means that the candidate with the most votes wins the election, regardless of the percentage of votes. This system often favors national parties or those operating on a larger scale. Examples of this system include the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections in India and the House of Commons elections in the United States.
• Second Ballot System: The Second Ballot System requires the winning candidate to secure an absolute majority, meaning they must receive at least 50% + 1 of the total valid votes. If no candidate achieves an absolute majority in the first round of voting, a second round is held with only the top two candidates participating. This system is more representative than the Simple Majoritarian System but has the drawback of increased expenditure, added strain on electoral machinery, and electoral fatigue. Presidential elections in France, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka use this method.
• Alternative Vote System: The Alternative Vote System is an improvement over the Second Ballot System, as it requires the winning candidate to achieve an absolute majority without the need for a second round of voting. In this system, voters rank their preferences for the candidates. If no candidate secures an absolute majority during the first count, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. The votes of the eliminated candidate are then redistributed according to the voters' second preferences. This process continues until a candidate obtains an absolute majority. The Alternative Vote System is used for electing members of the House of Representatives in Australia.

Proportional Representation

Proportional representation is a system of electoral representation that ensures that democracy does not become a tyranny of the majority. It allows for the voices of minority groups to be represented and often results in coalition governments. There are two main types of proportional representation systems: the Single Transferrable Vote (STV) system and the List system.

1. Single Transferrable Vote (STV) System
The STV system was invented in Ireland for the election of members of the assembly. It is similar to the alternative vote system, but with two key differences:

• Winning Candidate Requires Quota: In the alternative vote system, the winning candidate needs an absolute majority. In the STV system, the winning candidate requires a 'quota' of votes, which is the minimum number of votes necessary for victory, not necessarily an absolute majority. This means that the winner does not take all.
• Multi-Member Constituencies: While the alternative vote system is majoritarian and used for single-member constituencies, proportional representation systems like STV are employed in multi-member constituencies. This means that more than one candidate is elected.
  The most popular formula to determine the quota in the STV system is the Droop quota, which is calculated as (Total number of valid votes / Total number of candidates to be elected) + 1.

An example of the STV system in use is the Indian presidential election. Although it is constitutionally called "proportional representation by single transferrable vote system," it is closer to an alternative vote system as the quota comes out to be an absolute majority.

2. List System
The List system is the most representative of all proportional representation systems and is widely used in continental Europe. Its merits include:

• Minimum Wastage of Votes: The List system ensures that votes are not wasted and each party gets a fair representation in proportion to the votes they receive.
• Elimination of Personality Factor: The List system emphasizes the importance of political parties rather than individual personalities.
• Representation for Weaker Candidates: The system allows for weaker candidates, who may not have a chance to win on their own, to be included on the party list and gain representation.
• No Need for Reservation: The List system does not require any special reservations for minority groups.
  In the List system, the entire country is converted into a single, multi-member constituency. Each party receives seats in the legislature in proportion to the votes they receive, and the party sends the required number of candidates.

Some countries, like Germany, have a minimum benchmark for parties to qualify for seats in the legislature. In Germany, a party must receive at least 5% of the votes to qualify. This system is advantageous for parties with national reach rather than regional parties.

Methods of minority representation

• Proportional representation: This system includes both the Single Transferable Vote (STV) and List systems. It is a joint electorate system that aims to ensure that the number of seats won by a political party is proportional to the votes received by that party. This approach enables minority groups to have a fair representation in the political process.
• Separate electorates: This method involves the creation of separate constituencies for minority groups, where only members of that specific minority group can vote and contest for representation. However, separate electorates may pose a threat to national unity, making proportional representation a more preferable approach.
• Reservation system: This approach, similar to the one implemented in India, involves reserving a certain number of seats in the legislative bodies for minority groups. This ensures that these groups have a guaranteed representation in the political process.

Note:

• When discussing politics in developing countries, it is essential to consider the analysis of various political parties, particularly in countries like India, where the political landscape is diverse and complex.
• It is also crucial to keep track of social movements such as Black Lives Matter, MeToo, Yellow Vest movement, Hong Kong protests, and LGBT rights movements. This includes understanding their causes, demands, and nature.
• Additionally, monitoring elections and their analysis, along with statistics like voter turnout, is important for understanding political developments in key countries. However, it is not necessary to delve deep into political details.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the study of political parties, electoral systems, pressure groups, and social movements is essential for understanding the complexities of global politics. From Lenin's theory of the communist party to the role of interest groups and the evolution of social movements, these elements shape the political landscape in both western and non-western countries. As democracy continues to be a vital aspect of governance, the significance of electoral systems and minority representation cannot be ignored. By analyzing these various components, we can gain a deeper insight into the political dynamics of nations and the factors influencing political change.