It is a central truth that party system has now become an inseparable portion of the political tradition of any state. But due to the differences in perceptual experience. values. mentality. beliefs. civilization. party system varies from state to state. Thus. some states are dominated by a individual party. some others have developed a bipartisan system. but still others have evolved a multi-party 1.
Of class a comparing between India and Britain will do the issue crystal clear. India had been under the British regulation of about two centuries and. hence. it was lawfully expected that they would hold some basic similarities in political system and construction. But. as a affair of fact. their political system has engendered fagot unsimilarities in practical political relations.
First. British tradition has taught the politicians the value of tolerance and cooperation. So the Opposition agrees that the Government. due to its bulk support. regulations the state and the Government. in its bend. admit that the Opposition has the built-in right to knock it. This inter-play between the Government and the Opposition is the life-blood of the British political relations. “If the Opposition invariably obstructed and the Government systematically voted it down. the absolutism of the bulk would shortly be established” ( Jennings. 88 ) . In this sense. he writes that the Opposition is an indispensable portion of the political system. Sir William Harcourt had. nevertheless. pointed out that “The map of the Opposition is to oppose the Government” ( p. 78 ) .
But Sir Jennings has competently shown the folly of such contention. Harmonizing to him. the existent map of the resistance is to oppose the incorrect policy of the Government and to back up its good actions. This is why frequently the Prime Minister and the resistance leader meet together and discourse the affairs of public importance. They even try to explicate common policy and outline the Bills on the footing of an understanding. In this connexion. Sir Jennings observes. “Many proposals of the Government are non opposed. because there is general agreement” ( p. 89 ) .
During two World Wars. two major parties sunk their differences and worked together through the War-Cabinet. Even during the peace clip. they come nigher in order to contend out national crisis. Therefore. when in 1931. the Labor Prime Minister. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. “…intended to vacate due to a split in his party. the cabinet was saved by the Conservative Party which joined it in order to debar a constitutional crisis ( Majumder. p. 375 ) .
This ‘National Government’ functioned till 1936 without any internal crisis and it clearly indicates that the political civilization of Britain has taught the leaders to unify together during any national crisis. Sometimes. the point of position of two different political parties was opposite. But the Prime Minister allowed the Conservative Curates to show their ain position. This is known as ‘Agreement to Differ’ .
But political system in India is rather different. The Government barely listens to the Opposition and the later. in its bend. is ne’er friendly to it. While the former depends upon it beastly bulk. the later is depended upon a policy of obstructor. The treatments in the Parliament. therefore. frequently become a “worse than a primary-school debate” ( Sikri. p. 184 ) . The resistance leaders are sometimes arrested or abused or humiliated in an indecent mode. In fact. political relations of power in India has thrown the Government and the resistance to two hostile cantonments and nil seems to be unfair in such hassle. For illustration. in 1999. the Cardinal Government was ousted by one ballot in an ugly mode.
But the parties in the resistance which united together in order to tumble the Cabinet. could non bind up for organizing a new one. Similarly. the Cardinal Government of every political colour has extravagantly used Art 356 of the fundamental law with a position to disregarding the province authoritiess formed by the oppositions. Therefore. between 1950 and 1996. such President’s Rule was promulgated 93 times for political grounds ( Beginning: Lok-Sabha Secretariat. India ) . In this sense. it can be held that the cardinal arm has been more abused than used. In other words. a constitutional. blank has frequently been exploited by the power traders at the Center in order to allow the oppositions down.
Second. the British political system has besides convinced the leaders to give more importance to public service than to party involvement or personal additions. Therefore. in 1923. Bonar Law. the Prime Minister. resigned on evidences of wellness. But in India. the leaders are more concerned with power – they are prepared to retain or snap it by agencies. foul or carnival.
If they can capture power. they try to lodge to it till decease or licking. It is to be remembered that in 1834. Lord Melbourne. the British Prime Minister suffered a reverse due to a split in his party. He so asked the King. William IV. whether or non he would stay in his office. Acting upon the royal advice. he really stepped down. But in India. neither a Prime Minister nor a Chief Minister quits his office in this manner. It excessively suggests that political system in India is rather different.
Third. Britain has a bipartisan system. However. Ogg admits that. “…besides the Conservative party and the Labor Party. there are besides the Liberals” ( p. 552 ) . But. in fact. the progressives faded out during the 19 mid-thirtiess. But. in India is a multi-party system. In 1991. 445 parties registered their names with the Election Commission. True that. at the beginning. the Congress dominated the political scene and. accordingly G. Austin held that. “The Congress was India and India was the Congress” ( p. 8 ) .
Truly. India had “one-dominant party-system” ( Morris-Jones. p. 174 ) . But bit by bit. assorted parties based on faith. part. localism. linguistic communication. caste. credo and personal aspiration came up in rapid advancement. In fact. the “…diversities of population have now created a pluralistic society and this mushroom growing of political parties has affected Indian integrity in an alarming way” ( Rout. p. 200 ) .
Fourthly. it is true that on occasions. the British leaders like Robert Peel. J. Chamberlain and W. Churchill defected from their party. But such desertion was motivated by exalted idealism and non by personal aspiration and party unity. But in India. desertion has become a extremely profitable concern. Between March and April of 1969 every bit many as 550 legislators crossed the floor and as some of them did it on several occasions. the figure of such desertion eventually reached to more than one 1000. Some of them even changed their truenesss from times within a month. So Dr. Kashyap has justly observed that such “large-scale desertion has frequently resulted in the ups and downs of the Cabinets” ( p. 6 ) .
Sixthly. while public engagement in the election in Britain has made it a popular democracy. India is. in this regard. dawdling far behind. In Britain. 80-90 per centum people cast their ballots. because they know that vote is the footing of indirect democracy. But political system in India is pitiably otherwise. In 1984. the per centum of popular engagement in election in India rose to 64. but usually it remains below 62 and in 1962. it came down to 55 per centum. Furthermore. this per centum is based upon immense figure of false ballots. “While British polls reflect honestness and pureness of intent. elections in India have become a dearly-won gorse. Capturing of booths. usage of armed felons and dakoits. use in the voter-list. robbery of ballot documents and so on have become indispensable parts of election” ( Kapur. p. 425 ) .
Seventhly. India has besides failed to accept the thought of impersonal speaker-ship which is an of import facet of British political tradition. “He is. every bit near as a human being can be. impartial” ( Finer. p. 475 ) . So. every bit shortly as he takes the chair. he cuts off all relationships with his party and acts as the non-partisan president of the House of Commons. But. the talkers in India remain party-men and they frequently give their opinions in their political involvements. So. Dr. Dash has justly remarked. “We have non been able to make the criterion of distance prevailing in this affair in England” ( Dash. p. 262 ) .
Last. but non the least. the British political system does non. by any agencies. acknowledge corruptness or depravity on the portion of Ministers or Leaders. Strong public sentiment has ever condemned such personal businesss and. on occasions. Mr. Profumo and Mr. Parkinson have to vacate from the Cabinet. But in India. a individual with about a twelve felon charges can be and stay in the Cabinet. Most queerly. even the people of the state do non trouble oneself much with such ugly personal businesss.
Party. Government and the Peoples
In modern times. the party system is an indispensable portion of political life. However. in the dictatorial system. a peculiar political party monopolizes all political power. because it is basically a one-party regulation ( Neumann. p. 244 ) .
But. in a democratic system like India and Britain. the authorities is formed by the people and it is keyed to public sentiment. So. the political parties keep up a nexus between the authorities and the electorate. In fact. they keep the national life politically ( Agarwal. p. 386 ) . Democracy means the regulation of the people and as they are guided by the political parties. political life veers around the party system. “It is the electorate who determines the signifier of Government and chooses who guide and dictate its affairs” ( Garner. p. 495 )
But in realistic considerations. people barely become consentaneous – there are conflicting thoughts and involvements. “It happens. as in the instance of the slavery inquiry in the United States or the Free-trade job in England. that some paramount issues divide the community” ( Leacock. p. 313 ) . Different political parties mould the sentiment of different groups and the elections are really fought on the footing of such issues.
But finally. the bi-party system is far better than the multi party system in associating up the authorities and the people. In a multi party construction. people’s ballots are divided among different political parties. and therefore. frequently popular sentiment is barely reflected in the formation of the authorities. Often coalition authoritiess come up without the popular purpose. But in a bi-party system. the people choose either of the two parties and. hence. the election brings out a better coordination between the party and the Government.
From this analysis. it would possibly be richly clear that at least in a democracy. political life is determined by the party system. Particularly. a bi-party system like that of England creates a close nexus between the people and the authorities.
Austin. G. The Indian Constitution. World Press. New Delhi. 1978. p. 8
Agarwal. R. G. Political Theory. S. Chandra Books. Allahabad. 1996. p. 386
Dash. S. C. The Constitution of India. Modern Books. Mumbai. 1984. p. 262
Finer. H. Theory and Practice of Modern Government. Royal Press. New Delhi. 1976. p. 475
Garner. J. W. Political Science and Government. World Press. New Delhi. 1991. p. 495
Jennings. I. The Queen’s Government. Pelican Books. London. 1964. p. 88
Jennings. I. ibid. pp. 88-89
Kapur. A. C. The Indian Political System. New Press Hall. New Delhi. 11Thursdayerectile dysfunction. p. 425
Kashyap. S. C. Politics of Defection. Old House Publishers. Chennai. 1979. p. 6
Leacock. S. Elementss of Political Science. Constable & A ; Co. London. 1939. p. 313
Majumder. B. B. Rise and Development of the English Constitution. Book Land. Calcutta.
1968. p. 375
Morris-Jones. W. H. Government and Politics in India. Prince Town Publications. Calcutta.
1978. p. 172
Ogg. A. English Government and Politics. The MacMillan Company. London. 1929. p. 552
Rout. B. C. Democratic Constitution of India. New Book Hall. New Delhi. 1979. p. 200
Sikri. S. L. Indian Government and Politics. Kalyani Publishers. Ludhiana. 1963. p. 184
The President’s Rule in the States and Union Territories. Lok Sabha Secretariat. Vol. 1.
Issue 4. March 1993.