Suchergebnisse

In the aftermath of the 2009 national elections in India a number of commentators observed that Indian Party Politics is a dynastic affair. Why is this the case? This paper claims that absence of a party organization, independent civil society associations that mobilize support for the party, and centralized financing of elections has led to the emergence and sustenance of dynastic parties in India. The paper assesses the impact of dynastic parties and shows that not only are party systems more volatile when parties are dynastic but more important, dynastic parties serve to make the political system less representative. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]

In the aftermath of the 2009 national elections in India a number of commentators observed that Indian party politics is a dynastic affair. Why is this the case? This paper claims that absence of a party organization, independent civil society associations that mobilize support for the party, and centralized financing of elections has led to the emergence and sustenance of dynastic parties in India. The paper assesses the impact of dynastic parties and shows that not only are party systems more volatile when parties are dynastic but more important, dynastic parties serve to make the political system less representative.

"India's party system has undergone a profound transformation over the last decade. The Congress Party, a catchall party that brought independence in 1947 and governed India for much of the period since then, no longer dominates the electoral scene. Political parties that draw support from particular castes and religious groups are now more powerful than ever before. Democracy without Associations explains why religious and caste-based political parties have come to dominate the electoral landscape in 1990s India and why catchall parties have declined." "Democracy without Associations will interest scholars and students of Indian politics and party politics, as well as those interested in the impact of social divisions on the political system."--Jacket

Pradeep Chhibber and Ken Kollman rely on historical data spanning back to the eighteenth century from Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States to revise our understanding of why a country's party system consists of national or regional parties. They demonstrate that the party systems in these four countries have been shaped by the authority granted to different levels of government. Departing from the conventional focus on social divisions or electoral rules in determining whether a party system will consist of national or regional parties, they argue instead that national party sy

AbstractObjectiveWe analyze the extent to which the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were personalized during the tenures of India's two most famous populist prime ministers, Indira Gandhi and Narendra Modi, respectively.MethodsWe use findings from contemporary Indian historiography and journalism, as well as academic secondary sources, to analyze the degree of personalization in both the INC and the BJP based on three separate dimensions of party institutionalization: internal institutionalization, external institutionalization, and objective durability.ResultsWe find evidence of partial personalization in both the INC and the BJP. To the extent that personalization took place in both cases, it involved an informal and temporary concentration of power in the hands of one leader. Both parties' formal structures remained largely constant and both parties remained valued as institutions by both voters and party members.ConclusionIndira Gandhi and Narendra Modi both became two of India's most powerful prime ministers through charismatic populist appeals and cults of personality. While meaningful and important, these outward appearances still give a somewhat misleading image of the degree to which their respective parties underwent personalization during their tenures. Both the BJP and the INC saw a temporary and personal personalization during their time in office while remaining institutionalized parties with objective durability even after their charismatic leaders leave office.

The social coalition that supported the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2019 mirrored the demographic profile of the Hindu society. The party made substantial gains among the lower castes, the poor, rural voters, and less educated. How did BJP manage to attract these new voters? We argue that the immediate context of 2019 elections along with a profound ideological shift in Indian politics lies at the heart of the BJP's success. Underpinning the short-term factors of Modi's popularity, BJP's organizational advantage, heightened nationalistic sentiments, and expansive welfare politics, a new form of ethno-political majoritarianism delinked from religious Hindu nationalism was key to the party's ability to attract new voters.