As elections are approaching in five major states in India, once again the discourse on role of Regional Political Parties (RPP) is taking the centre stage. RPP have assumed importance as they have the capacity to transform the very nature of electoral politics, both in states as well as at the centre. Experiences have reflected that they are not only very powerful in their own bastion, but steadily are evolving to have considerable impact at the parliamentary elections too. Various factors like cultural pluralism, regional imbalances, anti-centralism, political splits, personality cult politics, ideological differences etc. have led to rise of RPP in different states in India.
No study on RPP is complete without a reference to Maurice Duverger’s concept of ‘Minor Party’. It refers to regional/local parties formed on the basis of linguistics, religious, ethnic and cultural interests. Thus we can define RPP as those which generally and exclusively operate within a limited geographical area representing the interest of particular linguistic, religious, ethnic, or cultural group whose population may be concentrated in that area as small as a single member constituency or as large as a entire state or a region. Their interests are narrowly defined. The Election Commission of India recognises two types of parties, the National Parties and the State Parties, the latter in general parlance are termed as regional parties. There are two criteria to decide whether the party is national or regional, the territorial reach and the popularity. The party can be classified on the basis of the number of states in which it enjoys popular electoral support, and on the basis of percentage of votes polled by it in the Assembly and Lok Sabha elections.
While there is a strong argument in favour of RPP, there are also others who criticise their existence as mushrooms or cropping of weeds after a monsoon rain. The argument in favour believes that growth of RPP leads to decentralization of power which is an important ingredient of democracy. Their existence increases political competition and makes it healthier. RPP provide platform for multiplicity of opinion and interest to be represented. They provides wider spectrum of choice for an electorate. RPP have produced some remarkable leaders and have created new regional power centers. There is also an opinion that RPP represent ‘hope, they are young, energetic, focused on economic development and in sync with the practical aspirations of the youthful of majority’. They represent regional aspirations and regional grievances and they have a strong connect with the voters. Some of these parties have been able to change the traditional class politics to mass politics.
However, there is a gamut of criticism against the RPP. The most important folly is they lack or have very limited institutionalisation. The party structures are not in place, and the second tier of leadership is often missing. Most of them are personality based parties. They survive on the charisma of the leader who has founded it, and may often lose its hold once the leader is no more. Some of these parties may not have any scope for intraparty democracy, they are leader dominated, and are likely to develop centralizing tendencies. Sometimes they may be a ‘family affair’ as we see in Uttar Pradesh and yet at some other place one RPP may split and sprout further like DMK in Tamil Nadu has split into AIADMK, MDMK, DMDK, etc.
The state of Goa, going for Assembly elections on February 4, 2017, will witness a sizable number of RPP contesting and giving a fight against the two major national parties. Some of these are new entrants and voters are yet to know their intentions. Scarcity of strongmen (regional leaders) in national parties has further given a mileage to RPP in Goa. Goa is no exception to splits where the leaders from national political parties have defected from the party and have formed their own parties. Parties are also formed as a result of intra-party feuds and expulsions. Some of these parties are contesting on primordial lines. There are different strategies followed by these parties. There is an understanding reached between some of them for sharing of seats. Some others want to go on their own and decide the future course of action after the election results. Some are fielding candidates to confuse the voters and split votes. Some claim that they have been the traditional protectors of Goan Identity, while some claim that the fear of losing Goan identity have made them come forward and form a regional political party.
Manifestos of all the parties, national or regional, are reflecting ‘genuine’ concern for the people of Goa. There are certain generic issues like poverty, unemployment, corruption etc while there are certain state specific issues. If members are elected from different parties, there is a fear of fractured mandate which may result in pulling in different directions, and lack of cohesion resulting in political instability. But as of now, the reign of power solely lies with the voters of Goa. The choice has to be conscientiously made. The voters have to develop their own yardstick to judge the candidates and the parties. Old or new, National or Regional, voters will have to get those candidates elected who will be able to deliver and who will give priority to the wellbeing of the state, and not some vested interests. But voting is a must! Barack Obama, in his address to his nation for the last time as US president, rightly pointed out that change only happens when ordinary people get involved, get engaged, and come together and demand it. Let us, voters of Goa, vote in large numbers to see the change that we want.
(The writer is Associate Professor in Political Science, Govt College of Arts, Science & Commerce, Khandola, Marcela)
