Indian Parliamentary Democracy has favoured a multi-party system where political parties are recognised by the Election Commission as national or regional parties based on percentage of votes garnered and seats won in Parliamentary and Assembly elections. This is where political agendas of national and state parties differ based on their respective voter base and their demands.
|Regional Parties favour State Autonomy||National Parties favour Centralisation|
|Political & Social Reasons|
• Regional presence, small voter base and social engineering technique to attract caste-based votes.
• Example – DMK in Tamil Nadu passing Bill against NEET and demand of caste based census by RJD and JDU
• Devolution of finance by centre is tied with conditionalities.
• Centrally Sponsored Schemes mandate part of expenditure by states but take away autonomy. Due to this, states like West Bengal, Telangana, Odisha have withdrawn from PMJAY.
• Regional parties in poorer states have demanded special status for poor avenues of growth.
• Misuse of Concurrent List by National Parties at Centre
• Misuse of central agencies such as AIS officers, CBI, ED, Income Tax etc.
• Politicisation of offices of Governor
• Due to larger voter base and national presence
• Agendas and priorities of political parties differ from regional parties and favour issues such as simultaneous elections
• Greater financial control – Annual Budget; Recommendations of Finance Commission
• Attract greater political funding from corporates
• Nature of Indian polity favours a strong centre along with state’s independence. This in turn strengthens the policies and programmes of national parties.
• Governor functions as an agent of the centre and controls the unconstitutional development including law and order in states.
Thus, both national and regional parties constitute the essence of India’s Parliamentary system and have ensured the continuity of quasi-federal politics in India.