Congress's Dilemma: Weak at National issues and Confused about Regional issues

-

Congress has been a strong party at the regional as well as national level. But the drastic decline of the Congress party in regional as well as the national sphere is reflecting few phenomenons. We can divide Congress's life into five major major periods: 1947-1967, 1967-1989, 1989-2004, 2004-2014, 2019-2022. Initially, Congress was the only party ruling across regions. Post-1967 what happens is Congress facing challenges from other parties. Our electoral system (First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)) tends to have a two-party system at the center (This law is known as Duverger’s law). While we do have a multiparty system, it depends on federalism and the concentration of power at the center. Under weak federalism and a higher concentration of power at the center, the FPTP system can have a two-party system at the center as well as at the state. Otherwise, FPTP can lead to a multiparty system. Now with this law, let's track what is happening with Congress. In the period 1967-1989, even though there was a rise of a two-party system, multiparty system, and regional parties, Congress was a big brother at the center as well as the state. Post-1989, Congress was weak at the center i.e. less power is concentrated at the center. With that 73rd amendment (Panchayat Raj) tried to build federalism by improving the state-center relationship. Therefore, the multiparty system started growing at state as well as center. Regional parties also started developing themselves. But still, it was not anti-Congress for three reasons. 

1) The decline in Congress at the Center couldn't be filled by 'other national parties'.

2) At the regional level although state parties were growing, these parties are viewed as parties under "Congress Umbrella". Therefore Congress wasn't not replaced by these regional parties at most of the places. 

3) Congress does have some regional leadership be it Maharashtra, be it Rajasthan, be it Madhya Pradesh, be it Uttarakhand. That helps Congress to sustain. 

Therefore till 2014, Congress survived. And now exactly the opposite is happening. 

Post-2014, the power started getting concentrated at the center and federalism is becoming weak considering eco-political co-operation between center and state. This creates the atmosphere for the two-party system. And Congress couldn't find a place in this newly generated two-party system mainly because of three reasons (which are exactly opposite to the above reasons).

1) The decline in Congress at Center is filled by BJP 

2) At the regional level, regional parties started identifying themselves as "different parties" which doesn't fall under "Congress Umbrella". That replaces Congress at the regional level. 

3) Congress lost regional leadership. 

Observe the following maps

Map 1: BJP 


Map 2: Congress


The ratio of regional to a national vote share for BJP is stable (Few exceptions Andhra Pradesh (Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are treated as one state in given analysis). But following figures suggest that the given ratio is stable whereas vote share at the center and vote share at state both are increasing for BJP. As ration is stable both shares are increasing with the same proportion. 


the ratio is increasing for Congress but the above figures suggest that both shares are declining. As the ratio is increasing, the vote share at the center is rapidly declining compared to the decline at state assemblies.  And decline at the center is filled by BJP and the decline at state assemblies is filled by regional parties. 
Now in current state elections if Congress loses Punjab then this notion will get highlighted again. 






टिप्पण्या

टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा

या ब्लॉगवरील लोकप्रिय पोस्ट

Critical Employment Issues Overlooked in the Recent Economic Survey: Job Quality, Women's Employment, and AI's Regulatory Implications

-
इमेज
T he recent Economic Survey addresses various aspects of the Indian economy, but there are three key employment concerns that warrant further discussion: the level and quality of employment, women's employment, and the impact of AI on labor laws and regulations. First, the reference period chosen for comparing employment improvements is the 2017-18 PLFS round, a time following demonetization, which significantly impacted the labor market. Using this period as a baseline might present an incomplete picture of employment trends. Comparing current statistics with the early 2000s, a period often referred to as the golden decade of the Indian economy, indicates that there is still progress to be made in terms of unemployment, labor force participation rate, and worker-to-population ratio. Source: Author uses NSSO’s Employment-Unemployment and PLFS surveys. Furthermore, while the survey discusses the expansion of the gig economy, driven by digital platforms, increased internet access, ...
अधिक वाचा

Big state paradox in decentralization

-
इमेज
The economic performance of large states in India compared to China's provinces reveals a paradox in development and governance efficiency. While China's centralized governance system promotes economic growth in its larger regions, India's larger states encounter various obstacles that hinder their progress. Conversely, under India's decentralization, smaller states have experienced significant economic growth. However, the slower progress of India's larger states restricts the nation's overall economic growth. This suggests a need to understand the dynamics of two different governance systems: the performance of smaller states under a centralized system and that of larger states under a decentralized system. From the mobility graph, it is evident that large states in India are trailing behind China's largest province, while the smaller states in India are performing well. In fact, in the initial period, the smaller states of India have a higher average per ...
अधिक वाचा

Geographic Dispersion of votes and income dynamics behind Congress-BJP seats

-
इमेज
The recent state assembly elections in India provides a deep insight into the evolving political landscape particularly about First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system. Under the FPTP system, the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins the election which can fail to translate popular votes into proportional representation, resulting in votes that don't always carry the weight they should. This discrepancy arises due to the winner-takes-all approach, where the candidate with the most votes in a particular constituency win, irrespective of whether they secure an absolute majority or not. As a consequence, a candidate can win a seat by only having a plurality of votes (more than any other single candidate but not necessarily a majority of all votes cast), while the votes cast for other candidates essentially go unrepresented. This leads to a scenario where a significant portion of the population might not see their voices reflected in the government they get, creating w...
अधिक वाचा