Internal democracy refers to the practice of transparent decision-making, inclusive participation, and accountability within political parties. In India, the absence of robust internal democracy has fueled dynastic rule, opaque funding, and centralized power structures. Here’s a detailed analysis:
Why Internal Democracy Matters
- Reduces Corruption: Transparent candidate selection and funding processes curb reliance on money power and cronyism.
- Promotes Inclusivity: Encourages youth, women, and marginalized groups to contest elections.
- Strengthens Federalism: Decentralizes power from national leadership to grassroots workers.
- Improves Governance: Merit-based leadership selection leads to better policy formulation.
Legal Framework and Challenges
- Statutory Void:
- Section 29A, RPA 1951: Allows parties to register with the Election Commission of India (ECI) but does not mandate internal democracy. Parties only submit a vague “pledge” to follow the Constitution.
- No Enforcement: ECI lacks powers to de-register parties for undemocratic functioning (only for fraud or non-submission of audits).
- Structural Challenges:
- Dynastic Control: 30% of MPs in 2019 hailed from political families (ADR Report).
- Centralized Decision-Making: Power concentrated in national presidents or “High Commands.”
- Opaque Funding: Electoral bonds (now scrapped) and anonymous donations undermine accountability.
- Judicial Interventions:
- Indian National Congress vs Institute of Social Welfare (2002): SC held ECI cannot enforce internal democracy without legal backing.
- Rahul Gandhi vs RSS (2023): Petitions seeking mandamus for intra-party elections remain pending.
Key Recommendations
- Law Commission’s 255th Report (2015):
- Mandatory Intra-Party Elections: Conducted periodically under ECI supervision.
- Transparent Candidate Selection: Use primaries or electoral colleges instead of “star chamber” decisions.
- ECI Powers: Deregister parties that violate democratic norms.
- Comprehensive Legislation: Enact a Political Parties (Registration and Regulation) Act to enforce accountability.
- Other Reforms Proposed:
- Financial Transparency: Disclose donors and cap expenditure on internal elections.
- Reservations: Quotas for women, SC/STs, and OBCs in party positions.
- Grievance Redressal: Internal ombudsmen to address worker complaints.
Global Best Practices
| Country | Mechanism | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | Legal Mandate: Parties must have democratic structures (Art. 21, Basic Law). | High youth participation and factional balance. |
| USA | Primaries: Open elections for candidate selection. | Reduces insider control but increases campaign costs. |
| South Africa | Proportional Representation: Members vote for leadership. | Ensures grassroots influence in ANC. |
Case Study: BJP vs Congress
- Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP):
- Holds organizational elections from booth to national level (Mandalam to National President).
- Criticism: Alleged “rubber-stamp” elections with leadership favoring loyalists.
- Indian National Congress (INC):
- Centralized Control: Gandhi family dominance since Independence.
- Recent Reforms: 2022 “Udaipur Declaration” promised 50% posts for under-50s but implementation remains lax.
Way Forward
- Legislative Action: Amend RPA 1951 to codify internal democracy (e.g., define timelines for elections, penalties for non-compliance).
- ECI Empowerment: Grant ECI powers to audit party accounts and de-register dynastic/opaque parties.
- Public Pressure: Civil society campaigns (e.g., ADR, Association for Democratic Reforms) to push parties to adopt voluntary reforms.
- Judicial Push: Supreme Court could interpret Article 19(1)(c) (right to form associations) to imply internal democracy.
Conclusion:
Internal democracy is vital to rejuvenate India’s political ecosystem. While the Law Commission’s 255th Report provides a roadmap, its implementation requires political will. Without reforms, parties risk becoming private fiefdoms, undermining the very democracy they seek to represent. A mix of legal mandates, institutional oversight, and public accountability can restore trust in political processes.
