INTRODUCTION
Democracy is not merely about periodic elections; it is about constant public participation, accountability, and inclusive governance. Political parties, as pillars of representative democracies, are expected to reflect the will of the people they serve.In India, political parties play a dominant role in shaping the developmental agenda and public discourse. However, their internal functioning has become increasingly undemocratic, opaque, and centralized. Leadership decisions often bypass grassroots voices, manifestos fail to reflect public priorities, and development policies are routinely politicized. This deterioration has compromised the fundamental principle of governance that citizens must come first.
This blog contends that the way Indian political parties currently operate weakens democratic accountability and promotes a depoliticized approach to development. Through an analysis of historical patterns, international examples, legal structures, regional trends, and possible reforms, it argues that strengthening internal democracy and enhancing transparency within parties are essential steps toward reestablishing a citizen-centered model of governance in India.
POLITICAL SYSTEM OF INDIA
India’s political party system has evolved from participatory roots to hierarchical dominance. During the freedom struggle, parties like the Indian National Congress were platforms for mass mobilization, internal debate, and inclusive dialogue. However, post-independence, as the Congress party gained electoral dominance[1], decision-making became increasingly centralized.
The Emergency period (1975–77) marked a turning point when internal dissent was systematically suppressed. Over time, other parties, including regional ones, adopted similar top-down structures. The coalition era of the 1990s brought new voices but also escalated identity politics and patronage-based campaigning. Today, most parties reflect dynastic leadership, lack transparent candidate selection processes, and make unilateral policy decisions. Voter disillusionment and distrust in political processes. Alienation of grassroots party workers, weakening party structure. A shift from needs-based development to value-centric policy making. A culture of populist freebies, undermining fiscal discipline and governance quality.Many established democracies have addressed similar concerns through institutional reforms and legal safeguards.
In Germany, Article 21 of the Basic Law mandates that political parties uphold internal democracy and comply with state audits and public funding regulations. In the United Kingdom, the Electoral Commission plays a key role in promoting transparency in political financing and overseeing internal party elections. The United States enhances participatory democracy through primary elections that allow broad public involvement in candidate selection. Similarly, South Korea enforces legal requirements for internal party democracy and financial accountability, backed by institutional oversight. Collectively, these examples illustrate how well-regulated party systems can foster political transparency, enhance citizen participation, and align party functioning with developmental goals.
In contrast, Indian political parties operate with minimal regulation. Despite wielding immense influence over public institutions, they are not mandated to hold internal elections, disclose finances publicly, or adhere to democratic norms internally. This institutional vacuum has eroded democratic responsiveness.
ABOUT LEGAL FRAMEWORK : NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL REVIEW
The Representation of the People Act (1951) oversees the conduct of elections but offers minimal regulation over the internal functioning of political parties, limited primarily to their registration and recognition. Similarly, the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 grants party recognition but lacks provisions to enforce internal democratic practices. Although the Right to Information (RTI) Act (2005) was extended to political parties through a 2013 ruling by the Central Information Commission (CIC), all major national parties have refused to comply, deepening the democratic deficit. Relevant Supreme Court rulings that uphold similar concerns include:
- PUCL v. Union of India (2003): Upheld the right to know the criminal and financial background[2] of candidates.
- Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): Mandated disclosure of candidate information to ensure transparency.[3]
- Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017): Highlighted the misuse of ordinances and executive overreach, relevant in discussing the executive-party nexus.[4]
Moreover, International Legal Practices, including Germany’s Basic Law (Article 21), mandate parties to maintain democratic internal structures. The UK Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (2000) requires detailed financial reporting and oversight by the Electoral Commission. In the USA, the Federal Election Campaign Act (1971, amended) imposes caps on donations, public disclosure, and independent oversight.
Also in the South Korean Political Parties Act[5] enforces transparency and democratization through legal statutes and punitive actions. UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) encourages member states to adopt measures ensuring integrity, transparency, and accountability in political processes.
These legal frameworks underscore the importance of well-designed regulatory systems in promoting democratic conduct, transparency, and developmental accountability within political parties. A comparative continental analysis reveals significant disparities in political party governance. In Africa, dominant-party systems in countries like Zimbabwe and Uganda have fostered autocratic rule, corruption, and politicized development, with little space for dissent or accountability. In contrast, European democracies such as Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands enforce rigorous rules on party financing and internal procedures, supported by rulings from the European Court of Human Rights mandating adherence to democratic norms. Asia presents a mixed landscape: while China operates under a one-party regime, countries like Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia demonstrate structured internal party functioning, with Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party institutionalizing internal debate through formal factions. Positioned between these extremes, India though the world’s largest democracy maintains free electoral competition but suffers from opaque, unregulated, and elite-driven internal party governance, highlighting a critical gap in democratic accountability.
FROM ELECTORAL TACTICS TO STRUCTURAL GROWTH
Development in India is frequently weaponized for electoral gain. Manifestos often include unsustainable freebies, intended more to attract votes than to address structural needs. Resource allocation is influenced by vote-bank strategies, undermining the equity and efficiency of welfare schemes.Decisions like candidate nominations, party alliances, and development priorities are commonly made without grassroots consultation or expert input. Additionally, the resistance to RTI coverage shields political parties from public scrutiny, creating a democratic deficit in their functioning. Without transparency, there is little room for citizen engagement in the developmental agenda.
To restore public trust and ensure governance that puts citizens first, a comprehensive reform framework must be adopted. By enactment of the Political Parties Regulation Act, it has been mandating internal elections, transparent leadership transitions, and annual public audits of finances. Moreover, by amending the Representation of the People Act[6] to integrate democratic obligations into party recognition criteria. By grant of the Election Commission of India the authority to monitor internal party processes & deregister non-compliant parties, evaluate manifestos for fiscal prudence and developmental integrity. Likewise, extend the Right to Information (RTI) Act[7] to cover political parties, establish public grievance redressal forums and citizens’ assemblies within parties for participatory agenda setting. To create independent fiscal councils to assess the economic viability of manifesto promises, separate development policy from electoral tactics, using outcome-based performance metrics and data-driven evaluations.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the functioning of political parties lies at the heart of India’s democratic integrity. The absence of internal democracy, accountability, and transparency has led to the politicization of development and erosion of public trust. By analyzing the historical trajectory, learning from global best practices, and understanding regional democratic challenges, alongside reviewing existing legal structures, it is clear that India’s political future hinges on bold institutional reform. A democracy can only thrive when its political institutions are not only electorally competitive but also internally accountable and publicly responsive.
Restoring the ethos of Citizens First demands that political parties embody the democratic values they claim to uphold. The depoliticization of development is not a luxury; it is a democratic necessity.
Author(s) Name: Ms. Riddhima Singh (SGT UNIVERSITY, GURUGRAM)
References:
[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 324
[2] People’s Union of Civil Liberties and Anr vs Union of India & Anr AIR 2003 SC 2313
[3] Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms AIR 2002 SC 2112
[4] Krishna Kumar Singh and Anr v State of Bihar and Ors (2017) 3 SCC 1
[5] ‘Political Parties Act and Election Law Provisions 2020 (South Korea)’ <https://www.nec.go.kr> accessed 22 June 2026 <-this webpage is a website in korean so I ocould not cite it
[6] The Representation of the People Act 1951
[7] Right to Information Act 2005