What is a 'national' party?

By Rajeev Dhavan

THE CPI(M) is the third largest party in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha - with representation from six States. It leads three State Governments and is represented in 12 State Assemblies including Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Yet on September 27, 2000, the Election Commission (E.C.) declared that the CPI(M) was not a `national' party for electoral purposes within the meaning of the Election Symbols Order, 1968.

This de-nationalising of the CPI(M) spread like wildfire, mal- affecting its credibility. It has both symbolic as well as electoral significance. Words like `national' status convey an evocative meaning. They are `performative' in nature. To borrow C. L. Stevenson's nice phrase from his famous article in Mind, they are exercises in ``persuasive definition''. Such phrases have a subtle and deadly effect on the electoral and democratic system.

The original Constitution of India did not mention `political parties'. Political parties' were introduced for the purposes of the anti- defection law in the Tenth Schedule. Beyond that, the Constitution remains silent on the subject of political parties. Meanwhile, Parliament introduced Section 29A in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to empower the registration of `political parties' to ensure that all of them swear allegiance to the tenets of the Constitution and accept the discipline of the election law. The question as to whether the E.C. can ban a political party which behaves unconstitutionally by calling a bandh is pending before the Supreme Court. The concepts of `national', `State' and `other' political parties are entirely the creation of the E.C. in its Symbols Order of 1968. The purpose of the Symbols Order is to register `political parties' to prevent confusion over `symbols' in the minds of the voters' and lately, to ensure adherence to the Model Election Code. But, to achieve these purposes, it is not necessary to classify parties into `national' or `State'.

The formula devised by the E.C. to determine `State' or `national' status was a `vote' and `seat' formula. To be recognised as a `State' party, a political party would have to get six per cent (earlier four per cent) of the vote in elections to the State Assembly or Lok Sabha or one out of 25 seats of that State in the Lok Sabha or one out of every 30 seats in the Assembly at the previous election. To be a `national' party, one had to be a `State' party in at least four States. Till recently, requisite electoral presence in the minor Union Territories was enough to be called a `national' party.But, even now the `four States' formula creates absurd consequences. In theory, a party may be in power in the Union with coalition partners but not be a national party. Apart from the BJP, none of its coalition partners are national parties. Conversely, if - for example - a party gets 3.3 per cent of the seats or six per cent of the vote in Tripura, Manipura, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya it would be a national party. A future combination to earn `national' status for a political party could include Chattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and any one other State.

As we move from the `hypothetical' to the `actual', the fault lines of the formula are even more apparent. Apart from the Congress and the BJP, the other formula based `national' parties are the CPI (with only four Lok Sabha seats and 1.48 per cent of the popular vote), the Nationalist Congress Party (with eight seats and 2.2 per cent of the vote) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (with 15 Lok Sabha seats and 4.16 per cent of the vote). None of these `national' parties form Government either at the Centre or in any State. By contrast, the CPI(M) is the third largest party in the Rajya Sabha (with 15 members - 10 from West Bengal, 3 from Kerala, and one each from Tripura, and Andhra Pradesh) and has 33 Lok Sabha seats (21 from West Bengal, eight from Kerala, two from Tripura, and one each from Tamil Nadu and Bihar). The result is as astounding as the formula on which it is based. Indeed, as has been calculated, it is possible to win seven Assembly seats in Pondicherry, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland and get `national' political status.

The E.C. realises that its September 27 decision on the CPI(M) is absurd. In its order, the E.C. says that it ``sees some force in the submission of the party (i.e. the CPI-M) that a political party recognised as a national party should have a reasonable presence in Parliament. The Commission does realise that the CPI(M) is the third largest party in terms of its strength in both Houses of Parliament and has representation in the Legislative Assemblies of 12 States. The Commission is also conscious of the arguments... that the symbols order needs some amendments. The Commission has noted these arguments and will consider the same at the appropriate time. However, as of now, the Commission has to apply the Symbols Order as it stood at the time of the general election...'' The E.C. itself recognises that the formula is faulty, achieves strange results and ``need(s) amendments''. Meanwhile, the entire electoral system will suffer the mal-effects of a faulty Symbols Order.

The effect of de-nationalising a party is considerable. In the first place, it is on the basis of this classification that the media (including television) allocates time and space to a political party. Second, `national' parties have a special consultative and mail box relationship with the E.C. Third, the de-nationalised party does not have an `automatic' right to the symbol in States in which it does not have `State' status, but its candidates have a pre-emptive right over others to claim the party's symbol. Fourth, and most significantly, the denial of the status of a `national' party has symbolic significance. In popular terms, word goes round that the de-nationalised party does not even have `national standing' because of its poor performance.

There are several reasons why the Symbols Order of 1968 should be reviewed straightaway. To begin with, the E.C. itself recognises that the order produces incongruent results and needs amendment. But, why have this classification at all? The concept of a `national' party does not derive sustenance from the Constitution. Nor is it expressly required or implied by parliamentary statute. After the Voting Machine case (1984) it is doubtful if the E.C.'s constitutional power to conduct elections can prevail over enacted statute. More significantly, the purpose of the Symbols Order is to avoid confusion and apply the Model Code of Conduct, for which it is not necessary to classify parties into `national' or `State'. An exclusive symbol can always be allocated to a party which cannot - and should not - be given to anyone else. Even if this Symbols order made sense in 1968, it makes less sense now because of the combined effects of a fractured coalition politics and the break-up of the Indian federation into smaller States.

But, as long as the distinction between `national' and `state' parties is retained, it is bound to operate inequitably against genuine national parties. If a formula has to be devised, let `national' parties be determined on the basis of their strength in Parliament. The E.C. should take immediate steps to change its Symbols Order, and reverse its decision on the CPI(M) before more damage is done to the electoral system. The E.C. is nobody to make dangerous political classifications which will affect the popular vote. Its procedure is irrational and anti-democratic. The E.C. has just come out of the awesome mess created by Mr. T. N. Seshan. It should not invite new controversies.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : A retrograde step
Next     : The feminisation of poverty in Bihar