Revision summary
Parties can sustain developing democracies by aggregating conflict, training elites and making peaceful turnover possible. Huntington’s institutionalisation and India’s early Congress incorporation illustrate the positive case. Failures include family vehicles, ethnic census parties, clientelism and polarising attacks on referees. Existence of parties is not the same as a party system that can lose. Critical verdict: necessary organisations whose quality decides whether democracy thickens or hollows.
Model answer
Introduction
In developing societies, political parties are often the main machine that turns a constitution into a living democracy. They recruit leaders, aggregate demands, fight elections and, in the best case, accept defeat. The question asks for a critical examination of that role in sustaining and stabilising democracy. The verdict is mixed: parties are necessary, and they are frequently the source of the instability they are asked to cure.
Body
How parties can stabilise
E. E. Schattschneider said democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties. Samuel Huntington treated institutionalised parties as the difference between participation that strengthens order and participation that wrecks it. In a poor or post-colonial society, parties can: (1) aggregate language, caste, class and region into a bargain instead of a militia; (2) train a political class that knows how to run ministries; (3) offer peaceful turnover so that losers still have a future; (4) link the village to the capital through patronage that, at its least bad, is a form of incorporation. India’s Congress system in the early decades, whatever its later decay, did this incorporation. Later coalition years and a competitive national party system showed that democracy can survive without a single dominant party if parties still treat the Election Commission and the Constitution as binding.
Elsewhere, South Africa’s ANC after apartheid, Chile’s concertación years, and parts of Ghana and Senegal show parties as roofs over social conflict. Internationally, party internationals and election observation try to socialise that role.
Critical failures
Many developing democracies have parties that are not organisations. They are vehicles for a family, a business house or an ethnic census. Mainwaring and Scully’s work on institutionalisation is the standard warning: where labels change every election, voters cannot reward or punish a programme, and presidents rule through deals. Ethnic parties can mobilise turnout and also lock minorities out, turning democracy into a rotating capture of the state. Clientelism buys the poor at the cost of public goods. One-party dominance can freeze opposition until the street explodes. Military-tutelary systems keep parties as decoration.
Parties also polarise. When they treat opponents as enemies of the nation, they eat the referees — courts, election bodies, the press — which is the backsliding path known from Levitsky and Ziblatt. Developing societies with young institutions are more exposed to that path because alternative organisations (unions, professional bodies) are thinner.
Verdict
Parties sustain democracy when they are programmatic enough to be accountable and restrained enough to lose. They destabilise democracy when they are militias in party clothing or when they become the private property of a leader. The critical examination therefore refuses two cartoons: that parties are a Western luxury poor countries cannot afford, and that any party system is automatically a democratic good. Stabilisation is a quality of party institutionalisation, not of the mere existence of party names on a ballot.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD P[Parties] --> S[Aggregation turnover institutions] P --> F[Ethnic personal clientelist capture] S --> D[Stabilised democracy] F --> U[Unstable or hollow democracy]
Conclusion
Political parties remain the ordinary instrument of democratic stability in developing societies: they aggregate, incorporate and allow defeat. They also organise ethnic capture, clientelism and executive assault on referees. The role is indispensable and double-edged. Institutionalised, bounded parties sustain democracy. Personal and ethnic machines consume it.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Do you agree with the view that the USA uses NATO as a traditional tool of strategy to perpetuate its hegemony in the world?
Next question in the 2024 paper (Q3). View answer →
-
Do independent candidates make parties unnecessary?
Not at national scale. Legislatures and ministries need durable labels. Independents are a local supplement, not a system.
-
Are ethnic parties always anti-democratic?
They can represent excluded groups. They become a threat when they deny the opposition a permanent place in the state.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q1(d) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the political socialization of open and closed societies. -
2025 · Q3(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
Of late, centrist and centre-left political parties have been facing setbacks while centre-right parties have been in ascendency the world over. Comment -
2024 · Q3(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
Discuss the major recent social movements related to the physical rights of women in various countries of the world. -
2022 · Q2(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the role of social movements in strengthening the democratic processes in developing societies -
2021 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
"Political parties and pressure groups are sine qua non of democracy." Comment.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the interpretive approach to the study of comparative politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
The interpretive approach studies political action as meaning in context, following Weber’s verstehen and later cultural and linguistic turns. It replies to behaviouralism’s search for covering laws by asking how votes, nations and authority are understood locally. Thick description, ethnography and discourse analysis are typical tools. It explains legitimacy, nationalism and everyday state practice that a constitution or a class map alone cannot supply. Limits are relativism, weak generalisation, and neglect of material and institutional constraint if used alone.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the central tenets of the World-Systems Theory.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Wallerstein’s unit is the capitalist world-economy since the long sixteenth century, not the isolated nation-state. Core, semi-periphery and periphery form a durable three-tier division of labour. Unequal exchange and strong/weak states move surplus toward the core. The theory rejects modernisation’s national ladder and differs from Waltz’s interstate anarchy as first cause. Limits include economic determinism and underplaying state autonomy and culture; mobility exists but hierarchy persists.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
The expansionist tendencies of the current Russian regime indicate its intentions for the realization of a Greater Russia on the lines of the Soviet era. Comment.
Comparative Politics
Russia’s wars in Georgia and Ukraine, plus pressure on Belarus and nuclear signalling, show expansionist intent in the post-Soviet space. The Greater Russia story denies full independence of neighbours, especially Ukraine. The Soviet analogy fits geography of control more than ideology: today’s regime is nationalist and oligarchic, not a communist world-system. Morgenthau and Waltz explain power and structure; they do not make the war merely defensive. Comment: accept expansionism; reject a simple USSR restoration.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.