Unlike the first spell of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has consciously anchored itself to a deeper foundation of political legitimacy, beyond the prosaic imperatives of holding on to political power. Over the last decade, the wider political culture of the country has undergone a thorough process of making and un-making. The political scholar and activist, Yogendra Yadav, had provocatively captured this palpable phenomenon as the “unveiling of the second Indian republic”. There are, of course, scholarly disputes about the nature and extent of such stated political transformation. In the midst of a crucial round of State elections, and before the national elections, one might revisit certain questions afresh.
BJP dominant or Modi dominant?
First, can the present political system be characterised as a dominant party system; and if so, can it be more accurately characterised as a BJP dominant system or a Narendra Modi dominant system? Second, how robust and sustainable does the present structure of political dominance appear from a historical perspective? Some political scientists, such as Adam Ziegfeld, have articulated reasonable doubts over the BJP’s claims to dominance. They say that unlike the Congress’s geographical spread under Indira Gandhi, the BJP’s spread still substantially excludes southern and eastern India. The much-vaunted BJP electoral machine has been unable to dislodge a regional incumbent in State elections outside of the so-called Hindi belt. At present, the party does not possess a State government in any southern State and in a large swathe of eastern India (Bihar, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha). Also, unlike the Congress under Jawaharlal Nehru, the NDA has also not fulfilled the gruelling test of regime longevity (a rough rule of thumb being three consecutive terms).
