Dominance of Japan LDP and of Indian Congress Party - Coursework Example

of the Reasons for the dominance of the LDP in Japan and of the Congress Party in India in the post-war era Dominance of the LDP in Japan in the post-war era The evolution of the party system in Japan in the postwar period can be divided into two stages. The first one, called “System 1955” to the period from 1955 to 1993. This period is characterized by considerable stability, which is ensured by the fact that the main political rivals and was the Liberal Democratic Party and the Socialist Party, the first permanent was in power, and the second position of the opposition party (Hosoya, p. 259). The second period, which begins with, respectively, 1993 and lasts until the present time, is characterized by frequent and substantial changes in the Japanese political arena. Party system in this period can already be described as multi-party, and this phase is the period of the coalition government (Hosoya, p. 259). According to the results of several recent elections are the following centers of political forces. The most impressive voter support uses two political parties: the Liberal Democratic Party (LDPJ) - traditional conservatives, and the Democratic Party (DPJ) - the core of the liberal movement. In addition to them in the political arena noticeable activity neoconservative parties such as the Liberal Party, Club reforms, etc., as well as left-wing parties - the Communist and Social Democratic parties, the Federation of democratic reforms and so on (Campbell, p. 1003). Japan’s political life since the mid 50’s was marked by the dominance of one party in it; that was Liberal Democratic Party. Until the 90s, it has formed monopoly government offices, virtually merged with the state apparatus. It was founded in November 15, 1955 through the merger of two major bourgeois parties - the Liberal Democratic and the Japanese, who had at that time 64% of the seats in parliament. Combining happened at the insistence of big business in the first place - the Federation of Economic Organizations, fund both parties (Hosoya, p. 259). A characteristic feature of the LDP, as well as many other parties in Japan, is its internal separateness into relatively independent and cohesive group - the faction. They compete with each other, are fighting for a separate electorate, have their permanent leaders who are faithful to the other members of factions. But at the same faction retain loyalty to the party, its overall program. Chairman of the party and head of government often becomes the leader of the most influential parliamentary faction of the LDP (Campbell, p. 1003). He forms the government of representatives of all factions. This system allows the LDP always be at the helm of the politics, as changes of sympathy of voters lead to a weakening of some factions and to strengthen the other, although the majority of voters and from one generation to retain the “fidelity” factions, their leaders, or “their” representatives in Parliament and factions of the LDP. This is a reflection of the traditional Japanese (and the politicians, and the public) sense of belonging to a group, “family”, suffering now and in politics (Campbell, p. 1003). In its very first policy documents LDP proclaimed itself the “people’s party” that seeks to “build a welfare state,” and took care of expanding influence among all segments of the population. In the center of the attention has traditionally been a problem for economic growth. In parallel, in the 50 years of the LDP and its government tried to revive Japan’s military might by revising the 9th article of the constitution. In 1956, the number created in the period of the Korean War, “Self-Defense Forces” was brought to 215 thousand. But it is necessary to revise the constitution and 2/3 majority in Parliament did not have the LDP and the Democrats and the left-wing opposition organized mass anti-war speeches (Hosoya, p. 259). They had for the Japanese fundamental importance in connection with the discovery of the long-term consequences of the atomic bombings of 1945 and the Americans with the explosion of March 1, 1954 at Bikini Atoll hydrogen bomb, which affected Japanese fishermen and infected fish, and passed over radioactive rain in Japan. Its peak anti-war movement, accompanied by performances and social workers, strikes, and reached in 1959-1960 connection with the preparation of a new Security Treaty with the United States (Hosoya, p. 259). The threat of a split in society forced the LDP to make adjustments to its course. Certainly it has become a priority for the task of ensuring rapid and sustainable development of the Japanese economy. Government Hayato Ikeda (1960-1964) put forward in December 1960 “plan to double the national income” (a decade). To implement it sought to bring to society peace and harmony. Start a dialogue with the political opposition instead of the previous attempts to suppress it. Caring about achieving “peace process”, “cooperation between labor and capital.” It has made some concessions to the workers who carried out since 1955 “spring offensive” in the form of strikes and demonstrations demanding higher wages. LDP proclaimed itself a supporter of “equitable distribution of income.” (Campbell, p. 1003) Monopoly for almost 40 years in power, the Liberal Democratic Party largely contributed to corruption in the highest echelons of power and merging party and bureaucratic elite. Not surprisingly, the first since 1948, the coalition government formed in the summer of 1993, immediately headed for political reform. In this government, the opposition LDPJ attended all presented at the time in Parliament parties except the Communist Party (JCP), and accordingly LDPJ. In 1994, Parliament passed a number of laws that are of fundamental importance. The most important of these is the Law on small constituencies, according to which the revised procedure for the election to the House of Representatives (Hosoya, p. 259). Proportional electoral system in which elections were held only in multi-member districts, has been replaced by a mixed, in which most of the members of the House of Representatives is elected by the majority system in single-member districts, and smaller - on party lists in proportion to the votes received (Campbell, p. 1003). The successful development of the economy and the rise in the standard of living that basis the Japanese have become a major factor in maintaining the LDP leading positions in the political life of the country. Dominance of the Congress Party in India in the post-war era The trajectory of Indian democracy is linked to “Congressman System” confusingly in its infancy. This political regime takes its name from the Indian National Congress. At first, as it is a mass party who heads the anti-colonial struggle, it becomes a government party, “the state-Congress” which dominates without division or interruptions Indian political scene from 1947 to 1977. The success of longevity and stability of this “kingdom” is due to the fact that this political formation is rooted in a powerful network of conservative notorious, mainly from three means: the intelligentsia (in the likeness of Nehru, literate, from breed Brahmins), landowners who dominate a myriad of peasants ability to vote and finally the medium of businesses during campaigns (McMahon, p. 56). Paradoxically, these elites, however from the top of the hierarchy of caste and class, implemented and watched over the reproduction of a democratic political system, but trying to defend their interests (Mathur, p. 14). This avowed complicity between the powerful and the spread of the practice of patronage give a formal and conservative democracy that departs from the progressive ideals of the Constitution dimension. The persistence of relationships of dependence and domination has been a serious obstacle to the reform projects craved by Nehru, including its agricultural axis. There regionally distortion between the socialist discourse of party figures and conservative practices heads turn too sharp (McMahon, p. 56). India was considered the jewel of the British colonial empire. Since the inter-war years, a powerful nationalist movement, the Congress party, led by Nehru and Gandhi, hosted the nationalist struggle. In the 1920s, the British did not hesitate to violently suppress the movement (Mathur, p. 14). The choice to start in 1945, negotiations with the nationalists is dictated by some political realism. Negotiations are committed while the country was shaken by violence between the Hindu and Muslim communities, caused by the refusal of Muslim nationalists consider a unitary independent state. August 15, 1947, two independent states born from the breakup of the British India: the Indian Union with a Hindu majority and Pakistan formed from two distant territories of almost 2000 kilometers Muslim majority. Bloody clashes broke out again between communities and make two million deaths. In addition, twelve million people to be displaced and Gandhi were assassinated by a Hindu nationalist (McMahon, p. 56). During World War II India gained great prominence, especially since 1942 when the Japanese advance in Asia placed in the front line. The Congress Party, after an initial refusal, finished offering their collaboration to Britain in exchange for recognizing the upcoming independence of India. The negotiations came to fruition by Britain’s refusal to recognize the independence (Mathur, p. 14). In response, strong nationalists organized mass demonstrations to demand independence, especially since the Congress Party, at its meeting in Bombay, approved the motion “Quit India”, i.e. “the British out of India”. The arrest by Britain, the main nationalist leaders (including Gandhi) did not help to resolve the conflict (McMahon, p. 56). After finishing the war, the new C. Attlee Labor government took a turn in the British colonial policy after observing the events in India (comprehensive victory of the Congress and the League in the elections for the provincial assemblies September 1945 the revolt of Indian sailors in February 1946) and expressed his intention of transferring power to Indian hands no later than July 1948 instructed the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, to carry forward the negotiations what he did with the two major parties leaving forgotten the other parties and groups(Mathur, p. 14). It soon became clear that, despite efforts to maintain the unity of India (one Federal Union), there was another exit the partition. On August 15, 1947 India’s independence was proclaimed, India and Pakistan were born two states (with its territory divided into two parts, East and West, distant in space) (McMahon, p. 56). Since the late 70s, the supremacy of Congress vanishes. The party does not “ally opponents” and get the votes of groups, due to their excessive heterogeneity. Suffers first defeat in legislative elections which gives the country “in the restricted circle of democracies with alternation”. This item priori evidence to the good health of Indian democracy must however be moderated (Mathur, p. 14). The coalition between the opposition forces has the merit of having unbalanced the first game, respecting the rules of the electoral game. However, the irreconcilable differences of its members cause the failure of the attempt to alternation. Even the important events of the 2000s, exert various coalition governments, but never reach the end of a legislature and without proposing any alternative serious and consistent character, which immerses the Union in a period of political instability (McMahon, p. 56). Congress tries to catch his breath in the eighties and develops electoral tactics to be counterproductive. Fueling discontent and provoke separatist tensions, especially the Sikhs in Punjab reinforcing the intervention of the central state and repressing autonomy movements. Also exacerbate inter-communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims, by questioning the principle of secularism enshrined in the Constitution and defended by the party since independence. By requiring fairness - that attitude of recognition and welfare of the state - for all religions, Congress increasingly taking sides with the majority culture, especially in the controversial case of Ayodhya, that holy city divided between Hindus and Muslims (Mathur, p. 14). This “communalization of the political game” harms the Congress and clean the way to the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in power from 1998 to 2004. The BJP, second political and main opposition force structure, gives way to late 80s, “jumping on the bandwagon of Ayodhya” (Mathur, p. 14). The BJP owes its success to two main factors. First, a populist and xenophobic discourse that takes advantage of the wave of religious fervor of the majority group. Hindus decide indeed represent the nation-about 80% of the population is Hindu and advocating a cultural uniformity of the country displacing other “minorities” (160 million Muslims are community and third largest in the world after Pakistan and Indonesia ...) to a status of second order (McMahon, p. 56). Moreover, the People’s Party takes the popular indignation against corruption at the top of the state and commitment to integrity, ending the inning struggles and corrupt practices of Congress. The BJP and harvest the votes of the upper castes of the urban middle class, who see it as a political actor capable of promoting a strong India, worried about their interests (McMahon, p. 56). Work Cited Campbell, Joel. “Looking to the past, uncertain about the future: Japan’s politics in an era of disaster and stagnation.” International Affairs 89.4 (2013): 1003-1017. Hosoya, Yuichi. “Japan’s Search for a New Identity: Japan’s Domestic Politics and its Foreign Policy after the Cold War.” Italy and Japan: How Similar Are They?. Springer Milan, 2014. 247-259. Mathur, Nameeta. "East meets east: foreign relations between India and Poland during the Cold War." South Asian History and Culture ahead-of-print (2014): 1-14. McMahon, Robert J., ed. The Cold War in the Third World. Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. 56-60 Read More