The party won 364 of the 489 seats in the first Lok Sabha. In second and third general elections, held in 1957 and 1962 respectively, Congress won three-fourths of seats in Lok Sabha again. In state assembly elections, it did not get a majority in a few cases. Our electoral system of ‘first past the post’(FPTP) artificially boosted Congress victory. In 1952, for example, Congress obtained 45% of total votes. But it managed to win 74% of seats.

Nature of Congress Dominance

One-Party Dominance: In many other countries, the dominance of one party was ensured by compromising democracy. In some countries like China, Cuba and Syria the constitution permits only a single party to rule the country. Some others like Myanmar, Belarus, Egypt, and Eritrea are effectively one-party states due to legal and military measures. Until a few years ago, Mexico, South Korea and Taiwan were also effectively one-party dominant states. 

• Unique Nature: The one-party dominance of Congress in the early years was different because it happened under democratic conditions. It was akin to the African National Congress victories in South Africa after the end of apartheid. 
• Legacy of the Freedom Struggle: This extraordinary success of the Congress was because of the legacy of the freedom struggle that it had inherited. Congress was seen as an inheritor of the national movement. Many leaders who were at the forefront of that struggle were now Congress electoral candidates. It was already a very well-organised party and had the “first off the blocks” advantage in campaigning too. 
• Organisational Strength: During the freedom struggle the party had an organisational network throughout the country and even at the local level. It was an all-inclusive national party cum national movement. All these factors contributed to the dominance of the Congress party. 

Congress as Social and Ideological Coalition

Evolution of Congress Party: The Congress party evolved from being a pressure group in 1885 to a mass political party and then subsequent domination of the political system post Independence.

• Expansion of Social Base: It began as a party dominated by the English-speaking, upper caste, upper-middle-class and urban elite. 
  • But with every civil disobedience movement it launched, its social base widened. It brought together diverse groups, whose interests were often contradictory. 
  • Peasants and industrialists, urban dwellers and villagers, workers and owners, middle, lower and upper classes and castes, all found space in Congress. 
  • Gradually, its leadership also expanded beyond the upper caste and upper class. 
• Social Coalition: Congress was transformed into a rainbow-like social coalition broadly representing India’s diversity in terms of classes and castes, religions and languages and various interests.
• Ideological Coalition: Congress was an ideological coalition as well. It accommodated the revolutionary and pacifist, conservative and radical, extremist and moderate and right, left and all shades of the centre. 
  • It was a ‘platform’ for numerous groups, interests and even political parties to take part in the national movement. 
• Internal Diversity and Consensus-Building: In pre-independence days, many organisations and parties with their own constitution and organisational structure were allowed to exist within the Congress. 
  • Some of these, like the Congress Socialist Party, later separated from Congress and became opposition parties. 
  • Despite differences regarding methods, specific programmes and policies parties managed to contain if not resolve differences and build a consensus.

Tolerance and Management of Factions

Internal Coalition Structure: Congress had an internal coalition-like structure which gave this party an unusual strength. 

• Firstly, it accommodated all those who joined it, despite social or ideological differences. Thereby Congress avoided any extreme position and struck a balance amongst all the groups. 
• Compromise and inclusiveness are the hallmarks of a coalition. 
• • This strategy put the opposition in difficulty because anything that opposition wanted to say would also find a place in the programme and ideology of Congress. 
• Accommodation of Internal Differences: In a party that has the nature of a coalition, there is a greater tolerance of internal differences and ambitions of various groups and leaders are also accommodated. 
  • Even if a group was not happy with the position of party or with its share of power, it would remain inside party and fight other groups rather than leaving a party and becoming an ‘opposition’. 
  • These groups inside the party are called factions. The coalitional nature of the Congress party tolerated and encouraged various factions.
  • This internal factionalism turned into the Congress party’s biggest strength. The factions took different ideological positions making the Congress appear as a grand centrist party. 
  • The other parties primarily attempted to influence decision-making from the “margins”. 
• Factionalism as Balancing Mechanism:  Political competition took place within the Congress. In this manner in the first decade of electoral competition, Congress acted both as a ruling party as well as an opposition. 
  • That is why this period of Indian politics has been described as the ‘Congress system’. 

Emergence of Opposition parties

Diverse Opposition: India had more vibrant and diverse opposition parties than in many other multi-party democracies. 

• The roots of almost all non-Congress parties of today can be traced to one or other of the opposition parties of the 1950s.
• Role of Opposition Parties: All these opposition parties succeeded in gaining only a token representation in Lok Sabha and state assemblies during the immediate post-independence period.
• •  Yet their presence played a crucial role in maintaining the democratic character of the system. 
• Criticism and Balance of Power: These opposition parties offered a sustained and often principled criticism of policies and practices of the Congress party. 
  • This kept the ruling party under check and often changed the balance of power within Congress. 
• Check on Anti-Democratic Tendencies: Their sustained criticism prevented the one-party Congress era from turning anti-democratic.
  • Grooming Leaders: Opposition parties also kept the political alternative alive throughout. They also groomed the young leaders who were to play a crucial role in the shaping of our country.
• Mutual Respect: In the early years there was a lot of mutual respect between the leaders of the Congress and those of the opposition.
  •  There were opposition leaders like Dr Ambedkar and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee in cabinet. 
  • Jawaharlal Nehru also invited socialist leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan to join his government. 
  • This kind of personal relationship with and respect for political adversaries declined after the party competition grew more intense.

Conclusion

The inclusive character of the national movement led by the Congress enabled it to attract different sections, groups and interests making it a broad-based social and ideological coalition. As the ability of Congress to accommodate all interests and all aspirants for political power steadily declined, other political parties started gaining greater significance. Thus, Congress dominance constitutes only one phase in the politics of country. The era of one-party dominance effectively came to an end with 1989 general elections when INC lost its majority. Since then, India has witnessed a more fragmented political landscape, characterised by coalition governments at centre.

DOWNLOAD PDF