Real impact of an ornamental ‘national’ status

The number of national parties now stands at six, as three old nationals (the TMC, the NCP, and the CPI) leave the stage and AAP joins it

The ritualistic allotment or denial of national- or state-party status by the Election Commission of India is quintessentially a sort of political ratings given to different parties. To make it more precise, it is a barometer for checking whether a political party is growing or shrinking.

Given the perspective, the status does not matter at all to the real big ones, like the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), on the national stage. It concerns only the smaller, regional parties. The concept of a regional-national party is, of course, an oxymoron, but all the hullabaloo associated with the rating is centred on it for it reflects the scale of acceptance of an ambitious leader across at least three states where a political party must have electoral representation to be considered ‘national’.

The recent announcement by the EC, thus, boils down to two salient points: A major shot in the arm for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP); and a major loss of face for the Trinamool Congress (TMC). It also ushers in some real impact too.

Instead of eight, the number of national parties now stands at six, as three old nationals (the TMC, the Nationalist Congress Party, and the Communist Party of India) leave the stage and AAP joins it. The CPI, now a faint shadow of its pre-Emergency past, has lost its relevance long ago. The NCP, though its leaders may have national ambition, have adjusted itself to its regional status.

Apart from the Congress and the BJP, the other ‘national’ parties are the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), the CPI(M) and, the National People’s Party (NPP). That the BSP still retains its ‘national’ status is, to say the least, surprising. The CPI(M) now struggles to have a single MLA in West Bengal, its strongest bastion of the past. For the NPP, a Meghalaya-based party formed by late Purno Sangma after leaving the NCP, its presence in other Northeast states has helped fulfil the criteria for qualifying for a national status.

In real terms only two major advantages are attached to the national status: First, a national party can contest anywhere in India on the same symbol; and second, it gets land allotted for its party office in New Delhi.

Of course, politically it means a lot as far as the national ambitions of the regional leaders are concerned; it is a status symbol for the regional parties, as the determining criteria are its success rate in there or more states. To be recognised as a national party one has to fulfil one of the three criteria: Securing two per cent votes and 11 seats from at least three states in Lok Sabha polls; securing at least six per cent votes in four states in Assembly/LS polls and having four LS seats; or getting state party status in four states securing in each six per cent votes and at least two Assembly seats.

Thus it reflects a regional party’s popular acceptance on a wider scale beyond one or two states. That is why the recent rating hurts Mamata Banerjee and is a boost for Arvind Kejriwal.

Banerjee’s TMC has lost the national status after performing poorly in states other than West Bengal, except for Meghalaya — a gift on a platter to it given by the breakaway faction of the Congress-led by influential Mukul Sangma in 2021. However, though Mukul Sangma had 12 MLAs back then (out of Congress tally of 17), the TMC managed to win just five seats this year. In Tripura, the only other state dominated by the Bengalis, it failed to secure a single seat.

Denial of national status is a major blow for Banerjee who sometime back started criticising Congress leader Rahul Gandhi severely. It is another matter that in the last one month she has changed her stand, particularly after Gandhi was expelled from Parliament, and has also given a call for one-on-one contest against the BJP. But her prime ministerial ambitions, even if carefully crafted for consumption in West Bengal, now appear hazy.

The denial of national status to Banerjee’s and Sharad Pawar’s parties thus clears the decks for unquestionable acceptance of the Congress’s and Gandhi’s leadership in the Opposition space. The Gandhi scion is the net gainer of this unexpected development just a year before the national election.

The other gainer is Kejriwal. AAP becoming an ornamental national party is expected though, as it is a rising force and the only party, apart from two real national players, which now rules more than one state. It is, of course, a spectacular success for a party formed 10 years ago, and will perhaps embolden AAP to play a third force in Indian polity.

It is quite exciting that the national status, though just ornamental by nature, can have real effects on the political scenario of poll-bound India.

(Diptendra Raychaudhuri is a Kolkata-based journalist and author.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.