Political Parties · Class 10 Political Science: 225 MCQs with answers

the political party that runs the government

It is the party in government. Its programme is expected to guide the policies pursued while it holds office.

—

China

Only the Communist Party is allowed to rule there.

the USA and the UK

In both, power usually changes between two main parties.

six per cent

Along with at least two seats in that State's Legislative Assembly.

—

—

People organise a political party to win elected office and use government power to carry out a shared programme.

Party members support a set of public policies, argue that these serve society, and ask voters for the authority to implement them.

the USA

NCERT describes US selection as involving party members and supporters; in India, senior party leaders choose candidates. Member-based selection has spread to additional countries.

the political executive, which comes from the political parties

Parties recruit and prepare leaders for ministerial responsibility. The political executive drawn from them makes major policy decisions.

They scrutinise rulers, offer competing views and organise criticism of failures or unsuitable policies.

Losing an election gives a party a different function, not none.

Voters can withdraw electoral support when a party ignores their demands.

The seventh function comes with this discipline attached.

NCERT contrasts a period when parties existed in relatively few countries with their later spread across countries of different sizes, histories and development levels.

NCERT contrasts a period when parties existed in relatively few countries with their later spread across countries of different sizes, histories and development levels.

In some countries members and supporters choose, while in others the top party leaders do

The USA follows the first method and more countries are adopting it; India follows the second.

—

—

—

Any five points. 1 mark — parties contest elections; candidates chosen by members in the USA and by top leaders in India. 1 mark — parties put forward policies and programmes, reducing many opinions into a few basic positions. 1 mark — parties play a decisive role in making laws, members following the party leadership.…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — without parties every candidate would be independent. 1 mark — no one could make promises about major policy changes; the government's utility would remain uncertain. 1 mark — accountability would be local only, with no one responsible for how the country is run. 1 mark — the panchayat evidenc…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — parties are the most visible institution; for ordinary citizens democracy equals political parties. 1 mark — visibility does not mean popularity; people blame parties for what is wrong with democracy. 1 mark — parties have become identified with social and political divisions. 1 mark — partisa…

by various parties coming together in a coalition

This follows from more than two parties having a reasonable chance of power.

three groupings — the National Democratic Alliance, the United Progressive Alliance, the Left Front

Three alliances contested that election, which is itself a mark of a multiparty system.

allowing a variety of interests and opinions to enjoy political representation

The chapter gives the disadvantage and this advantage in the same breath, and a complete answer needs both.

social conditions, regional divisions, the course of political history and electoral arrangements

Each country develops a party system conditioned by its special circumstances.

in the proportion of people saying they are members of some political party

The level of participation in party activities was found to be fairly high, against low trust.

to contest elections and win power

Both purposes are named together, which is what distinguishes an alliance from a merger.

—

—

—

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the classification turns on how many parties can take power, not how many exist. 1 mark — one-party system defined, with China as the example. 1 mark — one-party system is not a democratic option; a democracy must allow at least two parties to compete with a fair chance of power. 1 mark — two-…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the chapter's own answer: this is not a very good question. 1 mark — a country cannot simply pick a party system; it grows up over many years. 1 mark — any two of: nature of society, social and regional divisions, history of politics, system of elections. 1 mark — these cannot be changed quick…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the claim stated: parties are said to be in crisis through unpopularity and indifference. 1 mark — the evidence comes from large sample surveys over several decades, and the belief is only partly true for India. 1 mark — trust is low in South Asia: more say 'not much' or 'not at all' than 'som…

the Bahujan Samaj Party

The bahujan samaj includes the dalits, adivasis, OBCs and religious minorities.

the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, formed by Syama Prasad Mukherjee in 1951

The BJP came to power in 1998 as leader of the National Democratic Alliance.

integral humanism

Along with Antyodaya, and with cultural nationalism or Hindutva as an important element in its conception of Indian nationhood.

West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura; its supporters include workers, farmers, agricultural labourers, poorer people and intellectuals

Its continuous period governing West Bengal lasted 34 years.

the Indian National Congress

It espouses secularism and the welfare of weaker sections and minorities.

the National People's Party

Formed in July 2013 under P.A. Sangma, it formed government in Meghalaya.

Four of them — the Biju Janata Dal, the Sikkim Democratic Front, the Mizo National Front, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi

These sit alongside the all-India parties that have succeeded only in some states, both kinds being classified as State parties.

It made the Parliament of India politically more and more diverse

The consequence was that national parties were compelled to form alliances with state parties.

—

—

—

Any five points. 1 mark — every party must register; the Commission treats all parties equally in registration. 1 mark — special facilities are offered to large and established parties, which are called recognised parties. 1 mark — the unique symbol, usable only by that party's official candidates. 1 mark — State party…

—

Any three parties, with any five points across them. BJP — 1 mark each for: founded 1980 reviving the Jana Sangh formed by Syama Prasad Mukherjee in 1951; integral humanism and Antyodaya, cultural nationalism or Hindutva; integration of Jammu and Kashmir, uniform civil code, ban on conversions; expansion of its base in…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — most major parties are classified as State parties, commonly called regional parties. 1 mark — they need not be regional in ideology; some are all-India parties succeeding only in some states, others conscious of State identity. 1 mark — their number and strength expanded over three decades, m…

Decision-making becomes concentrated among a small leadership group instead of being shared with ordinary members.

It is a tendency in political parties all over the world, not a feature of any one country.

personal loyalty to the leader

A party is supposed to stand for policies; when it stands for a person, disagreement becomes disloyalty.

Because they are focussed only on winning elections

The single-mindedness is the cause from which the nomination of wealthy candidates follows.

parties supporting criminals who can win elections

This is the muscle power half, and democrats all over the world are worried about the growing role of the rich and of big companies in democratic politics.

In the textbook comparison, Labour and the Conservatives share basic positions and differ more over policy details and implementation.

This is offered as an example of a worldwide decline in ideological differences among parties.

economic policies

Those who want really different policies therefore have no option available to them.

To remain effective instruments of democracy

The criticism is directed at the failure of parties to perform their functions well.

—

—

—

Any five points. 1 mark — parties are the most visible face of democracy, so blame settles on them; criticism focusses on four problem areas. 1 mark — lack of internal democracy: concentration of power in one or few leaders at the top. 1 mark — no membership registers, no organisational meetings, no regular internal el…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — parties are focussed only on winning elections and therefore use short-cuts. 1 mark — they nominate candidates who have or can raise lots of money. 1 mark — money enters at the stage of selection, before the campaign. 1 mark — rich people and companies who fund parties influence their policies…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — parties must be significantly different in order to offer a meaningful choice. 1 mark — the number of parties on the ballot is not the same as the distance between them. 1 mark — a decline in ideological differences among parties in most parts of the world. 1 mark — the British example: Labour…

the Supreme Court

Disclosure was intended to curb financial and criminal influence by informing voters.

hold their organisational elections and file their income tax returns

The Election Commission required organisational elections and tax-return filing; NCERT warns that formal compliance need not give members a stronger voice.

Petitions, publicity and agitations

Citizens, campaign groups and journalists can press for reform through petitions, public discussion and collective action.

Parties are familiar through elections and local activity, so many citizens identify democratic politics with them

People can readily recognise parties while remaining dissatisfied with their performance.

It contests elections and seeks to hold power, which is what makes it a political party

Many groups hold political views; a party exists to take office, and that is the half of the definition students most often drop.

Parties represent particular political interests and therefore take sides in public disputes

To understand a party, examine its supporters, its policy commitments and the interests it defends.

His strong loyalty to a group makes it difficult for him to assess competing views fairly

Parties themselves involve partisanship because a party is about a part of the society, so the word describes a position rather than an accusation.

The leaders, the active members and the followers

A question asking for the components of a political party is asking for exactly these three.

A government needs a workable direction. Parties combine related demands into a programme instead of trying to act on every individual preference at once.

A government needs a workable direction. Parties combine related demands into a programme instead of trying to act on every individual preference at once.

Because without it there would be no direction in which a government could formulate policy

It is the party in government. Its programme is expected to guide the policies pursued while it holds office.

Legislatures formally pass laws, but party leaders strongly influence voting because their legislators generally follow party directions.

Party influence works through legislators; the formal decision belongs to the legislature.

Parties sometimes reach social groups through associated pressure organisations

Campaigns, activists and associated pressure groups draw attention to issues. Parties may also organise movements, helping shape the terms of public debate.

Helping citizens reach public services; practical contact can persist despite distrust

A local worker may be easier to reach than an official and can help a resident find the relevant public office or welfare scheme.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Conducting elections and declaring results is the work of the Election Commission, not of parties.

Because every candidate would be independent, and an independent cannot commit anyone else to a policy

An independent cannot bind other representatives to a national programme. Major policy promises would therefore lack collective backing, and the direction of government would be uncertain.

Each representative might answer for local work, but no organised group would accept responsibility for national government as a whole.

This is the heart of the chapter's argument for the necessity of parties.

That this is exactly what a party does, so the need parties meet is real

Remove parties by rule and something party-shaped grows back, which is evidence rather than argument.

They convey public demands, organise representatives into a governing group, and provide organised support for or criticism of government decisions.

As representative government developed, parties supplied the organisation needed to connect public demands, elected representatives and government decisions.

Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

Large societies need representative democracy, and representative democracy generates precisely the needs parties meet.

Familiarity does not establish popularity; parties are needed to organise government and national responsibility

Citizens may associate parties with government failures despite knowing them well.

That an assembly of independents would have local accountability but no one responsible for the country as a whole

An independent cannot bind other representatives to a national programme. Major policy promises would therefore lack collective backing, and the direction of government would be uncertain.

Shaping public opinion — a party launching a movement on an issue faced by people

Each of the other three attaches an illustration to the wrong function; matching them correctly is the point of the exercise.

Because a government must act on a direction already given, and parties are what supply that direction by reducing many views to a few positions

It is the party in government. Its programme is expected to guide the policies pursued while it holds office.

They scrutinise rulers, offer competing views and organise criticism of failures or unsuitable policies.

They scrutinise rulers, offer competing views and organise criticism of failures or unsuitable policies.

Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

A local worker may be easier to reach than an official and can help a resident find the relevant public office or welfare scheme.

Legislatures formally pass laws, but party leaders strongly influence voting because their legislators generally follow party directions.

Legislatures make the formal decision, while party directions influence how their members vote.

That they meet a need which every representative government has, rather than reflecting any one country's fashion

As representative government developed, parties supplied the organisation needed to connect public demands, elected representatives and government decisions.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. The Election Commission registers and recognises parties but is no part of one.

Because the case has to be made against a real and widely held criticism rather than in a vacuum

People blame parties for all that is wrong with democracy, and the chapter answers by removing parties in thought and seeing what breaks.

Party campaigns can influence the terms in which public issues are discussed

Campaigns, activists and associated pressure groups draw attention to issues. Parties may also organise movements, helping shape the terms of public debate.

Supervising the conduct of elections and resolving disputes about them

Supervising elections belongs to the Election Commission; parties contest elections rather than conducting them.

—

—

—

Registration permits participation, but only a small share of registered parties are realistic contenders for government

Every classification of party systems counts parties that can actually take power, never parties that exist.

One-party rule: a single party retains governing power without genuine electoral competition from rivals

The law is not the obstacle in such a state; the electoral system is.

Because the objection is that it is not a democratic option, not that it performs badly

Any democratic system must allow at least two parties to compete and provide a fair chance for competing parties to come to power.

That at least two parties be allowed to compete, and that competing parties be given a fair chance to come to power

Competition alone is not enough; the chance to win must be a fair one.

a two-party system, because only two have a serious chance of winning a majority to form the government

Smaller parties can win seats; the classification concerns the principal competitors for a governing majority.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. No limit is placed on registration in a two-party system; the limit is on who can realistically win.

a multiparty system, since more than two have a reasonable chance of coming to power in alliance with others

The definition covers coming to power on one's own strength or in alliance with others.

an alliance or a front

Parties cooperate in an electoral partnership to seek office together.

that it often appears very messy and leads to political instability

The same feature that makes a multiparty system inclusive makes its governments harder to hold together.

Because a system that lets many interests into representation is one in which governments are harder to assemble

They are two descriptions of one arrangement rather than two separate facts to be balanced.

That a party system is not something any country can choose, since it evolves over a long time from the society's own circumstances

Party systems depend on the nature of society, its divisions, its political history and its electoral system, and these cannot be changed very quickly.

Because India's extensive regional and social diversity is difficult to represent within only two or three parties

The explanation runs from the society to the party system, not the other way round.

Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

If systems arise from circumstances that differ, no single system can suit them all.

By explaining that this is not a very good question, since a party system cannot be chosen but evolves from a country's circumstances

Describe each system, then explain why the comparison cannot be made in the abstract.

Distrust is widespread in other democracies too; this does not make South Asia unique

The distrust is not an Indian or South Asian peculiarity.

The belief is only partly true: trust is low, but party membership and the proportion feeling close to a party have gone up steadily over three decades

Low trust and rising participation at the same time is the finding, and indifference does not describe it.

They differ in how many parties can actually take power: one that is allowed, two with a serious chance, or more than two with a reasonable chance

This is the single column that separates them, and reading it wrongly is the commonest error in this topic.

That a country's system of elections is one of the things a party system depends on

Social conditions, regional divisions and political history also shape the system.

Several hundred parties being registered with the election authority

Registration counts parties that exist; the classification counts parties that can take power.

Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A

Both statements are made in the chapter, but instability is a consequence of the same arrangement rather than the reason representation is wide.

Yes; smaller parties can enter the contest and obtain some legislative seats

What makes it a two-party system is that only two have a serious chance of winning a majority to form the government.

'either on their own strength or in alliance with others'

Without it, a country where no party can win alone would not count as multiparty, which is the opposite of the truth.

That such diversity is not easily absorbed by two or even three parties, which is how a multiparty system comes about

Each country develops a party system conditioned by its special circumstances.

Multiparty: several parties can realistically gain office, independently or with partners

The other three attach a definition to the wrong system, which is the trap this question is built on.

Because a party system evolves from the nature of society, its divisions, its political history and its electoral system, none of which can be changed very quickly

Party systems are outcomes of circumstances rather than instruments of policy.

It shows the claim is only partly true, since distrust and rising participation coexist

Indifference would show up as falling participation, and participation in India has gone up steadily over three decades.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. A multiparty system often leads to political instability rather than guaranteeing against it.

That the same classification can apply at different levels, since a party system is an outcome of the particular society and history in question

Each unit develops a system conditioned by its own special circumstances, which is the same principle applied on a smaller scale.

—

—

—

In national parties the state units by and large follow the policies, programmes and strategy decided at the national level

The chapter describes national parties as having state units that follow a centrally decided line; formal recognition as a national party still depends on the Election Commission's criteria of votes and seats.

No, a unique symbol is a facility offered to recognised parties, which must first meet the criteria of votes and seats

Every party has to register, and the Commission treats all parties equally, but it offers some special facilities to large and established parties.

Because only the official candidates of that party can use it, and it is how voters identify a party on the ballot

Recognition gives qualifying parties a reserved electoral identity and additional facilities.

State party

A State party needs at least six per cent of total votes in a State Assembly election and at least two seats.

A national party

The textbook describes national recognition through 6% electoral support across four states, in Lok Sabha or Assembly polls, together with at least four Lok Sabha seats.

The six per cent is the same for both; what differs is the scale of the election and the seat requirement

Two seats in a State Assembly against four in the Lok Sabha, and one State against Lok Sabha elections or four States.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. All recognised parties, state as well as national, are given a unique symbol.

the Aam Aadmi Party

AAP began on 26 November 2012 after the 2011 anti-corruption mobilisation. The party has previously formed governments in Delhi and Punjab.

That its programme promotes the welfare and political interests of Dalits and other oppressed groups

All four worked against caste inequality, which is what the BSP's stated purpose follows from.

Full territorial and political integration of Jammu and Kashmir, a uniform civil code, and a ban on religious conversions

Its support base grew substantially in the 1990s, expanding from the north and west into the south, east and north-east and into rural areas.

It regards electoral participation as a means of pursuing social and economic justice.

The CPI-M supports socialism, secularism and democracy and opposes imperialism and communalism.

the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

The INC by contrast supports the new economic reforms but with a human face, which is the distinction this question turns on.

INC; its electoral support weakened after 1989, but its organisation continued across India and different social groups

Nehru's Congress promoted a secular, democratic republic. Congress later headed the UPA government during 2004–14.

the National People's Party

It also believes in the diversity of the country and works for the empowerment of all sections of society.

State recognition describes electoral strength, while a party's organisation or political outlook can extend beyond that state

The label records where a party wins, not what it believes.

A is true but R is false

None did, which is exactly why alliances had to be formed. The assertion stands, the reason is false.

That since 1996 nearly every state party has had an opportunity to be part of one or another national level coalition government

Participation by state-based parties gave regional interests a stronger role in Union politics.

Because parties rooted in individual states gained a route into the government at the Centre, so states are represented inside it rather than only administered from it

Since 1996 nearly every state party has had an opportunity to join a national level coalition government.

Registration with the Election Commission and units in twenty states

Registration is required of every party and proves nothing about strength; recognition turns on votes and seats.

Because a recognised party's symbol may be used only by that party's official candidates

This exclusivity is precisely what recognition confers.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. A state-level electoral base does not require a narrowly regional ideology.

INC — a centrist party espousing secularism and the welfare of weaker sections and minorities

Each of the other three attaches a feature to the wrong party, which is what this question is built to test.

the Bahujan Samaj Party

Kanshi Ram founded the BSP in 1984. It appears in the textbook's six-party list based on the 2023 notification.

The INC's support for the new economic reforms coupled with concern for weaker sections

It is a centrist position, distinct from the CPI-M's criticism of policies allowing free flow of foreign capital and goods.

It applies equal treatment while granting additional facilities to parties meeting recognition requirements

The special facilities are what recognition consists of, and detailed criteria of votes and seats decide who gets them.

That it was the earliest party from North East India to receive national recognition

The NPP secured one seat in the Lok Sabha in 2019 and was formed in July 2013 under P.A. Sangma.

Because no provision changed; what changed was that seat arithmetic compelled national parties to share power with parties rooted in the states

Party politics did for federalism what no constitutional amendment did, by giving state-rooted parties a route into the government at the Centre.

—

—

—

That blame settles on parties partly because they are the most visible face of democracy, which is not the same as their causing everything

The dissatisfaction is real and worldwide, and has focussed on four problem areas, but visibility is part of why parties attract it.

lack of internal democracy

These three absences are exactly what the lack of internal democracy consists of.

That members get neither sufficient information on what happens inside the party nor the means or connections needed to influence decisions

Decision-making becomes concentrated among a small leadership group instead of being shared with ordinary members.

Because the leaders are speaking for a body whose members have no way of checking them

Power is exercised in someone else's name without their means of reply, which is what makes the concentration a democratic problem.

That where one or few leaders exercise paramount power, those who disagree find it difficult to continue in the party

Personal allegiance to a leader can displace commitment to the party's programme and principles.

Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

Closed procedure is the cause and family succession is the effect, which is why the second challenge loses its mechanism if the first is fixed.

Unfairness to other members of the party, and harm to democracy since people without adequate experience or popular support occupy positions of power

One harm is internal to the party; the other is to the country.

Family advantages in party leadership also occur outside India, including in long-established democracies.

Treating it as an Indian failing misstates the chapter.

Money power, at the stage of nomination, since parties tend to nominate candidates who have or can raise lots of money

Money enters the process before the campaign does.

Large donors can gain influence over a party's policy choices, extending their role beyond financing its campaign.

Money does not merely buy a campaign; it reaches into what the party does afterwards, which is the serious half of the third challenge.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. State funding of elections is a suggestion for reform, not an existing practice.

A meaningful electoral choice requires alternatives that differ in substance, not simply in their names or symbols.

NCERT describes a narrowing of ideological differences between competing parties in the period it discusses.

When familiar leaders switch parties, a different party label may still offer voters the same individuals.

Changing the party may not change the policy, and may not change the person either — which is what closes the door completely.

Lack of internal democracy; absence of meaningful choice

The first two challenges are internal, the third concerns the contest, and the fourth the result the voter actually faces.

the growing role of money in democratic politics

The influence of wealthy individuals and large businesses worries supporters of democracy in many countries.

Lack of internal democracy — parties do not keep membership registers or hold internal elections

Each of the other three attaches a description to the wrong challenge, which is what this question tests.

Lack of internal democracy and dynastic succession, because closed procedure is what allows leaders to favour their own family

The chapter states that dynastic succession is related to the first challenge, so the two share a remedy.

A is false but R is true

A narrowing ideological gap can leave the choice thin, so the assertion is false. The reason gives that trend.

Because decisions are taken in the name of a body whose members have neither the information nor the means to check them

Ordinary members get no sufficient information and have no means or connections to influence decisions.

Dynastic succession, made possible by the absence of open and transparent procedures that would let an ordinary worker rise

Opaque procedures restrict ordinary workers' opportunities to advance. Leaders can then favour relatives or close associates when distributing important posts.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Differences among the major parties on economic policies have reduced, not widened.

Because it cites Britain's Labour and Conservative parties alongside the Indian case, describing the decline as occurring in most parts of the world

The Indian observation about economic policies is added to a general pattern rather than standing alone.

The failure of the Election Commission to recognise enough parties

Recognition is a matter of criteria of votes and seats and is not among the four problem areas popular criticism has focussed on.

The concentration of paramount power in one or a few leaders, under which personal loyalty to the leader becomes more important than loyalty to principles and policies

Those who disagree with the leadership consequently find it difficult to continue in the party.

Parties focus only on winning, then use short-cuts, then nominate candidates who can raise money, then funders influence policies and decisions

The order matters because it shows money entering at nomination and then reaching into what the party does after the election.

Because a choice is meaningful only if the parties are significantly different, and more parties agreeing on fundamentals adds no alternative

More party labels do not ensure a substantially different policy option.

The lack of internal democracy and dynastic succession

The third concerns how a party fights elections and the fourth what it offers the voter.

Because parties must overcome them in order to remain effective instruments of democracy, and democracy has been shown to depend on parties

The earlier topics established that parties are a necessary condition for democracy, which is what makes their failures urgent.

Because parties have been shown to be crucial for the working of democracy, so the conclusion drawn is that they must overcome these challenges, not be removed

The section opens by recalling how crucial parties are before listing what is wrong with them.

—

—

—

Party leaders help decide reforms affecting their own organisations. Replacing the rulers may change the leaders without removing that incentive to resist restrictions.

People can replace those leaders, but only by another set of party leaders, which is the circle the topic opens with.

He will lose his seat in the legislature

The amendment sought to discourage representatives from switching sides for ministerial posts or financial rewards.

Defection: representatives may switch political allegiance in pursuit of posts or financial rewards

Defection means an elected representative switching allegiance away from the party under whose label they won office. In NCERT's simplified account of anti-defection law, an MP or MLA who changes party can lose their legislative seat.

That the anti-defection law has made dissent even more difficult, since MPs and MLAs have to accept whatever the party leaders decide

A measure aimed at one challenge deepened another, which is the central observation of this topic.

Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

Each of the three measures taken so far has a real effect and an unresolved cost, and the chapter reports both.

An affidavit, made compulsory by the Supreme Court

The order was passed to reduce the influence of money and criminals, and an affidavit is a signed document containing a sworn statement of personal information.

There is no system to check whether the information given is true, and as yet we do not know whether such a decline has occurred

What the system has certainly achieved is that a lot of information is now available to the public.

Because making information available changes what is known, while whether it changes what happens depends on evidence not yet in

The chapter refuses to claim a result it cannot yet show, which is why it says 'as yet we do not know'.

That a rule can compel the form of a thing without producing its substance, so it is not clear that internal democracy has grown

Parties have started doing what was ordered, but sometimes it is mere formality.

The Constitution as amended, the Supreme Court, and the Election Commission

Two of the three came from bodies outside the party system altogether.

The lack of internal democracy and dynastic succession

Between them these four requirements remove the mechanism by which power concentrates and family succession becomes possible.

No — the proposal is about one-third of tickets, and it separately requires a quota for women in the party's decision making bodies

The suggestion has two halves, and an answer or a claim that gives only the first is incomplete.

Women should also receive reserved representation in the bodies that make decisions within parties

The suggestion has two halves, and an answer giving only the first is incomplete.

In kind, such as petrol, paper and telephone, or in cash on the basis of votes secured in the last election

The government would give parties money to support their election expenses.

the growing role of money power

If the state pays for election expenses, rich people and companies have less hold on the policies and decisions of a party.

Excessive rules may encourage evasion rather than meaningful change. Parties can also resist legislation that restricts their own leaders.

NCERT cautions that adding rules does not necessarily change political behaviour.

Party leaders can resist legislation that restricts their own organisations

This returns to the circle: a law binding parties must first be passed by parties.