Global Journal of Management and Business Research, B: Economics and Commerce, Volume 22 Issue 4

traditional social support base, organizational presence, and ideology that paved the way for state parties to emerge. Second, in seven consecutive Lok Sabha elections (1989–2009) no single party could win a majority of seats, resulting in “minority situations”; and hence, minority governments were dependent on external support. Third, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been instrumental in making alliances with state parties even agreeing to become a junior ally. Though these alliances have helped the BJP, they have also helped state parties confront the weakened Congress and allowed their bosses to gain in stature at the national level. A national/regional/multi-state party confines itself to a coded ethnic card in selection of candidates, but not openly in its identification of issues. As a result, state-level parties have greater power to create and retain a core social constituency, which in turn, becomes a distinct voting community.This is the politics of vote bank which gets them elected. A large number of state parties are set up by leaders from the same caste and communities. They launch their “own” parties which dominate state politics and influence as a coalition ally at the state level with no significant role at the Centre (Chandra, 2005). Important links have been identified between political leadership and economic development. In post- 1991 India, state-level leaders such as Chandrababu Naidu, Chimanbhai Patel, and S.M. Krishna took advantage of the new economic climate to think of novel ways to encourage growth in the states under their command, instead of looking towards the Centre for policy directions and all their funds as in the old “socialist” days. It was in the 1990s that states under such dynamic leadership grew much faster than others; whereas, Bihar under Lalu Yadav registered a zero growth rate in the same decade. The Congress has suffered many defeats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana after losing Y.S. Rajsekhara Reddy (YSR) and Jaganmohan Reddy, who formed the YSR Congress party after being denied a leadership role by the Congress. Even in a cadre-based party like the BJP, which takes pride in being a disciplined party, powerful state-level leaders (like Narendra Modi and Vasundhara Raje Scindia, to name a few) have taken up posts of high importance within the party high command (Rai and Kumar, 2017). Captain Amarinder Singh, the present chief minister of Punjab, had threatened to start his own party. The success of the BJP in the 2014 elections had much to do with the popularity of its state leaders (in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan). The Congress high command consciously encouraged factionalism within the party’s state units to weaken its state leaders and hence, lost. It would be far-fetched to overemphasize the ability of state-level leaders, however, especially from polity-wide parties such as the BJP and Congress to shape out independent political spaces. The Karnataka Janata Paksha, the party set up by the BJP leader and former chief minister (erstwhile rebel) Yeddyurappa, performed poorly, winning only six assembly seats and polling about 10 percent of the votes in the 2012 assembly elections. The Gujarat Parivartan Party, founded by the former chief minister Keshubhai Patel, another disgruntled powerful state- level BJP leader belonging to the dominant Patel community, failed miserably in electoral terms in the 2012 assembly elections with just two seats and 4 percent of the vote share. The Himachal Lokhit party, founded by BJP rebel Maheshwar Singh in Himachal Pradesh, was another failure.Thus, there is always a question mark on the extent to which state-level leaders belonging to a polity-wide party, howsoever popular and powerful they may be when in power, can influence/mobilize voters without the umbrella of the big party. (Rai and Kumar, 2017). There are other non-Congress political leaders such as E.M.S.Namboodiripad or even Jyoti Basu, both essentilly state-level leaders with a national presence due to their influence over the Communist party. Chaudhary Charan Singh thrived in becoming famous at national level after becoming Prime Minister. As the boundaries between state-level parties and the state units of national parties have become hazy, one found state leader such as Mamata Banerjee is trying to affect national-level policy decisions. Despite nurturing national ambitions, however, what remains a handicap for state-level leaders such as Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mayawati, Mamata Banerjee, or Nitish Kumar is their lack of nation-wide stature, given their perceived susceptibility to falling prey to regional and parochial interests to the detriment of national cause (Chander, 2004). The Dravidian parties have been very vocal about their regionalism. The AIADMK and the DMK in Tamil Nadu have allocated seats to ensure majorities for themselves. This has prevented the emergence of coalition governments in the state so far. The AIADMK and the DMK can also represent themselves as natural parties of government, as they alone have been able to rule the state with a democratic mandate since 1967. This is particularly important where voters esteem the prospect of winning when deciding how to cast their vote. The ideological discipline of the parties has, for a number of reasons, been brought into question. The willingness of both parties to ally with the BJP does not reflect well on their rationalist background. (Chander, 2004). f) Research design i. Variables and Data With this political backdrop, an attempt is made here to measure political stability in India and in its How Political Stability Affects Economic Growth in India 23 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue IV Version I Year 2022 ( ) B © 2022 Global Journals