India: The Impossible Democracy?
The world is full of democracies. But it has not always been this way; up until the early 20th century the very idea of a democratic government was almost laughable. At that time the world was ruled my theocracies, monachies and oligarcies. Today we have seen the number of democratic nations climb from only six in 1900 to over 65 in the year 2000(Dahl 1999. 8). Clearly the 20th was the century of democracy. Why has this number grown so much? Are there certain factors which foster the rise of a democracy? We will discuss those questions and more. Of all the democracies across the globe, none is perhaps more intriguing and improbable than that of the ancient country of India.
Democracy in India is an interesting and unique idea. On the surface of it all, the Indian government is a Federal Bicameral Parliamentary democracy. It is a curious democracy because it seems to lack some of the key conditions which favor a democratic government. In his book, On Democracy, Dr. Robert A. Dahl (1999), sterling professor of political science at Yale University, states that there are at least six conditions that a nation should to meet(note that these are not universal to all nations)for it to be likely to sustain a democratic government.
The first key condition that favors democracy is the failure of alternative forms of government. In a famous quote from former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Throughout the 20th century there has been an ever increasing trend toward democracy. The reason for this could be because all other forms of government that have been tried, i.e. monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy have all failed. History has shown that the previously mentioned forms of government were selective of who would hold power. Democracy was the natural evolution of freedom and equality in a government. Eventually monarchs and aristocrats were deposed or disposed of. Power would then fall onto the laps of the masses and democratic ideals were born.
The second key condition that favors democracy is the lack of foreign intervention. Most democratic institutions form when the country in question is not under the control of another foreign nation, usually one that is hostile to democratic policy. An example of this condition is the countries of Eastern Europe during the Cold War lasting from c.1945 to c.1991. Nations such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Ukraine may have never developed democracies of their own with the constant specter of the communist superpower, the Soviet Union looming to the east. Soviet presence in the area was sure to keep any notions of democracy at bay. In a modern and controversial (history is still being written as this paper is) example, the middle eastern nation of Iraq has joined the ranks of the newest democracies, however it is currently under occupation by another democratic nation; the United States of America.
The third key condition that favors democracy is control of military and police by elected officials. There are many nations in the world, focused in Africa and in Latin and South America where the military and police forces are not under the direct control of the government, but rather powerful individuals or organizations. The danger of this is that these forces no longer have any accountability toward a higher governmental code of laws and regulations, thus the potential and probability of corruption rises significantly. In India; their police force may certainly be corrupt, but it lacks the size, organization or resources to overthrow the democratic government in power.
The forth key condition that favors democracy is a modern market economy and society. Traditionally the development of democratic ideals has been linked with what can be called a market economy. Democracies in general tend to gravitate towards either capitalist market economies or socialist economies, in which the state has a much higher role in regulation and ownership. There is however a paradox in the pairing of democracy and a free market; equality vs. inequality. Democracy at its core is all about equality and equal representation in the government. This is a stark contradiction to the principles of capitalism which favor inequality. However unusual the pairing; economies which adopt the free market style are most typically the ones that foster the development and maintaining of democratic political institutions.
The fifth key condition that favors democracy is that cultural conflicts are weak or absent. According to Dahl, “Democratic political institutions are most likely to develop and endure in a country that is culturally fairly homogeneous and less likely in a country with sharply differentiated and conflicting subcultures.”(Dahl 1999 .149) India most certainly fails in this requirement of a democratic nation. With deeply seeded cultural, religious and class divisions, it seems that the development of a democratic government in India is improbable at best.
The sixth key condition that favors democracy is democratic belief and culture. Dahl states in On Democracy that sooner or later all countries will encounter some sort of crisis. When that time comes, whether it is a war, famine, economic depression or a natural disaster, there has to be a willingness of the citizens as well as the elected officials to hold on to the basic ideals of democracy. History has proven that all too often when faced with a crisis, nations surrender their original beliefs and adapt to the situation at hand. Perhaps this is human nature or some kind of social/cultural evolution to shift ones political thoughts toward the more convenient at the time. Examples of ancient Rome, and on the more contemporary side, Nazi Germany come to mind. Each of these nations when faced with a threat turned to alternative forms of government to help them weather the danger. Rome became a totalitarian empire when the Senate could no longer adequately protect the people from the barbarian hordes in the north. Germany became a fascist state with one all-powerful dictator at the helm after a disastrous defeat in World War I and the deep economic depression that followed. The key difference between democratic and non-democratic nations is the willingness to return to democracy when the time of crisis has passed. I feel that Benjamin Franklin described this sort of situation best though; in his words, “Those who would give up their freedoms for temporary security deserve neither.”
These six key conditions are indeed important to the development of democratic institutions, but they are not the only conditions; there very well may be others. Even more interesting is the reality that there are democratic nations who do not meet the key conditions for democracy. Are these not real democracies? Or are they unique hybrids? The hugely populated India happens to be one of these cases.
India’s history is long and diverse. Only within the last 60 years has it been what western political scientists would call a democracy. It is however, a shaky democracy. India fails to meet several of the key conditions that experts believe a democracy should have.
Of the six key conditions for democracy, India appears to be lacking in at least two; it does not have a prosperous economy and there are deep cultural divisions. Perhaps the condition that India lacks the most is having a modern market economy and society.
Modern Market Economy and Society
In the over half century since India’s independence from Great Britain, its unique democratic government has been work at work to solve perhaps the greatest crisis in the country; poverty. India ranks as one of the poorest nations in the world, with more than 50% of its population making below one US dollar per day. (Dahl 1999. 160) This is an interesting conundrum, as India is among the democratic nations of the world. It is often a surprise to see a democracy in such economic disparity; history has shown a strong link between democracy and capitalism or some kind of market based economy. Traditionally capitalism has brought great economic boon to an area, perhaps only to parties invested in the area, but there is economic growth none the less.
China, India’s neighbor to the north is currently the best example of capitalism “unleashed”. With incredible GDP growth, the Chinese economy is arguably the strongest in the world right now. With concerns to governmental systems, China is far from a democracy; then why is it that India, with a comparable population, and a democratic government is in such dire straits. There are sure to be other factors unique to the large Asian country with over 1 billion inhabitants. What could the answer(s) be?
India’s economy is certainly not a capitalist dream. For decades, from independence in 1947 until the 1980’s, the government has imposed extensive regulation on businesses in both the public and private sectors. The World Bank in 2008 issued a statement regarding India’s extremely tight regulations on business.
“India’s labor regulations - among the most restrictive and complex in the world have constrained the growth of the formal manufacturing sector where these laws have their widest application. Better designed labor regulations can attract more labor- intensive investment and create jobs for India’s unemployed millions and those trapped in poor quality jobs. Given the country’s momentum of growth, the window of opportunity must not be lost for improving the job prospects for the 80 million new entrants who are expected to join the work force over the next decade.”(World Bank 2008)
These regulations lead to rampant corruption and very slow economic growth. Indian author and professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco Shalendra D. Sharma feels that the “achievements of some five decades of democratically planned economic development fall far short of the goals and aspirations. While the state in its ongoing role as modernizer, intervener, and mediator has acquired an extensive administrative and institutional presence in the countryside, it has demonstrated a remarkable weakness in implementing its own proclaimed policy goals, especially reformist and distributive goals.”(Sharma 2002. 25) All of the planned regulation on the part of the democratically elected India government only seems to have hurt the nation financially, rather than provide a fair economy where security and equality are guaranteed. In 1991, the Indian government abandoned its more socialist tendencies and began to focus on a free market system, i.e. capitalism. The reasoning for this change in policy was a Balance of Payments crisis, the Astaire Research: India Report explains this in greater detail.
” A Balance of Payments crisis in 1991 pushed the country to near bankruptcy. In return for an IMF bailout, gold was transferred to London as collateral, the Rupee devalued and economic reforms were forced upon India. That low point was the catalyst required to transform the economy through badly needed reforms to unshackle the economy. Controls started to be dismantled, tariffs, duties and taxes progressively lowered, state monopolies broken, the economy was opened to trade and investment, private sector enterprise and competition were encouraged and globalization was slowly embraced. The reforms process continues today and is accepted by all political parties, but the speed is often held hostage by coalition politics and vested interests.”(India Report 2007)
In the years following the crisis, India has seen tremendous market growth. With a reported average annual GDP growth rate of 5.8%, India is now one of the fastest growing economies, (Vanaik.2006) however this growth has yet to translate into a better standard of living for a majority of the country’s inhabitants with widespread poverty still the norm for many people. Currently India is the 12th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest in terms of gross domestic product. (C.I.A. 2009. World Fact Book) Within the last decade India has seen a major boost in its employment due to outsourcing of jobs from western nations. In particular, technical service jobs are on the rise; something that most people today should be familiar with. It seems whenever one calls tech support for any major software or telecommunications company more often than not, whenever someone calls tech support services they are transferred to an operator in India. It is much cheaper to forward a call to India rather than having someone in the USA take the call.
Cultural Conflicts
India is a nation with long, deep-seeded divisions. The country is a religiously diverse land, with Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism all being practiced by its citizens. These deep religious divisions have been the root of many conflicts throughout India’s past. Specifically the conflicts between the native Hindi and Muslim populations have garnered the most attention. The ancient class divisions, called Caste Systems have divided all Hindi as well as portions of the Muslim population, for millennia. Other divisions include language, India has no official language (but then neither does the USA), class and region all of which have their own subcategories. The Indian Caste System is a long and ancient practice of social stratification and division. Its’ exact origins are still unknown to this day. All Hindi are born into a certain caste depending on who their parents and elders were and how much karma or positive energy they attained.
There are four varnas or classes. They are the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and the Shudras. Traditionally the Brahmins are the highest class; members of this caste were priests, teachers and scholars. The Kshatriyas are the next class with nearly equal power and influence as the Brahmins. They were traditionally the king and warrior classes. Next are the Vaishyas who specialized in agriculture and farming, they are also traders and merchants. The final caste is the lowest in the Hindi society, these are the Shudras. The people in the Shudra caste are usually service providers and artists. They are viewed as the “untouchables” in the social standings; they are typically the poorest people and the most downtrodden.
The Constitution of India which was ratified in 1950 outlawed the caste practice. Still, simply because the caste system was outlawed does not mean that it doesn’t exist anymore. (Bayly 1999.) Urban centers across the nation such as Mumbai and New Delhi have broken down the long standing caste barriers, however in some rural parts of the country it is still in use. Today the caste system mainly exists in a combination of divisive politics and social perceptions, but no longer is it the blatant system of discrimination that it once was. To this day citizens still protest the caste system which is now in a different form known as the reservation system.
Image 1. A Dalit or “untouchable” with a child on the streets of Jaipur
The government of India has officially created new castes called reservation; it is similar to what is known as affirmative action in the United States. The system is based on quotas and makes certain that those people who are traditionally of a lower caste such as the Vaishyas or Shudras are given jobs and opportunities not usually afforded to them. This system, just as in other countries is met with both praise and protest. Some feel that it is a tremendous help to people who normally would not have a chance to lead a prosperous life; while others see the system as a kind of reverse discrimination giving important positions to people who may not be as qualified as others. These are the very same arguments used by both sides of the affirmative action debate here in the United States.
The Indian government’s lists consist of three groups that are the usual recipients of reservation. They are the Scheduled Castes, abbreviated SC; the Scheduled Tribes abbreviated ST and the Other Backward Classes, abbreviated OBC. Each one of these reservation groups represents a percentage of the total population of India.
The Scheduled Castes, once called the untouchables (Dalit is the new accepted term), make up 16% of the total population or around 160 million people. Listed under the SC are hundreds of different castes depending on the region of the country. The Scheduled Tribes make up about 7 % of the population or 70 million people, these are the Adivasi, they are the original aboriginal peoples of the Indus Valley; the area which is now modern day India. Finally there are the Other Backward Classes; this reservation group is the largest and makes up over half (exact number is constantly debated, it ranges from 25% to 55%) of India’s total population. (Delhigovt.nic.in. 2009)
In 1979, the Indian government under Prime Minster Morarji Desai, created the Mandal Commission. It was an official look into the number of OBC’s in the country. Its mandate was to “identify the socially or educationally backward”. The commission determined that there were over 3000 castes that could be placed into the OBC category. (Delhigovt.nic.in. 2009)
Below is a chart (Figure 1) showing the percentage of people living in the various reservations as according to three separate studies and the amount of reservation money and positions actually available. The studies were conducted by the Mandal Commission, the National Strategy Study (NSS) and the National Family Health Survey (NFHS). The chart reveals the discrepancies in the studies with each organization coming to different conclusions over the exact numbers of people in reservations. However, that does not destroy the conclusiveness or the overall message. The OBC’s are obviously the highest recipients of reservation, while the SC’s and the ST’s receive the least. (Delhigovt.nic.in. 2009)
Figure 1. Shows Populations and the percentage in reservation systems
Employment and Unemployment situation among various social groups in India NSS 55. 1999-00. Page 41 & 42
On the next page is a graph showing the rise of people on reservation from the state of Tamilnadu from the time of independence in 1950 to 1997. The percent of people in the system has nearly doubled in the past 50 years.
In the face of the evidence regarding the reservations in India, it is clear that the government is attempting to create society in which opportunity and prosperity are available to everyone rather than a select few who happen to have been born from the right parents. This cultural shift away from the old caste systems most certainly helps the Indian government appear more as a democracy, at least from a western ideal of what democracy means. To conclude this section I use a passage from Susan Bayly, professor of Indian history at Cambridge University. “…if one is to do justice to India's complex history, and to its contemporary culture and politics, caste must be neither disregarded nor downplayed - its power has simply been too compelling and enduring." (Bayly 1999. 442)
India as a democracy may not meet all of Robert Dahl’s (1999) conditions for a successful thriving democracy, but that does not mean that it is not a legitimate democracy. India, for all of its short comings, maintains perhaps the most important of Dahl’s conditions; a strong democratic belief and a culture that believes in democratic ideals.
Democratic Belief and Culture
Democracy in India has always been a precious commodity ever since Indians finally achieved independence from Great Britain in 1947. Many of the pro-independence rally leaders in India during the 1930’s and 40’s were ardent fans of democracy. However, that does not mean that the path to democracy has been an easy one. Quite the opposite in fact. It has been a path full of deep potholes; arguably the biggest challenge to democracy in India was in 1975. Then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi overturned the country’s democratic institutions and created a dictatorship in its place. She declared a state of emergency, suspended civil rights, and imprisoned thousands of her opponents. It seemed like democracy in India was not meant to be after this. However, the will of the people and their unwavering belief in democratic principles would eventually emerge victorious in the end of Gandhi’s rule.
Indians in general seem to have an affinity for democracy. Even after the Prime Minister turned Dictator Indira Gandhi staged her coup de etat; two years later she was voted out of office in a fair election. To this day India continues to run fair and free democratic elections with a voter turnout rate much higher than many Western nations; especially the United States.
The Future of Indian Democracy
India as a democracy may not meet all of the specific requirements created by western political scientists to be a flawless democratic government, but that appears to be irrelevant. From a historical perspective, India’s road to democracy has been a difficult one, but then so has nearly every other government. Nation building is most certainly tricky business. India has only been a democracy for 60 years, of course there are going to be mishaps and slip ups, just as there were with the democracies of the United States and European nations. Those countries only happen to have a longer history with democracy, which they feel, legitimizes their critique of India and other developing nations. The truth is that only time will tell as we move further into the 21st century if India; the impossible democracy, in fact becomes a shining beacon, a light on the hill, a symbol of democratic equality for the entire world.
If anyone has a problem with all of this material; I urge you to contact me for a discussion and a full bibliography/work cited!
