my ad unit

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

UNIT 27 DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT: ASSESSMENT

Structure

27.1 Introduction
27.2 Democracy
27.2.1 Procedural democracy
27.2.2
27.3 Development .
27.4 Democracy and Development
27.5
27.6 Exercises


27.1 INTRODUCTION

on both the democracy and in India denotes two contradictory ,
about their assessment, one, the and development have succeeded; and,
these failed. applies to and development when these are dealt with interdependent or independentof each whether they are compatible or not. presents overview assessment of democracy and development in India as phenomena a d also in relationto each discussed the of
and the models strategies of development in India, this unit discusses democracy in as procedural substantive.


'27.2 DEMOCRACY

Following Independence India adopted a democratic system of governance. Institutions of democracy in India began to grow the colonial rule. They evolved through various Acts of the British Government and as a result of the demand within India and a section in England. The provisions of democracy found their place in the Government of India Acts of 1909, 1919 and 1935. Following the deliberations within the Constituent Assembly, democracy was in the post-independence India in 1950 with coming India's Republican Constitution.

India opted for the parliamentary form of government in order to make the nation-state
(modernity) based on the principles of universal adult and periodic election to the village-level government in the light of principles.

assessment of democracy depends on the indices used indicate or measure it.
are mainly two models of indices regarding democracy related the institutional
minimal, procedural democracy; two related to the substantive or effective democracy. views democracy in of presence of institutions of democracy,

I
I




parties and other associations or periodic elections, universal adult franchise, leadership, etc. The latter does not consider democracy as comprehensive indicator of the democracy. electoral democracy, in fact, is minimalist, which is also marked by a large number of factors are to democracy. It is rarely concerned with what happens beyond elections, in the social space. Alternatively, the substantive democracy views the of in the light of its and redistributive justice, capabilities and entitlements (education, health, infrastructure,etc.), social factors (trust,values, civil society, human rights and dignities, governance(participation, efficacy, transparency, etc.) These are on development as in turn is contingent upon democracy. impetus of debate on India has been transition, consolidation and deepening of democracy. The first two issues dominated the debate during the first two decades of democracy post-Independence period and the deepening of democracy an of focus in the recent period. assertion of various social
- the process of have to the project of deepening
democracy. it is dependent on participation of various communities cutting across the
cleavages. 27.2.1 and 27.2.2 deal with procedural and substantive democracy in India.

Procedural Democracy

The observers of the procedural democracy largely believe that democracy in India has been successful. The criteria for this are participation and These are indicated by the frequency of the elections and competition political parties to contest elections. The percentage of turn out and tlze percentage of votes polled by parties are indicators of participation. advocates of this buoyant about the success of the electoral politics in India, which is as general pattern of success of democracy.
Those see success of democracy in terms of - participation and competition
follow survey to democracy. infer trends in the election in terms of out and the percentage of vote or use of statistical method - coefficient or the regression analysis. see the relationship out percentage and participation with data in particular constituencies. On the grounds that this analysis is based on survey, and takes into account socio-economic and
political factors of a region, it is also called the ecological analysis. However, some of the follow survey-based analysis feel that survey analysis are full of errors, are not by the qualitative data and also do not provide data for the period between elections. During first years following Independence, scholars like M. Franda, Paul Brass, Field and Myron Wiener used the survey method to conduct election studies. All kinds of factors crime, caste, religion, etc., become effective in elections. The survey method been carried by several and the past two decades the have also used it.

Procedural democracy was to contribute to tlze nation-building in India. The focus of studies on democracy in in earlier decades following independence had been to examine as to it helped in nation-building the introduction of the universal adult franchise and periodic elections. It was known as the modernisation theory, theory claimed that the developing countries a process of modernisation





whose ultimate aim would be stable democracy: it would be accompanied with socio- economic - spread of mass education, wealth and equality.
It was believed that development in India would strengthen democracy and the divisions based on caste, religions, etc., would disappear.

However, these hopes were belied in the following period. Salig Harrison, apprehended a dangerous decade in India in the 1960s in the face of recurrent linguistic and ethnic violence. The violence which started in the 1950s itself, was escalated in the 1960s and 1970s; defeat of the Congress in several states in the 1967 assembly elections and the imposition of emergency in the country 977 were of people's discontentment of emergency. Unable to the challenge the political executive responded to these by authoritarianism, of institutionsand imposition. Scholars responded to emergency as an aberration. scholars are critical of the modernisation thesis. The predominance of the approach cast in the analysis accorded priority to the question whether India would as a nation-state or not,

27.2.2 Substantive Democracy

critique of procedural democracy is provided by the scholars who study the substantive democracy. In tlieir opinion, it views democracy in a limited way. Electoral democracy is minimal democr cy. Free and fair elections, universal adult political parties, pressure and availa ility of etc. not for democracy, though
they are necessary. has to located in the society and out of the institutional mode. This alternative view of can be as the substantive argued for a "social agenda of democratisation". Democracy has to be grounded in the reality of society, apart from participation and competition elections. Zakaria, however, criticises the in that it views democracy in the normative terminology as "good governance", with a wide range of it does not consider the descriptive democracy.

the past two decades, in India, substantive democracy has also a significant place in the discourse on democracy. The assessment of substantive democracy is sought to be made in relation to the role of state (with democracy) on the issues concerning nation- state - secularism, and development in India; and also the role of state regarding issues in the context of globalisation. Niraja Jayal argues that there are two types of
arguments regarding the relationship between the state and democracy: one, there can be no democracy without an effective state which can exist there is a strong civil counter the authoritarianism of the state. Jayal argues both state and society are complimentary to each other in relation to the setting up of democracy. But in the absence of universal criteria of citizenship, the interests can project of In her opinion Indian state is an interventionist state whose thrust has been developmental rather than welfare state.

Civil Society is also an ingredient of substantive India there are two viewpoints on the civil society. One, it considers all associations and collective actions as civil society, irrespective of the issues they take up; two, only those associations which take up two issues of universal significance, not sectarian, and foundation is are

I

108

!
I

considered civil society. Recently a debate has got in our country: debate between the the liberal, the the individuals add communities; and between them.

The rise identity politics - dalits, issues, etc,
- the new social - and inability of the discourse which privileges democracy ,
with the elections have necessitated focus on substantive dernocracy.This has been viewed
both as a challenge to the nation-state and as an increase in the democratic content of the country with the understanding that is more democratic, a position which Ashutosh opted. The most ardent of the nation-state perspective is provided

in the writings of scholars representing peripheries of the country like North-East India. This perspective proposes alternative in of the "province - state".
Indian Against a representative of this perspective. all has happened with the rise of the large of issues - civil society, social capital, rights, etc. The existence of all is taken as an indicator of the existence
of democracy in country. Even here there are opposite views which suggest both the absence presence of these factors.

With of the the Constitutional the decentralisation been and the scope of has expanded to include the women, and dalits at the grass root level. Prior to this the social groups exclusively dominated of local self-governance. defeated the very purpose of democracy. The transfer of 29 subjects to local bodies has added to the decentralisation, However, democratic decentralisation gets in light of the fact that in several cases members of Institutions) are proxies of the members of The increasing role of money, etc., has eroded creditbility of local level doinocracy. wherever the public has coexisted
with of local self institutionsof local self have


Usually the assessment of democracy India has been done at the national, state or district level and the of democracy at these levels been independent of each other. There has been the "top-bottom", not the "bottom-up" to democracy in India.
Kohli, however, has covered levels - nation, state and district in his book, Democracy
and Discontent: India Crisis of

Scholars like have underlined the need to see the differences within democracy (citizenship). Following this tradition, Heller has democracy in order to view the "its degrees" in India. with rest of the country, he opines that there is in than the rest of the country. It is possible due to-the existence of the civil society" and "effective state" unlike in rest of the Here is by the progress in the areas of education, health and distributive their extension to the subaltern groups.

In Kothari's opinion state played significant role in building democracy in the first two decades Independence. It implemented schemes and development programmes it was a state then, Indian democracy, during phase, was






marked by the accommodation of all interests and building consensus. But especially with the promulgation of emergency in India, the executive concentrated
its hands. eroded the moderateness of the state. a result, executive resorted institutions institutions. The state
started acting against democracy.

Indian democracy is facing a crisis of governability. It is indicated by disjuncture between weakening institutions and demands. political parties, leaders, and indisciplined political of
society the crisis of
played a crucial role in the politics of disorder - crisis


attempted to the relationship of state the democracy in India. the of people
of the role of the state in is between the type of - or authoritarian and type
polity - command or demand. The nature of polity it is or of the

The of democracy some observers, for it is a "puzzle" or of the third wold political it the basis of caste, language, etc., which often result in explains this providing a consociational The of is based on that in a society, power is shared groups of the society.
The in a society is four conditions: (1) of
coalition in all ethnic (2) of groups of
(3) their proportional politics and civil services (4) minority
veto on issues concerning minority autonomy. the success of the Congress system, coalition federalism, principles of protective discrimination, and constitutional of and veto political are of the success of Indian in
a way. deinocracy has survived on the principles of
system" - as it in Switzerland, countries. system all groups power a consociational system prevailed
the first two decades following concedes that
past years with decline of Congress attack on and the rise of BJP, the trends have to consociational theory.
Brass consociational model as applicable to India is so bath in the context of and politics. groups together to a or alliances, internal squibblings always pose a
to consociation.


27.3 DEVELOPMENT

Development is a in the on social The
been used mainly by sociologists and political scientists on one hand, by the
sociologists political use it as a ,

110 I
I


which became popular to discuss the political and social change in the developing countries, liberated from the colonial folk. These changes were considered as development and modernisation, which indicated towards process of nation-buildingor nation-statebuilding, formation of political institutions (political parties, interest groups etc.), introductionof universal adult franchise and periodic election, or and level of urbanisation. The or developmenttheories, influencedby behaviouralismwere concerned
withthe questionas to how a system maintained accommodatingvarioussegmentsof the system. It gave no space to the possibility of changeor break-down of the system as a result of thechallenge within it.

For the economists, developmentmeant the growth in terms of the per capita income and The modernisation theory of development, apart the factors mentioned above, has also considered the per capita income and indicesof

Sen has provided an alternative model of For him the per capita income and the GNP are important but not enough indices of development. Developmentin the sense of the means developing the humancapabilitiesamong the people and entitlementsin terms of education, health, infrastructureand liberty,


27.4 DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT


The debate on the between democracy and development has dealt with two questions: are they compatable with each other? Or are they inimical to each other? Niraja Jayal asserts that this debate in India has been misconceived". It has basically been engaged by the economists. argues that in India there has been tension between economic developmentand political democracy. There is inclusionof the people, the poor, in the democratic processes but they have been excluded market. The market has seen the exclusive predominance elite. state been mainly concernedwith the of the of the elite. the post-Independenceperiod, the role of the state vis-a-vis of the and towards the interestsof the people, especially the poor has passed through three phases - 1947-1966,1967-1990, and 1990 onwards, The first phase was marked by the prominent role of the state, wasable to consensus of various interests. In secondpliase, there was an erosion in the effectivenessof the state
and the consensus The state made political efforts to accommodate the rich peasants, and resorted to populism and patronage for managing interests of various classes. This phase also sawdecline in the povertyto some extent.The third phase known as the phaseof is marked by the in the credibility of the state, rising role of market.It is happening politicsof liberalisation. opinion for the first time in India economics of liberalisation and politics of empowerment are moving in the opposite directions. The people havethepolitical cannotparticipate marketas they lackentitlements and capabilities. There is no attempt by the state to mediate or reconcile different interests. In such a situation, where the state cannot play an effectiveand mediating role,he suggests that the civil society can intervene.

argues that democracy and development are irreconcilable.There are main classes in India industrial capitalist class, rich farmers andthe professionals in the





public sector.Their interests are in conflictand the state plays a mediating role among them. At time there is a"turmoil from below"- the assertion of various disadvantagedgroups. is a conflict between their interests and those of the propertied classes. There is also an
anti-reform streak the mobilisation of various groups. This makes the atmosphere hostile for economic reforms. Those who about the incompatibilityof democracy and development refer to the countries of South East Asia where real development has taken place in the undemocraticregimes.

Sen has provided an unequivocal perspective on development and democracy. They are not incompatiblk. democracy development are complimentary to each other, Democracy is if people in a society have the entitlementsand capabilitieswhich enable them to be part of the democratic process.Freedom, which is an essential ingredient of democracy, promotes development in terms of entitlements and the capabilitiesof people. is alsocontingent upon democracy.





In unit, we have discussed that there are two contradictoryview-points the assessment of democracy and development in India - these have succeeded and these have failed. The assessment and is related to the meanings of these phenomena. There are two types of of democracy discussed in relation to India: procedural and substantive. former is concerned with the institutions and of The places the democratic institutionsand processes in the societal context- civil society, rights, etc,The opinion of the studying the procedural democracy considers
that democracy in India been a success, and those who study the substantive democracy do
g- enerally consider in India as failure. Development is also viewed in two ways- one, in termsof politicalinstitutions;two, in terms availabilities entitlements and capabilities to the people. There are two opposite opinions even about the compatibilityof
developmentand democracy.

27.6 EXERCISES

1) Explainthe evolutionand growth democracy in India.

2) Discuss various conceptions of democracy

3) Evaluate the on-going debate democracy and development.

4) Explain the conceptof development its relations with democracy.

No comments:

Post a Comment