Abstract
This special section on comparative assessments of Indian democracy consists of three articles—comparing Indian experiences of democracy with other countries of the global south. There were three broad starting points to this exercise. The first, and the most obvious was about celebrating Indian democracy @75. However, also obviously, the section moves beyond the occasional relevance of such celebrations. Instead, it looks upon the current moment in the journey of Indian democracy (and that of global democracies) as an important vantage point to undertake comparative assessments of the working of democracy. On one hand, in the aftermath of successive waves of democratization all over the world—we see the successful journey of Indian democracy as a moment that prompts us to revisit the dominant, orthodox and selective readings of democracy. The established democratic theories of the global North often legitimize and celebrate binaries in their understandings of the idea of democracy. Our larger ambition in putting together this section is to transcend these binaries and instead encourage more contextual readings of the ideas and practices of democracy. In the initial, inaugural phases, the functioning of Indian democracy attracted two sets of responses from scholars and observers. The first was dismissive of it and apprehensive of its possible successes given the context of poverty in India and the presence of deeply entrenched systemic inequalities. Later on, the track record of an uninterrupted routine of electoral democracy in India led to another set of responses, which underlined its uniqueness among the democracies of the global south and celebrated Indian exceptionalism. Fortunately, the expansion and the deepening of Indian democracy—especially over the last few decades have led to more vibrant, dynamic and nuanced assessments of Indian democracy and the current exercise hopes to contribute to them.
And yet, there are hardly any comparative studies on Indian democracy. Barring a few notable exceptions, Indian democracy (as well as other democratic systems) is either studied in isolation or, on the other hand, comparisons are undertaken at the global level using large N research design woven around set parameters of assessment. There is no doubt that such ‘variable-oriented’ cross-national analyses of processes of democratization are useful and crucial for theory development. At the same time, as the ideas and practices of democracy acquire vibrant contextual meanings across different parts of the world, detailed and intricate case studies also play an important role in such assessments. The present section adopts such a ‘case-oriented’ approach in its comparative assessments of Indian democracy. Institutions, processes, (material) interests and ideas often become key aspects of the shaping of any democratic system. The essays presented here reflect upon some such select themes to comment upon the nature of Indian democracy. We, at SIP, (rather ambitiously) believe that such comparative studies of Indian democracy will help us address both the contextual and the universal dimensions of its working and provide directions towards rewriting the global histories of democracy.
The exercise of interrogating and rewriting global democratic trajectories becomes relevant at the present historical juncture for yet another reason. While myriad and vibrant expressions of democracy keep emerging in different regions of the world; the contemporary moment is also about multiple crises faced by the constitutional democracies the world over—which have led to a certain kind of flattening of the global democratic discourse and to the (re)discoveries of commonalities of its functioning. We hope that the conversations on comparative assessments of Indian democracy that we hope to begin in SIP will help us relate to and engage with these crises in a more meaningful way.
What began as a somewhat ambitious exercise, the special section on Indian democracy in the current issue of SIP is quite limited in scope in terms of its coverage of democratic systems. The editorial team had hoped to put together a substantive collection of articles that would compare India with democratic systems of the global South as well as of the global North. It could not materialize for several reasons. The current issue therefore mainly compares Indian democracy with other democracies of the global South and inspect various elements of the functioning of these democracies. In the first article of this special section, Patrick Heller chooses to compare India, Brazil and South Africa as some of the most successful democracies of the global South that have recently experienced democratic crises. He argues how these democratic crises result from the formation of social coalitions that have been willing to subvert democratic institutions and practices in order to preserve or restore their social and economic privileges and how these reactions are tied to the unresolved problem of the incorporation of popular classes. For him, this problem has in turn been mediated by the balance between political and civil society. Heller suggests that in India and South Africa that balance has favoured the dominance of mass-based nationalist parties that have thwarted democratic deepening. In Brazil, a more balanced relationship between civil society and political society has favoured the incorporation of the popular classes.
The second article in this section is on India and Philippines. In this article, Arild Rudd juxtaposes the political personae of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte as leaders that epitomize their respective reigns in ways that previous leaders did not. Such juxtaposition allows him to investigate a contemporary political phenomenon that of the elected strongman leader. Rudd argues how these leaders presided over a period of ‘democratic backsliding’, how social media plays an important role in articulating their image as extraordinary leaders, above ordinary constraints and how in an age of discontent with democracy it allows them to portray themselves as true defenders of ‘the people’.
Lastly, the article by Sandeep Shastri uses the data generated by a cross-national research project on ‘the State of Democracy in South Asia’ to understand the expanding democratic imagination in the region of South Asia. In the context of both ‘’areas of distinctiveness’ as well as ‘zones of similarity’ in the journey of democracy in the five countries of this region the article comments upon different levels of support to the idea of democracy among the citizens of South Asia. The study shows how ‘uncompromising’ democrat has become increasingly visible in these democracies. The article argues that this greater visibility could be the by-product of an increased level of popular satisfaction with the incumbent governments resulting in greater support for the idea democracy, irrespective of the actual experience with the working of democracy.
The articles in this section on comparative assessments of Indian democracy hopefully mark the beginning of yet another meaningful conversation on the current state of Indian democracy in particular and that of the idea of democracy in general. We hope to continue these conversations in the forthcoming issues of the journal.