The Sins of the Indian Democracy

-Anuradha Kataria,  The International Affairs Forum  12 Mar 2012

(Published by The Center for International Relations)

As the poll fever catches up round the world with Presidential primaries in the US, Presidential elections in Russia, Parliamentary elections in Iran and the upcoming Presidential vote in France, media seems abuzz with excitement. However a closer look at election results often throws up uncomfortable questions as voters never fail to surprise political theorists with the kind of choices they make, often at odds with the modern liberal principles that democracy espouses in theory. This is all too apparent in India in the just concluded elections in its largest state, Uttar Pradesh (UP). Given the size of the state, UP elections are considered critical and often touted as the semi finals to the national elections. They represent all the colors and hues of democracy as it plays out in reality in India.

A star campaigner here was Rahul Gandhi, the crown prince of the Congress dynasty. However, his clean image and promise of transparent governance could not take the party far, as these are not really the factors that weigh heavily on the Indian voters’ minds. Another star whose charisma faded in these elections was the incumbent Chief Minister, Mayawati, a lowest caste dalit woman and a political outsider who swept the previous state elections. While in the news for her megalomaniacal excesses like erecting her own statues all over the state and also corruption, she still is emblematic of the dalit pride. Her rise to power represents all that is good about democracy, such that even the most marginalized and victimized of communities, that dalits unfortunately are in India, can find representation and political say. However dalits comprise only about 20% of the populace and she could not really muster electoral support from other caste segments even though she had managed to improve the law and order in the violence prone state.

The elections were swept this time by Mayawati’s arch rival Samajwadi party that ruled the state before her tenure and was notorious for “rule by crime” and yet the voters did not seem to consider that a mighty flaw. The “crime connection” is indeed an integral part of the Indian democracy. While the national parliament itself has about 29% elected members facing criminal charges as serious as even rapes, murder and robbery, in UP this percentage was even higher for the candidates contesting the 2012 elections at about 35 – 38%. It is not as if the candidates’ criminal antecedents are hidden from the voters; most candidates’ criminal records are widely publicized in the papers but it would seem the voters are indifferent to it while casting their votes. A good proportion of these alleged criminals make it to the assembly over candidates with far cleaner image and record. Why is that so? The answer lies in the factors that propel voters to choose a candidate.

The biggest factor today in the Indian elections is the “caste dynamic”. Parties differentiate themselves primarily along caste lines, aligning themselves with this or that caste segment or a cluster of many. They lure the vote blocs with promises of exclusive benefits like reservations in jobs and educational institutes. This cuts across the entire caste spectrum from lowest to middle to higher castes and a party’s ability to mobilize such sentiments and loyalties is core to its success in the elections. As is often said in India, you don’t cast your vote but vote your caste. In essence democracy has become an instrument of deepening and reinforcing caste divides rather than challenging the medieval caste system as such. The state also has a large proportion of Muslims and they too became an important vote bloc for some parties while mobilizing the Hindu majority became a means for some others. These divisions mainly along the caste but also religion and language lines are reflected in almost all elections throughout the country.

On the positive side, Electronic Voting machines are widely used and electoral violence, once common place and inevitable in all democratic elections has been curbed to a large extent. UP, a state otherwise notorious for violence particularly against lower caste segments as well as women, has seen the recent elections pass with hardly any major incident of violence as used to be the case in the past. This is a significant progress and march forward for democracy and is mainly on account of the pain staking electoral reforms that India has undertaken in the last two decades which truly empowered the office of the Election Commission. These initiatives are worth emulating by other developing world democracies as well, given that election rigging and violence is a serious challenge before them too.

Overall the Indian democracy is a mixed bag. While it has granted political rights and representation to a marginalized caste segment, caste fissures seem to have only deepened in the society. Instead of fostering any kind of awakening to get rid of the archaic and unfair caste system, democracy is fast becoming a tool of reinforcing the same. Almost all parties use this divide and rule formula to win elections making it a cardinal sin of the Indian democracy. The criminal infestation of the state and the national parliaments further undermines the “ideal” of a democracy, as it ought to have been. Given that the voters themselves chose candidates based on the caste or religious identity dynamic and are indifferent to the relative criminal background of candidates, it is not clear then how the Indian democracy would absolve itself of these sins and awaken (if ever) to pursuing the intended “democratic ideals” of an equal, progressive, unified and peaceful society.

Democracy on Trial, All Rise! - Book Editorial

                                 MWC news - Media with Conscience
Democracy on Trial: the book

| Print | E-mail

Saturday, 05 February 2011 10:31

By Ben Tanosborn

 Share Link:            

Comments and Reactions

America answers crucible of revolution with distrustful evolution

This morning, on this eleventh day of protests in Egypt, perhaps the eleventh hour for America to show how it handles change and turmoil in the developing world, I received an email from Anuradha Kataria, author of “Democracy on Trial, All Rise!”  It could not have been timelier, or more apropos, to what has been happening lately in the world of politics, extending from North Africa to the Middle East, touching many well entrenched autocratic regimes.

Ms. Kataria, who had used a citation in her book from an article I wrote in March 2010, “Iraq’s election results will confirm, but not bestow power,” appears to have her theory and analysis being put to the test once again.  Her book challenges democracy as being the right political model under all socio-economic contexts.  And that is something which I have observed for decades without the added analytical rigor of a social scientist.

The path to democracy, whether via revolution or evolution, is indeed quite different for a nation with a sizeable, educated middle class, than for a nation where the population is overwhelmingly rural, poor and conservative.  In the latter, according to Ms. Kataria, democracy leads to subversive use of “people power.” Here, of course, subversive could very well be considered a loaded word.

America has followed the British tradition, model if you wish, in dealing with turmoil and unrest beyond its borders, from the moment it attained nationhood: all past and present American governments, without exception, have always insisted, and often demanded, that governments anywhere in the world be amicable to the United States and, if need be, subservient to its interests.  Although the State Department has always maintained America’s unequivocal promotion of civil rights and freedom for others in the world, the bottom line has been to accept dictatorships, or any form of autocratic government, when deemed as necessary to meet American economic and military objectives.  That is an indisputable fact that holds true today!  A fact that is complemented by another fact: that, overwhelmingly, Americans are in total accord when it comes to matters of empire and self-serving interests, freedom or civil rights appearing to have a looser definition when applied to people living beyond this nation’s borders.

Latin America has always been the perfect example for a foreign policy based on self-serving interests dating back to the nineteenth century; the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine and the forceful incursion of the United States in economic, social and political matters that took place in the American hemisphere.  That arrogant Monroe Doctrine appears to have been replicated by Israel and her own declared “hemisphere” which apparently comprises the entire Middle East!

The biggest concern at the White House during this popular revolt in Egypt, one more prone to have economic rather than political roots, had less to do with freedom of the Egyptians to express their discontent, than with the degree of friendliness that a new regime might have for Israel.  From the outset, the US State Department made it clear to the world that the Muslim Brotherhood was an unacceptable element in any revolt, or in the possible sharing of future power in Egypt.  Never mind that the organization might be the voice of 20 percent or more of the Egyptian people, or that they have expressed themselves to the West in a friendly and co-existing tone!  But, just as the US showed its intransigence with Hamas after they won the Palestinian elections in January 2006, it shows its bullheadedness in denying the reality that the Muslim Brotherhood represents.  There is a direct line between Washington and Tel Aviv that supersedes and denies any other type of communication.  And that is, and will continue be, an insurmountable obstacle to world peace.

One thing we know for sure is that the situation in Egypt is causing global economic jitters, although the probability of the Suez Canal closing is almost zero.  An undertaking like that would be foolish for any type of government: autocratic, democratic or even one with strong fundamentalist roots.  Perhaps the biggest danger of all would come from fear itself and the possible stockpiling-hoarding of wheat and grains by some nations, such as Algeria and Saudi Arabia – or Egypt for that matter – that would greatly help metastasize the political strife.

While we may think of democracy as part of, if not the solution to, the problems of the developing world, we may heed Anuradha Kataria’s concern that it has more often than not led to instability, civil wars, genocides, fundamentalism, crime and corruption.  Let’s hope that such is not the case with Egypt or the other neighboring nations where people are aspiring to, at the very least, a greater degree of freedom.

© 2011 Ben Tanosborn