Why India is still considered to be a democracy

The challenges of democracy in southern Asia

The nature or characteristic of the political administrations or regimes in the southern part of the continent of Asia, has, at all times, started a puzzle in the discipline relating to political science. Specifically, the emergence or advent and consolidation or merging of a particular democratic administration or regime in the nation of India (which is located in an area with ethnically similar nations that are dominated by mainly non-democratic administrations or regimes) has been challenging and difficult to provide an explanation with the help of the utilization of the normal explanatory aspects from the various elements of the democratic theory.

It could be said that the Indian nation is either perceived as being very poor, very illiterate, culturally and socially very traditional, and ethnically very disjointed or fragmented, to be a possible candidate in connection to a constant and steady parliamentary democracy. Comparatively, the specific political developments that have transpired in the nations such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Pakistan, have adhered to the standard preparations of the principal theories relating to the preconditions for the parliamentary democracies (Pedersen 2011). This essay shall discuss as to why India is still considered to be a democracy.

The nation of India possesses an extended baffled or perplexed theories relating to democracy. The ‘Democratic theory’ forwards the notion that extensive and prevalent illiteracy, poverty and a profoundly hierarchical or graded social structure shall be considered to be the inhospitable settings or circumstances for the effective operation of democracy. However, other than the eighteen months from the year of 1975 to the year of 1977, it can be said that the nation of India has been able to maintain and uphold its democratic institutes since the time when it gained independence from the United Kingdom in the year of 1947. In the course of the 5 decades, the Indian nation has seen twelve parliamentary elections as well as several more elections of the state assembly elections. The peaceful, nonviolent and diplomatic transmissions of power amidst the opposing political parties have happened 7 times at central (that is the federal) level (Raut 2019).

Ever since the year of 1967, the particular party, which has ruled at the central (in New Delhi) has actually not ruled or governed in almost half of the particular states of the country. Furthermore, ever since the year of 1977, the reigning governments have been recurrently and frequently beaten in the elections. The press and media have continued to be free, vigorous, bold as well as fearless to challenge or encounter the government (as it has been demonstrated by a mere superficial sampling of the morning newspapers). In spite of the sporadic pressure from central executive branch, the judiciary is bale to maintain and uphold the institutional and official autonomy.

The emergence of democracy in India

The turnout of the elections keeps increasing, surpassing the average levels in many advanced democracies of the Western world. Initially, the turnout in first general elections was approximately forty-five percent (which was held in the year of 1952), which has presently increased up to more than sixty percent. It could be said that the predictions and forecasts relating to a forthcoming collapse of the democracy of the Indian nation have continued ever since the years of the 1960s. In the month of June in the year of 1975, when the then Prime Minister of the Indian nation, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, adjourned democracy and professed a ‘state of emergency’, it gave the impression that the nation of India was ultimately starting to go down the track that maximum of the other poorer democracies of the world had already covered. Nonetheless, democracy came back after a period of eighteen months, and the rule of emergency was verified as a conjunctural deviation or anomaly instead of an emergent or evolving structural movement or inclination (Croissant and Haynes 2021).

It should be noted that there are primarily three elements or rudiments that establishes a democracy, which are the individual sovereignty, the democratic values and norms and values, and equality amidst the citizens. Firstly, democracy can be primarily said to be the thought or notion, which deliberates that the political sovereignty exists at individual level. In this regard, it can be said that a specific political community actually derives its great authority and power from the accord or consensus of the general populace in that specific community (Gabrielsson 2021). In the Indian nation, it is possible to state that the general populace may possess the sovereign and autonomous right relating to the political rule, although, it must also be said that such right is actually a shared and public right, that is, any one person shall not be able to claim total sovereign authority and power (even though few persons may have more political authority and power).

In a particular representative democracy such as India, the representatives normally wield the political power and authority on behalf of the citizens, and while representing the citizens, few representatives might possess either lesser or greater political power in comparison to the other representatives. Sovereignty can be defined or described as the supreme power and total authority of the political rule. However, in a country like India, it is actually a democratic sovereignty, and in an instance of a democratic sovereignty, the power is not set aside just for specific individuals or groups, and it is also not derived from any hereditary or divine right, instead, a general or universal right is actually dispersed at the individual level in the political community of the nation (Thediplomat.com 2021).

India's democratic institutions

Secondly, another element relating to democracy can be said to political equality amidst the citizens. It can be specified that as per the notion relating to political equality amidst the citizens, there should preferably be political fairness and equivalence midst the citizens. Citizenship can be said to be a legal standing that confers upon a person the official acknowledgement that such person is actually a member in connection to a sovereign country. It can be said that even though the non-democratic nations (such as Bahrain, Cuba, UAE and others) have citizens, such citizens are not able to enjoy the political rights that are in connection to determining the authority who shall possess the political power. The citizens of the cultures having a non-democratic social order, might still possess rights, mainly in comparison to the non-citizens in such societies, however, the political rights are normally absent or very restricted (Gehlbach 2018).

Equality amidst the citizens can be said to be a democratic notion or ideal, although, in actuality, such equality might be inadequate, incomplete, or restricted, even in what could normally be regarded as a democratic political community. For instance, in the nation of the United States, the equivalent representation in Senate (that is two senators each state) shall mean that votes of few citizens actually hold more weight in comparison to the others. As per Robert Dahl, any citizen of the United States living in the state of Alaska shall have a particular vote that would carry fifty-four times more wight in comparison to the vote of any Californian. Similarly, in relation to the election of the President of the nation of United States with the help of the ‘Electoral College’, the absenteeism of any direct popular vote shall mean that the votes in certain states are actually more significant in comparison to the votes in the other specific states.

It should be said that being a ‘conservative’ voter of Republican Party in the state of California and being a ‘liberal’ voter of Democratic Party in the state of Kansas can be an annoying and unsatisfying experience as they feel that their votes does not hold any significance (Steinmetz 2021). However, such is not the scenario in India. The constitution of the nation of India considers every individual as equals. Hence, this shall mean that all the persons in the nation, regardless of his or her religion, caste, economic and educational backgrounds, state and region, is recognized or acknowledged as equal.

Equality in Indian democracy

Thirdly, another specific element in relation to democracy establishes the ideas that reinforce and strengthen the above said elements, which are values, rules and norms. These values and norms help to solidify as well as affirm the political equality and the individual sovereignty amidst the citizens. This particular element recommends that the abstract notions like equality and sovereignty would not be adequate enough as democracy mandates a series of values and norms that affirm its position or standing in the society.

If any particular democratic political community just went through the gestures and waves of democratic procedure, however, did not essentially value the democracy nor did it develop any kind of positive norms in connection to the rule of populace. It can be said that in such ‘Zombie Democracy’, the citizens would become mere robots or mechanisms, performing actions as per the waves of the democratic procedure in the absence of formulation or understanding regarding its value (journalofdemocracy.org 2021). Regarding such matter in the case of the nation of India, it can be said that the Indian democracy mandates public understanding, deliberation and acknowledgement in relation to the reason as to why democracy is selected and what particular forms should be taken by any democracy.

The civic participation or civic involvement in the Indian nation is not merely about the official democratic procedures or the voting, but instead, encompass an extensive range of the non-political and political activities where the groups or the individuals come together for solving the problems and cause a betterment of their community. Partaking in the regional government, volunteering as well as attending the community events, all of these activities actually help to give effect to a vibrant and lively public domain. Placing value upon such activities can be said to be an important foundation of the Indian democracy (Steinmetz 2021).

Lately, there has been a development or an uptick of the articles in media, specifically in the media of the Western world, cautioning about the imminent end of the democracy of the nation of India. Simultaneously, several officials in the ruling party of India named ‘Bharatiya Janata Party’ (or BJP), have been involved in illiberal pomposity or rhetoric in respect of the minorities. It could be said that the government has performed actions in authoritarian manners in respect of the social media. Most recently, it has made an attempt to intimidate or coerce Twitter in order to make an effort for censoring the voices that forwarded criticisms regarding the poor handling and management by the government in the crisis of COVID-19 pandemic. The rank of the India nation in the democracy directories has also dropped considerably (James and Alihodzic 2020).

Values and norms in Indian democracy

In actuality, it should be said that the reports regarding the collapse or downfall of the democracy of the Indian nation are normally misinformed, exaggerated and pessimistic. It should be noted that the institutions of the nation of India, mainly the courts, continues to be strong. The democracy continues to be vibrant, particularly at the state as well as local levels or stages, where the ruling political party named BJP has actually been defeated numerous times as well as where the opposition parties actually control numerous governments.

An important factor can be said to be that the society of India continues to be heterogeneous, thereby preventing a centralized or unified tyranny. Democracy in the India nation is sturdy and engrained, particularly at state level. However, in spite of the democratic norms and heterogeneity in India, the society of the India nation cannot be said to be liberal, and such factor has actually been reflected in the particular acts of governments. The famed tolerance of India includes the fact that it is actually more an operation of religions, different castes as well as other ethnic groups, thereby upholding a peaceful synchronicity in relation to one another instead of convergence into each. Tolerance cannot be considered to be oneness and celebration (Thirumali 2021).

Conclusion

In the conclusion, it can be said that in the social and cultural trends of the present day are not essentially evidence relating to democratic relapsing, but are instead evidence relating to the social norms and standards in the nation of India, which are illiberal and small-minded in respect of individual expression, criticism and speech. Individual freedom in the Indian nation has been restricted a lot more by things such as caste rules, kinship ties, customary practices and religious obligations.

References

Croissant, A. and Haynes, J., 2021. Democratic regression in Asia: introduction. Democratization, 28(1), pp.1-21.

Gabrielsson, D., 2021. National identity and democracy: Effects of nonâ€Âvoluntarism on formal democracy. Nations and Nationalism.

Gehlbach, S., 2018. What is next for the study of non-democracy?. In A Research Agenda for New Institutional Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.

James, T.S. and Alihodzic, S., 2020. When is it democratic to postpone an election? Elections during natural disasters, COVID-19, and emergency situations. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 19(3), pp.344-362.

journalofdemocracy.org, 2021. India Defies the Odds: Why Democracy Survives | Journal of Democracy. [online] Journal of Democracy. Available at: <https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/india-defies-the-odds-why-democracy-survives/> [Accessed 23 November 2021].

Pedersen, J.D., 2011. Why did India become a democracy and why did it remain democratic? A survey of the literature and some comments to the scholarly debate. Trysts With Democracy, pp.17-19.

Raut, S.I., 2019. Liberating India: Contextualising Nationalism, Democracy and Dr Ambedkar. Journal of Social Inclusion Studies, 5(2), pp.172-192.

Steinmetz, J., 2021. Chapter 5: Theories of Democracy. [online] Fhsu.pressbooks.pub. Available at: <https://fhsu.pressbooks.pub/orientationpolisci/chapter/chapter-5/> [Accessed 23 November 2021].

Thediplomat.com, 2021. Why India’s Democracy is Not Dying. [online] Thediplomat.com. Available at: <https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/why-indias-democracy-is-not-dying/> [Accessed 23 November 2021].

Thirumali, I., 2021. India: Nation and its People: Castes and Parties in the Making of Democracy. Notion Press.