Is India A Successful Democratic Country?

In 1939 World War II broke out in Europe. Britain proclaimed India’s involvement in the war without consulting the Indian people. This led to increased protest and volatility. In 1942 India established a national army and proposed the Quit India Movement. This movement promised to lend Indian military support to Britain in return for complete independence. If they refused this treaty the Indian people promised civil disobedience. In 1947 India was granted its independence and became self governing (Luscombe, 2012). On January 26, 1950 the Republic of India was proclaimed and it drafted a constitution. The first democratic elections were held in 1952. However the Hindus and Muslims were not united and colonial India was divided into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India (History, 2010).

Politically the British benefited more than the Indians. According to Dr. Lalvani the British imperializing India led to the Indians having the world's largest democracy and the British established the framework for India’s justice system, civil service, loyal army and efficient police force. Although, the British led to the largest democracy in India today. According to document 2, when the British imperialized India they had 900 Englishmen employed in the civil offices out of 960, the remaining 60 were occupied by Indians or natives.

Often people like to defend that “The world’s largest democracy… Is largely due to British imperial rule” (Lalvani), however of “960 civil offices… 900 are occupied by Englishmen and only 60 by natives” (Doc 2). While India might have had a strong government and democracy, only 6% was actually controlled by Indians meaning Englishmen had nearly all of the control. Regardless of the fact that it was the Indian’s land and government- the British took their voice and power away from them. Some may also argue that “The British established framework for India’s justice system, civil service, loyal army, and efficient police force” (Lalvani), however taxes were still being increased despite knowing most Indians couldn’t even provide food for themselves (Doc 3). India was only being used for profit.

The word democracy elicits different perceptions from different people. Some may see democracy as only a government ruled directly by the people, in which the people write and choose laws directly. Others may include representative democracy in which representatives are chosen by the people to write, pass, and enforce laws. It is the latter view that would best describe America. In this sense, America is not a pure democracy, and few would ever say it was founded as one. However, the question remains: Is America a democracy. Though America as a whole has few direct ways for people to participate in the writing and enforcement of most laws, I would venture to say that American government should be considered a democracy. Indeed, democratic elements pervade the American political structure. The American republic would not be what it is without the necessary democratic elements that are used in the execution of governing.

British Imperialism had a negative impact on the politics of India because the British took away control of the country for their benefit and enforced laws that discriminated against Indians. Lavani claims the British “established the framework for India’s justice system, civil service, loyal army, and efficient police force.” However, this framework was not intended for the Indians, but for the British. For example, 94% of government positions were held by Englishman (Doc. #2). These people had “no permanent interest in their well-being” and returned to England after “forty-five or fifty-five years of age with large pensions (Doc. #2).” This shows the British government used India as a source of wealth and controlled the people without

In the case of politics in Africa and India, both were completely different because of how they were ruled by the European nations. In Africa the natives thought they had political power, but the reality was that all politics, and decisions were made by the European’s. The natives thought that the leaders, and chiefs were making the decisions, but the indirect governing style the Europeans were using on their territories was to do exactly this. They tricked the public to keep the peace and avoided any revolts or rebellion from taking place in the country. The same cannot be said about India though. In India the direct governing style was in place. This meaning that all the previous leaders, and officials were replaced by the European officials,

Britain had a desire to have a more economic, political, and social influence over India. Even though the British never preserved a notable military existence in India, they were able to maintain political control. Many changes were made, which benefitted India, but there were also some changes, which contributed to its deterioration. Despite the negative impacts Britain left on India, imperialism is best understood as a strong country extending its authority, in order to increase its wealth, by bringing more of the world under its control, because Britain helped in the development of India from a nation-state, to a unified country, which is modernly the world’s largest democracy.

India like the United States has a Democracy for their form of Government. India is a free nation with rights given to the people and laws to protect them. Although India’s Democracy is not exactly like the United States it is set up very similar. In the book Sarah doesn’t talk about India’s Government and never runs into any trouble by authorities, although she does mention that India has a Democracy. This means India is a free nation and allows people to have opportunities for individuals to decide which ones they would like to take. Within the Democracy, India like the U.S. has a strongly defined cast system.

Q6. India is a large and prosperous nation in Asia, they are also a nation of which who has the largest and most influential democracy. India prospers and thrives when it comes to their political and economic stances. Previously, we had learned the India was the jewel in the crown for the country of England. England had obtained control over India for a long period of time making India one of their best and most profitable colonies. Therefore, their political and economic success would be very crucial when it comes to the future of democracy in Asia. During this time in the world, democracy and communism were battling, trying to prove which one was better. The Soviet Union along with the East argued that communism was the way to go; on the

We must question to what extent democracy relies on external factors of stability in order to be accepted as legitimate. I would very much argue that the wealth and stable economy of each democratic country plays a large part in its citizens accepting democracy as a legitimate governmental system. Let us first look at the UK, Britain has always had a strong democratic nature to the country and relies on the electorate to vote for the MP’S in the House of Commons. However in late 2010 the London riots shocked the world and showed how the legitimacy of democracy relies on prosperity of the economic situation of a country and when this does not exist it creates a social backlash devaluing the legitimacy of the democracy. Similarly grease one of the oldest democracies in the world has also felt this effect and now the government there has all but collapsed all due the financial support of the democracy failing sending the country into mass chaos.

Through the study of human history it is evident authoritative and monarch governments prevailed as legitimate authorities but with careful considerations these political systems were seen as inaccurate by many. New political systems, functions and responsibilities soon began to surface. Democracy was among these new political systems and argues for the influence of citizens in politics and the protection of rights (Dahl, 1998, p. 44). Democracy can be found through many political systems around the world particularly in first world countries such as Canada and the United States of America. Fortunately the notions of democracy can also be found in some developing countries such as India. ¬¬¬Although democratic views and notions are found throughout Indian politics and its associated practices India does not prove to be completely democratic in relation to Robert Dahl’s criteria of democracy highlighted in his book, On Democracy. Robert Dahl, a political scientist and professor, sets up 5 criteria of democracy that includes effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, inclusion and control of agenda (Dahl, 1998, p. 36-7). He argues that a sense of true democracy is founded when all 5 criteria of democracy are fulfilled (Dahl, 1998, p. 36). Unfortunately India is unable to accommodate the criteria of voting equality and effective participation due to its

Since the initiation of the Third Wave of Democracy, several countries have attempted to form a democratic system of governs. We take note that not all have succeeded. At the dawn of this era, democracy was being applied to countries with no prior history of a governing body that was place by the people for the people hence success of such a system could not be guaranteed because of the innumerous variables that existed in each country. People being the highlighted factor of variance, it may become easier to understand how countries such as Pakistan and Nigeria, both countries prior to the Wave had no local governing machinery. Pakistan further endured a partition from India which resulted in not only an instant religious and

Over half of the countries in the world are considered democracies, one of which being Turkey. Turkey believes that they are a model of a true democracy while other countries believe that Turkey is very far from being considered a democracy. This has been an ongoing argument amongst many people. If we take in to consideration what it means to be a true democracy, then Turkey would only possess a few of those qualities. If we were to look at the basic structure and elements of a dictatorship, Turkey would fit into majority of them. This is what leads me to believe that Turkey should not be considered a democracy but instead a soft dictatorship. There is a lot of evidence that would prove as to why Turkey should not be considered a democracy including, lack of freedom in many different way, lack of suffrage rights, a long process of trying to become a member of the European Union, high levels of government control, and high military power.

India is the biggest democracy in the world, with a government type of federal republic. The country’s form of government mimics the United States with its federal structure. The federal government consists of executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In addition, India has adopted the a British style parliamentary system that allows for it its central government to have great power in relation to its states, according to US Department of State- Background Notes website (The Office of Electronic

Additionally, in more precarious democratic governments such as India’s, peoples right to power is still recognized. Ronojoy Sen remarks of India’s 2009 elections that, “a handful of successful professionals and entrepreneurs even ran”(cite). Despite implying that only successful peoples were exercising their liberties, elucidated in this article is the potential of any citizen to attain political power, demonstrating true liberal democracy in its purest form. Communism does not give its people these liberties, the party is the “agent for creating political development” (Janos, pg. 2) and there is little need for elections as the outcome is pre-determined. In the case of Nazism, while Hitler utilised democracy to attain power, once in control democracy was replaced with autocracy.