Modernization Theory Of India 's Democracy

We know that democracies are common among the economically urbanized countries and rare between the very deprived ones. The reason we scrutinize this pattern is not that democracies are more probable to emerge, as a result, of economic development but that they are to a large extent more possible to survive if they occur to emerge in most urbanized countries. The paths to democracy are diverse. Indeed, they appear to follow no unsurprising pattern. But once democracy is conventional, for whatever reasons, its endurance depends on a few, easily particular, factors.

However, both the Country Profile (2005) and Business Asia (2010:10) highlight that although the fundamental political keeps stable, the efficiency of political is low. The cause of this existed problem is that the national parties weakened gradually while the regional parties which influenced by the coalition government strongly (Business Asia, 2010:10). Current President is Pratibha Patil. (BBC News, 2011). As a result, India began to conduct a relatively free liberal market reform. Nonetheless, because of the interests of coalition government members are dissimilar, the speed of market reform is limited (Business Asia, 2010:10).

The general cause of the Indian Independence Movement was India’s desire for independence from British, French and Portuguese Rule. The aim of the movement was “Swaraj, a self-governing India” (Sharma, 2005, p. 22). One, more specific, cause of the Indian Independence Movement took place in 1905 when the province of Bengal was divided into two provinces,

Two major governmental systems that Larry Diamond asserts to be anti-democratic are “oil states” and “predatory societies.” According to Diamond, both of these have the potential to lead to overbearing leaders who take away basic human and civil rights. When evaluating these types of states he specifically turns his attention to Nigeria, Venezuela, and the Philippines. In order to prove his point that not all poor countries are inherently bound to have governments that hinder the development and spread of democracy, he looks at India, a nation that is relatively poor but has still managed to maintain a fairly high level of democracy.

Historically, India was under British rule until 1950. Many people in India felt that during British rule they were powerless (Beteille, 2010). All of the problems in the country were blamed on this helplessness (Beteille, 2010). When India became independent and developed its own constitution, a large amount of emphasis was placed on the role of government in solving social problems (Beteille, 2010). During British rule, many customs and practices in India were based on the Hindu religion (Beteille, 2010). The British left those in place, neither making them unlawful nor supporting them (Beteille, 2010). When the new government was established, the caste system that had so sharply defined India was declared unlawful (Beteille, 2010). While this was a step in the

In his argument on the universal value of democracy Amartya Sen discusses the relationship between democracy and economic development. He notes that it is often claimed that nondemocratic systems are better at bringing about economic development than democratic ones. Sen disagrees with this claim. He asserts that this hypothesis is based on "very selective and limited information" (3). He admits that it is true that some disciplinarian states, like South Korea, Singapore, and postreform China, have had faster rates of economic growth than many less authoritarian ones, like India, Jamaica, and Costa Rica (3). However, he points out that this very selective evidence cannot be used to establish the general hypothesis that nondemocratic systems are better at bringing about economic development (3). "There is no convincing evidence that authoritarian governance and the suppression of political and civil rights are

On the other hand, India has spent a majority of its history as a colony of England. It was not until 1947 that India became an independent nation state, after a grassroots nationalist movement started by Gandhi, and even then they were a one party congress. They are also an interesting case of democracy because of how many unfavorable aspects towards it they had, such as high inequality, many peasants, and many different languages and religions (Lecture). In 1956, India was broken up into states by the States Reorganization Act, that made state lines based on linguistic group. India’s founding leaders mirrored the ideas of America, in balancing states rights with a central government (Sil, 2014). They have also more recently gone through a liberalization of their economy. India is unique in the way that their social hierarchy is constructed because of the fact that they have a caste system. The caste system is a combination of religious practice and community organization that is a part of Hinduism (Sil, 2014). This system was officially demolished in the country, but in the country it is still very prevalent, and the focus on helping those who were in lower castes succeed has made people more aware of the way they institute social policies.

Whereas voting is regarded as the rudiment of a democratic nation, turnout rates are constantly getting lower in the developed countries and higher in undeveloped ones. While reformers in United States who have diligently worked to increase turnout have been rewarded with little, the Indian government experiences record-breaking voter turnouts. This paper seeks to critically analyze each system’s laws and form of governance. By critiquing voter registration and voter ID laws, in addition to examining the development in voting technology, reforms that would not only better the United States, but also raise voter turnout are proposed.

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

In his argument on the universal value of democracy Amartya Sen discusses the relationship between democracy and economic development. He notes that it is often claimed that nondemocratic systems are better at bringing about economic development than democratic ones. Sen disagrees with this claim. He asserts that this hypothesis is based on "very selective and limited information" (3). He admits that it is true that some disciplinarian states, like South Korea, Singapore, and postreform China, have had faster rates of economic growth than many less authoritarian ones, like India, Jamaica, and Costa Rica (3). However, he points out that this very selective evidence cannot be used

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

Liberal and democratic aspects of British colonialism in India played a significant role in leading to a democratic South Asia following Indian independence in 1947. Yet, the British -- first through the East India Company and then through direct government control -- held almost all of the political and economic power in India during the Empire’s expansion and apogee, guaranteeing the Indian economy could not evolve and/or function independent of the ruling power’s control; ensuring raw materials extracted from Indian soil would go towards British manufacturing industries mostly without profiting the vast majority of Indians; and leading to lives of privation for millions of indigenous subjects. Although there have been arguments made that, in political and

Winston Churchill once remarked that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. In agreement with his statement, this paper will examine the problems of democratic governments using specific examples, and compare it to the failure of fascist governments in Nazi Germany and Italy and communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.

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.