Democratic experiment in India-and its impact on neighbourhood policy

By R. Swaminathan

(March 30, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Despite some scholarly references to the practise of different forms of grassroots democracy in India in pre-historic times, the origin of India’s modern democratic experiment can be traced to the British reaction to the events in 1857. Since then, except for the hiccup during 1975-77, the citizens of India have been increasingly participating in their own governance and the procedures have been evolving at their own pace, with their fine tuning still in progress. Further, the twin processes of striking a delicate balance between centralization and decentralization, as well as the power elites in society serving their own interests without totally excluding those on the margins continue.

Indian Democracy

India, the largest functional democracy in world history, is now in the midst of its 15th parliamentary election under the constitution “we, the people” gave unto ourselves after the British colonial rule ended in 1947. Nearly 715 million voters (by far in excess of the population of most countries) will be able to exercise their franchise, as compared to the 170 million voters at the first general election in 1952.

During the colonial era, hereditary leadership and the use of money and muscle power to establish the principle of “might is right” was encouraged and even instigated. It is unfortunate that some of that legacy continues even today.

India is one of the few countries where universal adult franchise, including for women, was guaranteed from the very first election held under the new constitution. The immensity of this measure can be appreciated when we remember that yesterday (25 March) was the 44th anniversary of the historic 25,000-strong march led by Martin Luther King to the State Capitol in Montgomery (Alabama), demanding voting rights for blacks.

Yet, Indian democracy is not without its own serious fault-lines. Anyone who is following the “Lead India ‘09” campaign in the Times of India should be aware of most of these fault-lines and deficiencies. Some pessimists may argue that these represent the failure of the system. I feel, however, that the mere fact that the fault-lines and possible variations can be identified and discussed in public is an indication of the strength and vibrancy of Indian democracy. Open debates have been held about parliamentary vs. presidential forms of democracy; about first-past-the-post vs. some kind of proportional representation; criminalization of politics; pandering to vote-banks; “none of the above” vote etc. The transparency of the election process and the disclosures required to be made by candidates has been increasing steadily. The independence and impartiality of the Election Commission of India has not been doubted.

The progress of the democratic experiment in India, despite all the shortcomings, should be a matter of pride (without arrogance) for all Indians – particularly the manner in which the armed forces have kept out of politics and religion plays only a peripheral role in the elections. It should be a model for many countries to emulate.

Our Neighbourhood

The situation in countries neighbouring India would be discussed by area specialists, but I would like to note some of the salient developments in the recent past. Bhutan is taking her first steps towards a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. Nepal has shaken off royal autocracy and has restored parliamentary democracy. Maldives has had an orderly transfer of power after a fair and free election (for the first time?). Pakistan and Bangla Desh have come out of military rule and are having duly elected governments, though both democracies are under continuing threats from the military and the religious fundamentalists. China continues on its chosen path of a single-party people’s democracy and Sri Lanka continues to pursue its majoritarian style. Myanmar, of course, continues to be ruled unabashedly by a military junta.

The different stages of democratic development in our neighbouring countries, whether or not they are acceptable to the Indian psyche in altruistic terms, have not had any significant impact on India’s regional policies and those towards our neighbours. India has avoided the tempting pitfall of being self-righteous about its democracy and trying to “export” it. India recognizes that each country has to develop its own systems according to its genius and its realistic conditions. India’s commitments to democracy and human rights are normally kept within the limits of “gentlemanly dialogue” and do not extend to intervention in the internal affairs of another country. At the same time, India does not shirk its responsibilities when its own security and other interests are severely jeopardized.

India has become mature and confident enough to place her national interests first and adopt responsible and pragmatic international policies. Ideological approaches based on socialism and non-alignment, which characterized our earlier policy-making process, do not seem to be too relevant now.

Conclusion

While complacency is not justified, I feel that India’s democratic experiment is progressing fairly satisfactorily. It is a sign of maturity and strength that differences in the systems of governance are not allowed to have any major impact in our neighbourhood policy. It would, however, be better if the political parties could try for consensual evolution of national foreign and security policies.

(This paper was prepared by R.Swaminathan, Former Special Secretary, DG (Security), Government of India for presentation on 26 March 2009 at the National Seminar on “Democracy in South Asia : Challenges and Responses”, organized at Pondicherry, by the Centre for South Asian Studies (Department of Politics and International Studies, Pondicherry University) and the Center for Asian Studies (Chennai).

-Sri Lanka Guardian