By Aparna Pande
This article appeared in Indolink on April 17, 2007

The success of Indian democracy has long baffled democratic theorists. The problems still confronting democracy and democratic experiments in its neighboring countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh, make Indian success even more difficult to explain.

Democracy is believed to be that form of government in which most of the power resides in the people and is exercised by them either directly or through their representatives.

According to democratic theory there are certain prerequisites for democracy, chiefly a certain level of economic development, presence of a literate population and a society with few fissures.

Poverty, widespread illiteracy and a caste-ridden society were India’s key features in 1947 at the time of Independence. Yet democracy has evolved, matured and survived. The only exception to full democracy were the eighteen months in 1975-77 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency rule.

According to most democratic theorists, like Robert Dahl, Larry Diamond and Seymour Martin Lipset, India did not have the prerequisites for democracy. In response to this view political scientists, like Lloyd Rudolph, Marvin Weiner and Ashutosh Varshney, have traced Indian democratic success to certain key factors such as the historical inheritance from the British rule, steady economic growth and development, the ethnic configuration of India and finally the role played by the political leadership.

From the 1880s the British started political experiments with democracy in India. Indians could participate in elections and compete for offices at the local and municipal levels of government.

The Indian National Congress started off as an elite party but under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi it turned into a mass movement. During the 1920-30s the Congress built a vast grassroots network which helped it in later years.

With the Government of India Act of 1935, Indian politicians also participated in government at the provincial and central (federal) levels. The spirit of competitive participation in politics and the need to respect the views of the masses thus have a longer history in India than in other post-colonial third world countries.

Since 1947 India has had sixteen parliamentary elections and many state assembly elections. India has a vibrant political party system with six national level parties, around fifty state level parties and over 700 unrecognized political parties. Despite the different views among the parties there have always been peaceful transfers of power between them at the central (federal) and state level.

Every group or party believes that it has an equal opportunity for one day coming into power as long as it participates in the democratic process. In the 1989 national elections, the right-wing nationalist parties and the left-wing socialist parties were part of the same broad coalition against the ruling centrist Congress party.

In the 1999 polls the right-wing BJP moderated its ideology and its demands in order to tie with centrist and left-of-center parties. In the 2004 elections the left-wing socialist parties allied with the Congress against the ruling BJP coalition.

This pluralism ensures that every group has a stake in the democratic process instead of seeking to subvert the process.

On the other hand, the problems India faces in Kashmir, Punjab and the North East are precisely because groups in these regions have felt that they don’t have a stake in the democratic process. They have preferred to subvert the Indian political system rather than work within it.

For democracy to flourish all three organs of government – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – need to respect each other’s functions and boundaries. There also need to be ‘watch dogs’ who will keep an eye on these organs. Quis custodiet ispos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians?)

In India the executive and legislature are dependent on each other, as dictated by the parliamentary system. Yet, there have been instances when both sides have tried to prevent being absorbed into the other. The Executive has, time and again, tried to wrest power through bills that would limit parliamentary oversight. The Legislature has struck back with either increased control through committees and sub-committees or tighter fiscal control.

In 1975 Emergency was declared by the President, solely on the advice of the Prime Minister, on grounds of threats to national security. In the 1977 elections an opposition coalition came to power which sought to reduce the power of the Prime Minister to declare emergency. It was laid down that the President could declare Emergency only when he received advice from the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers. The additional requirement of seeking the Cabinet’s advice is meant to prevent abuse of prime ministerial power.

The Indian judiciary has also maintained its institutional autonomy, notwithstanding sporadic pressure from the executive and the legislature. In 1975 the Allahabad High Court found the Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, guilty of misuse of official machinery and declared her election to parliament null and void.

The judiciary has also resisted attempts by the legislature and executive to make excessive changes in the Constitution. Under the ‘basic structures’ doctrine laid out in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharti v The State of Kerala case the Supreme Court dictated that there are certain features of the Constitution of India which are beyond parliament’s powers of amendment.

In an attempt to prevent certain laws from coming under judicial review the Parliament has for years placed them under the Ninth Schedule. This includes an umbrella of around 250 laws passed by state legislatures mainly to do with property and land holdings. However, over the years various governments have placed other laws, like the ones dealing with reservation for backward castes, also in this schedule.

In January 2007 a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court declared that all laws put in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution after 1973 are subject to judicial review and if they are contrary to fundamental rights they are liable to be struck down.

The press, both electronic and print, has largely played its role as a vigorous watch dog, often unafraid to challenge the government or take on the executive. Turnout in elections, starting with around 45% in the first general elections in 1952 has over the years stayed above 60%.

A number of other independent institutions play a large role in keeping a watch over the government’s actions.

The Election Commission of India is responsible for the conduct of elections in India both at the federal and state levels. It also keeps a close eye on ensuring that the government and all political parties abide by a model code of conduct. The recent incident in which the BJP is being asked to explain its distribution of ‘anti-Muslim’ CDs in Uttar Pradesh is an example.

India’s democracy is not without its challenges. The fear remains that politicians will claim short-sighted benefits instead of long-term gains for the nation. The rise in caste based and religious based parties reflects poorly on the health of the Indian polity. However, the rise in political participation, the gradual breakdown of caste hierarchy and the spread of economic development to larger sections of society is a sign of how far democracy has changed things for India’s one billion people.