Last Friday Professor Ashutosh Varshney spoke at LSE on Indian Democracy. Before his presentation Sonali Campion interviewed him about India’s electoral vibrancy as well as its liberal deficits, and why these have become more marked under the current BJP-led government. They also discussed the contrasts between Indian and American elections in light of the US presidential vote

Campion, Sonali

Varshney, Ashutosh

LSE Research Online

2016-11-8“There are phases when India falls remarkably short of thestandards you would expect democracies to follow” –Ashutosh Varshneyblogs.lse.ac.uk /southasia/2016/11/08/there-are-phases-when-india-falls-remarkably-short-of-the-standards-you-would-expect-democracies-to-follow-ashutosh-varshney/Last Friday Professor Ashutosh Varshney  spoke at LSE on Indian Democracy. Before hispresentation Sonali Campion interviewed him about India’s electoral vibrancy as well as its liberaldeficits, and why these have become more marked under the current BJP-led government. Theyalso discussed the contrasts between Indian and American elections in light of the US presidentialvote. You frequently speak of how there should be “two rather than three cheers” for Indiandemocracy. What do you mean by that?If you go by the narrower definition of democracy, which is primarily electoral, India has done extremely well. India istoday a lower middle-income country, even after substantial economic progress, and the transition from low incomeonly happened around 2000. This is the first time in world history that a universal franchise democracy at India’s percapita income has lasted seven decades, with a very brief interruption.Secondly, there is no democracy where the subaltern (for want of a better word) have exercised as much franchise.Democratic theory believes that the richer you are, the more educated you are, the higher your social status, themore urban you are, the higher the odds that you will vote. However that has not been the case in India since 1989.So these two features make for a unique historical experience. Adam Przeworski created a data set, whichessentially shows not that India is the only low income democracy in the world, but that it is the most exceptional.That’s the positive story of India’s democracy, but there’s a negative side. There is a broader definition of democracythat goes beyond elections and talks about liberal freedoms, without which the functioning of a democratic politybetween elections always falls below standard that theorists would legitimately set. Think of the three basicfreedoms that virtually every political theorist since John Stuart Mill has called our attention to: freedom of speech,freedom of religious practise and freedom of association. Despite constitutional protections, India’s polity has notdelivered as fully on these freedoms as on the electoral dimension.Indeed, there are phases when the polity falls remarkably short of the standards you would expect democracies tofollow. For example, whenever a group – and certainly a group that is substantial in size – claims injury from awriter or artist, the government invariably supports the group over the artist and bans the book or artwork. This cantake other more vicious forms: the idea that someone who is suspected of eating beef could be lynched to death,and that the Government of India would not unreservedly denounce it or launch a sincere investigation, clearlyshows you that when it comes to freedom of religious practice India can fall very short.On the freedom of association, threats faced by non-governmental organisations are worrying. Whatever theirdemerits, if governments start banning NGOs or taking them to court for things that they are supposed to do,freedom of association as a principle is violated.All of these problems become much more serious when the Hindu nationalists are in power. The Congressgovernment might not have protected writers or artists when groups claimed injury, it might have harassed someNGOs. But minorities automatically become targets in Hindu nationalist regimes because their view of India is notthe view that the constitution has espoused or defended. Their view of India is that of a Hindu India, primarily if notentirely owned by Hindus, which makes non-Hindu minorities vulnerable. So when the BJP comes to power, the1/4liberal dimension of India’s democracy declines even further automatically. This is the real sense in which I use thetwo cheers term.Starting with the positives, what role do you think the election commission in particular has played in thesuccess of India’s electoral democracy?There have been three phases since 1947. In the first phase, the Election Commission (EC) was empowered by thecommitment of the top leadership, especially Nehru, to the sanctity of elections. In 1952 India indeed took a leap inthe dark, the first poor country in the world to give universal franchise and hold elections. This would not have beenpossible without an unflinching, truly principled commitment at the top. The fact that Nehru and his colleagues couldhold three elections before Nehru’s death institutionalised the election process in India.That institutionalisation could not have been achieved by EC alone – it was given the political space to do its job. Ithas independent status in the constitution, but politicians have power and they can undermine independentinstitutions. Nehru neither undermined the courts, nor the EC. Similarly, those around him were schooled during thefreedom movement. The argument against the British was ‘you believe that we the Indians are not capable ofrationality, and only 10-12% of us should have the right to vote. But this is false and we can govern our own affairs’.Once they made that argument and declared that the denial of franchise to 90% of India in the 1937 and 1946elections was a sign of Imperial arrogance, it logically followed that the poor would have to be given the right to vote.It simply could not be argued that the elite know the poor’s interests better than the poor themselves do.India therefore had a great electoral start. However, Mrs Gandhi proved that she was anti-Nehru in her politics,despite the lineage. She began to attack all independent institutions including the EC, and of course suspendedelections for 18 months. She returned to them somehow in January of 1977 but she wanted to control the electoralprocess, and the weakening of the EC that took place once again shows you that the political space was important.The third phase started in the mid-1990s. The EC began to take its constitutional role and powers extremelyseriously. However, it mattered that there wasn’t an Indira Gandhi-like figure in Delhi at that time: the person theyhad to contend with was Narasimha Rao, Deve Gowda or I.K. Gujral. You can say the political space once againbecame available. The EC revived itself and hasn’t stepped back.Now the election process is so institutionalised that even a charismatic leader would find it hard to undermine theelectoral process. The only way to come to power is through elections. While I critique Mr Modi for not being liberalenough, I don’t critique him for his electoral enthusiasm. He regularly calls adversaries who have defeated him tocongratulate them, whether it was Kejriwal or Nitish Kumar. He understands this aspect of democracy. He can playthe game of maximising votes, which is not the same as stealing elections.Given we are sitting in Ambedkar’s alma mater, do you think Modi’s idea of India actually conflicts with theone Ambedkar envisioned while writing the constitution?On the whole, the answer is yes. Why on the whole yes, not an unqualified yes? Modi for the last two years or sohas tried to include Ambedkar into the pantheon of key 20th century leaders of India.However, the marriage of Ambedkar and Hindu nationalism is an extremely challenging political task, and perhapsan insurmountable one, and of late Modi has dropped Ambedkar from the pantheon. If anything, Ambedkar arguedthat one of the biggest Dalit battles that had to be fought was against upper caste domination. It was an intra-Hindubattle. Ambedkar was against Hindu nationalism, he had no concept of Hindu family. In this so-called family, somechildren had been treated so badly that you shouldn’t claim they are part of the family; if they were, you wouldn’ttreat them so ignominiously. The constitution, formed under Ambedkar’s leadership, promotes a pluralist India, soyou ultimately get an ideological incompatibility between the Hindu nationalists’ idea of India and that of Ambedkar’s.Modi’s creativity in this direction was beginning to surprise, but appears to have exhausted itself. However, he mightreturn to this because Dalit vote will be critical in so many states, and possibly in the national election too. When2/4critical for power, these issues will sometimes generate ideological compromise in politics. Whether Modi can pull itoff in the future, we don’t know. As of now the Ambedkar-Modi relationship must be viewed as virtually permanentlysevered.Does India’s heavily electoral democracy and this prioritising of power lead to issues that affect millions ofpeople’s lives getting excluded from the agenda?This is why the anti-rape law took so long. Because it was not an electoral issue, politicians felt no incentive to workon a deeply human problem. In this case the civil society in Delhi became so active, it ultimately producedlegislation. Think about health or education, too. Neither of these has been an electoral issue. Women’s rights havenot been an issue either. As a result, politicians don’t address these weaknesses.What might change that?Civil society needs to be stronger, using the spaces of freedom in a democracy between elections to incentivise thestate to take action and generate legislation, which would address non-electoral issues. If you put pressure on thegovernment and make it very hard — between elections — for the government to function, then the politicians wouldhave to respond because a good government wants to function. The best strategy for building pressure is civildisobedience, which Gandhi perfected.But civil disobedience is also a very hard course of action. It demands a lot of the citizens’ commitment and time. Asa result, civil society pressure in India has always been periodic, you haven’t had sustained civil disobedienceexcept under Jayaprakash Narayan in the 1970s. The movement was launched in two states and had implicationsfor Delhi in a way that shook the central government to the extent that Mrs Gandhi hit back with coercion and jailedall the leaders. Nowadays, there are periodic outbursts of civil disobedience, lasting a few months at best.Sometimes they generate the right kind of legislation.When civil society in India has managed to get important people in corridors of power to give their sympathy,attention and time, legislation on issues of concern has been much more in evidence. For example, right toeducation came out of civil society but they had to work with government. Same with NREGA and the right toinformation. If rights-based ideas mattered in elections, of course legislation would come forth much more easily.But civil society working closely with that faction of government which was inclined in this direction and hadsufficient power, produced some great rights-based legislation during 2004-2014.How has your insight into Indian elections inform your gaze on the current American presidential election?They are very different polities. The one thing in common between them would be the electoral search for majoritiesconstructed in ethno-racial terms. When American politicians calculate who will vote, in principle it is the individualwho is voting. But they actually target communities. The natural organising principle in a multi-ethnic society likeIndia, or United States, becomes the ethno-racial principle. If you look at Obama’s formula, it would take thefollowing form: if I can get 90+ per cent of the black vote, 70+ per cent of Hispanic/Asian vote, then all I need is 39per cent of white voters to win the presidency. You can complicate this calculation by including gender – womengave Obama an 11 per cent lead over Mitt Romney. Gender is becoming increasingly important in America, while itis not electorally particularly important in Indian politics at the moment. Sometimes class is added to that, as in thiselection the white working class vote for Trump is very likely.All that Hillary has to do is follow the Obama principle, except that turnouts are going to be critical. Blacks won’tcome out in the same way, but Hispanics might make up for this because Trump has insulted and humiliated themso much. 90% black on lower turnout, 90% Hispanic with higher turnout, 75% Asian vote with similar turnout, andwomen on her side.Trump’s victory is improbable but it can happen, if Florida goes his way, Ohio is looking like it might go his way.Pennsylvania seems unlikely but some are saying it might vote red. He was even campaigning in Michigan and3/4Wisconsin, which have no record of voting Republican for a very long time. But maybe he sees opportunity there.Apart from the idea that winning coalitions have to be ethnically constructed, there are so many differences,particularly the electoral college. The House of Representatives represents popular opinion. The Senate does not.Vermont, where I lived for quite sometime, only had 500,000 people but it had two senators – equal to Californiawhich has close to 40 million people today. That was America’s way of giving a sense of security to smaller states,so they wouldn’t be swamped. However, in the process you have an electoral college where 435 out of 538 votesare based on popular opinion, and 103 out of 538 are not.The other principle that becomes important here is that whether you win 70% of the vote of a state or 51%. you winthe whole state (with the exception of two where the college vote can be divided). In the First Past the Post systemsin India and the UK whoever is first wins that constituency, but with the college, the constituency becomes more orless irrelevant – it’s all about the state. So it becomes a very different kind of strategising. In a parliamentary system,you campaign everywhere but in the US the presidential candidate will allocate most of his or her time to swingstates. It is very educative to see this kind of democracy – it is democratic but it’s not fully representative of popularopinion.Cover image: Image: Bengaluru voting. Credit: Al Jazeera English/Nilanjan Chowdhury CC BY-SA 2.0This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the South Asia @ LSE blog, nor of the LondonSchool of Economics. Please read ourcomments policy before posting.About the AuthorAshutosh Varshney is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for ContemporarySouth Asia at Brown University, and author of Battles Half Won: India’s Improbable Democracy(2013). His book Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India (2002) won the GregoryLuebbert Prize of the American Political Science Association.Sonali Campion is Communications and Events Officer at the South Asia Centre. She holds a BA(Hons) in History from the University of Oxford and completed her MSc in Comparative Politics atLSE.Copyright © 2016 London School of Economics4/4

“There are phases when India falls remarkably short of the standards you would expect democracies to follow” – Ashutosh Varshney

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online