Their extreme factionalism makes political power hard to harness in the national interest
Two improbable democracies
Insights into India by the Yale political science professor emeritus Robert A. Dahl deserve our consideration, since they apply to our own “improbable democracy.”
Dahl seeks to explain why India continues to be a democracy, though it lacks many of the conditions Dahl himself regards as necessary for such a political system to thrive.
India’s horrendous poverty alone—despite its economy’s current surge—makes it a wonder how the country maintains its basic democratic institutions.
Yet India manages—just as the Philippines does. And the reason seems to be that if the extreme factionalism of society makes political power so difficult to consolidate in the national interest, it also means that no power holder can hope to easily overpower the others and rule arbitrarily.
Least common denominator
Dahl notes that the one billion Indians are “divided among themselves along more lines than any other country.” These divisions start from region, class and caste, and extend to language, race and religion. Within each category, there are infinite subdivisions.
In the Philippines, too, geography, culture and history have combined to make the sense of nationality hard to instil.
In both countries, political power is so divided that rule by consensus can strive only for the least common denominator of agreement among the factions.
In 2008, the Indian parliament (545 seats) had 24 party coalitions. Its 2009 elections were contested by more than 300 parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment