Ascending India and Its State Capacity by Sumit Ganguly William R. Thompson

Author:Sumit Ganguly,William R. Thompson [Ganguly, Sumit]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Yale University Press
Published: 2016-04-13T04:00:00+00:00

N•I•N•E

Democratic Institutions

In his justly famed 1968 book, Political Order in Changing Societies, Samuel Huntington quite deftly separated political and economic development. Political development, as he had argued then, deals with the quality of the institutions of a state. States that had robust institutions could be deemed to be models of political development even though they could not produce widespread prosperity. Indeed he argued that rapid economic development with the concomitant unleashing of social expectations could lead to widespread political disorder. In the closing chapters of the book, he cogently argued why it may be even desirable to limit political participation, because an overly rapid expansion of participation could easily overwhelm the capacity of fragile states to channel them into the institutional arena.

Huntington’s work was not without its critics. They accused him of privileging order over social change and accused him of masking his conservative ideological predilections in theoretical garb.1 This normative critique of Huntington need not detain us at this stage, even though the debate continues apace. Without dwelling on the relative merits of the competing arguments, it is possible to tease out a fundamental proposition from his work: namely, the importance of institutional capacity in any society but especially ones undergoing substantial transition. Viable institutions can deliver a host of public goods and services, fairly adjudicate claims, and maintain minimal political order functions that all modern states are expected to perform.

In some ways, Huntington’s pessimistic prophecy has emerged in India. Today the country can justly claim that it has successfully mobilized large segments of its population and enabled them to enter the political arena. India’s democracy is far more representative of its citizenry than in the first few decades of the republic. One noted scholar of Indian politics has aptly referred to this phenomenon as India’s “silent revolution.”2 However, this mobilization has come at a substantial cost. It has taken place against a backdrop of considerable institutional decay. As a consequence, the capacity of India’s institutions, despite the renewal of some, is increasingly under strain. Yet, as this chapter will show, the condition is not one of unrelieved gloom and doom. Some institutions have indeed shown signs of decay. Others, however, have helped bolster democratic practices and thereby portend well for the country’s future.3

In this chapter we will examine a set of key institutions in India to assess how they have performed and have attempted to address a set of key functions. It does not, however, purport to provide a comprehensive assessment of every public institution in India. Such an effort would indeed be Herculean and would in all likelihood require a separate book. The discussion here instead is focused on a set of institutions that have a particular significance for the argument of this book dealing with the capacity and efficacy of the Indian state to perform a set of vital functions.4 The first half of the chapter’s discussion will focus on how various entities have sought to assess government performance and probity. The latter issue is of

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.