Democracy in South Asia: Getting beyond the Structure-Agency Dichotomy
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00461.x |
| Published date | 01 March 2004 |
| Author | Andrew Wyatt,Katharine Adeney |
| Date | 01 March 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Democracy in South Asia: Getting
beyond the Structure–Agency
Dichotomy
Katharine Adeney
Balliol College, University of Oxford
Andrew Wyatt
University of Bristol
With reference to South Asia, we argue that recourse to the conventional structuralist and tran-
sition accounts of democratisation sustains an unhelpful dichotomy. Those approaches tend
towards either determinism or agent-driven contingency. In contrast, an alternative approach that
recognises the relevance of both structure and agency is proposed. In certain circumstances, human
agency opens up the possibility of the relatively rapid transformation of structures. In particular,
there are periods of political openness when structures are malleable, and individuals, or individ-
uals acting collectively, are able to reshape structures. Decolonisation both constituted a moment
of transition and opened up the possibility of structural change in the context of enhanced elite
agency. For the purposes of comparison, the discussion covers the three cases of India, Pakistan
and Sri Lanka. Particular attention is drawn to political parties and the structure of ethnic diver-
sity as leading explanatory variables.
Democratisation in former colonial states has been patchy. Unusually, India and
Sri Lanka have maintained and consolidated a democratic system of government,
though neither achieved this feat with an unblemished record. In India, Indira
Gandhi suspended the democratic process during the internal Emergency of
1975–77. Sri Lanka has maintained its democracy since independence, but the
long-running civil war has damaged the political infrastructure. India has also wit-
nessed ethnic violence between the centre and the ‘periphery’. However, India and
Sri Lanka, when compared with most states in Africa and in South-East Asia, and
in South Asia itself, have been successful democracies. Across most of India, democ-
racy has consolidated, so that, in the words of Linz and Stepan, democracy has
become ‘the only game in town’ (1996, p. 5). Similarly, democracy has consoli-
dated in the Sri Lankan Sinhala heartland, though the character of the constitu-
tion remains contested. India has not managed to reduce inequalities between its
citizens, the majority of whom still live on the land and are illiterate and poor.
Although we accept the normative view that democratic development is incom-
plete and that the autonomy of citizens needs expanding in South Asia, we recog-
nise that liberal representative democracy is a worthwhile goal in spite of its failure
to eliminate socio-economic inequality. In India, the expanding circle of democra-
tic participation since independence has transformed the character of politics as
previously subordinate groups have gained a voice (Varshney, 2000).
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2004 VOL 52, 1–18
© Political Studies Association, 2004.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
2KATHARINE ADENEY AND ANDREW WYATT
Despite problems, both India and Sri Lanka contrast radically with the case of
Pakistan. Pakistan has experienced periods of procedural democracy in which
national elections were held (1971–77, 1988–99 and 2002–). Yet democratic con-
solidation has remained elusive, and Pakistanis have never had an opportunity to
vote a government out of office.1Each of the post-1988 civilian governments was
removed from office, and caretaker administrations installed pending fresh elec-
tions, at the behest of senior figures in the military. In 1999, General Pervez
Musharraf deposed Prime Minister Sharif in an outright coup, and the 2002 elec-
tions were carefully controlled. Yet Pakistan ostensibly possesses the same colonial
legacy as India and Sri Lanka, inhabiting the same geographical area and facing
similar challenges of state, nation and economic construction.
South Asian countries have therefore differed widely in their democratic develop-
ment and consolidation. However, the focus in this paper will be on the transition
to democracy. We will focus on a ‘critical juncture’ – decolonisation – as a factor
that enabled elite agency. Therefore, we will only consider the states that experi-
enced this common critical juncture – India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. In explaining
the outcomes, we will give an account of the contribution made by elite actors
during this period of political change. However, we will argue that the outcomes
were not simply the result of contingent events shaped by the intentions of key
political leaders. We will examine the extent to which structures constrained or
enabled elite agency during this period. We will argue that the extent to which
political parties were integrated with society was a key structural factor enabling
leaders to shape political outcomes and rise above other significant structural
factors such as class that could have inhibited the emergence of democracy. We
will also note that the structure of ethnic diversity was a particular challenge during
the process of democratic transition.
The Qualified Relevance of Economic, Cultural and
External Factors
Comparative works on democratisation have tended to treat Asia, and especially
South Asia, as a place apart. Huntington (1993) included Pakistan in his discus-
sion of the ‘third wave’ of democratisation, but India and Sri Lanka democratised
well before then. More recently, attention has focused on East Asian democratisa-
tion and the relationship between the state, market and civil society. Even those
more sophisticated modernisation theorists who have included South Asia within
their variables – Vanhanen being the most explicit – still leave some questions
unanswered; for example, India only becomes democratic according to Vanhanen’s
model when the party system fragments (1997, pp. 141–5). Classic modernisation
theories that correlate prosperity and democracy cannot account for India and Sri
Lanka. Similarly, there appears to be little correlation between periods of economic
growth and democratic consolidation within Pakistan (which has had higher
growth figures than India for much of the period since 1947).
Cultural and external variables have been used to explain differential democratic
development in South Asia (Huntington, 1993; Jalal, 1995). Although we contend
that these emphases are frequently misplaced, we will consider the influence of
culture and external factors before we turn to the main thrust of the argument.
To continue reading
Request your trial