**********************************************************************************

PSIR PREVIOUS YEARS’ Q&A – POLITICS OF REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 2. Examine the comparative advantage of democracy and autocracy in restraining violence. Do
you think that autocratic societies are more prone to political violence? Illustrate your answer
with a comparative study of a few societies. (2009/II/Q.4/60m)

Answer: Democracy is a political system where majority rules. Autocracy is a political system where
one person governs. Political violence is violence used to achieve political goals. Democracies and
autocracies have variable relations with political violence.

Democracy a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state,
typically through elected representatives. Citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives
from among themselves to form a governing body (such as a parliament). Political competition is
regarded as the main trait of a democracy. Key elements of democracy, as per Larry Diamond,
consist of (1) political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair
elections; (2) active participation of the citizens; (3) protection of the human rights; and (4) rule of
law. Etymology – ‘demos’ (Greek) meaning ‘people’ and ‘kratos’ (Greek) meaning ‘power’ or
‘authority’. Examples - ancient Greece, USA, India, England, France, Italy, Poland etc.

Autocracy is a system of government in which absolute or supreme power is concentrated in the

hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized
mechanisms of popular control. Features: (1) initially perceived with grandeur and power, with
expectation of fostering "lack of conflicts of interests"; (2) strong military; (3) media control; (4)
faster system (5) (often) power misuse; (6) leadership is inherited or usurped by force; (7) resistance
manifests as mass revolution, coup d'état, etc. Its main historical forms are (1) absolute monarchy
and (2) dictatorship. Other aliases are absolutism, monocracy, autarchy; and negative connotations
are totalitarianism, despotism, tyranny, kleptocracy, fascism, Nazism, Führerprinzip, dystopia etc.
Etymology - ‘auto’ (English) meaning ‘self’ and ‘kratos’ (Greek) meaning ‘power’ or ‘authority’.
Examples - many erstwhile empires, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Oman, U.A.E.
etc.

Political violence is a broad term used to describe violence (hostile or aggressive acts) perpetrated
by either persons or governments to achieve political objectives (e.g. affecting desired change in the
government or society). Many governments use violence to (1) intimidate the population, (2) defend
against external and internal threats, (3) to coerce other governments or (4) conquer territory. Types
of political violence include: (1) violence between non-state actors (e.g. ethnic and regional
conflicts); (2) one-sided violence by non-state actors (e.g. terrorism, guerrilla warfare, insurgency,
extremism); (3) one-sided violence by the state (e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture, capital
punishment, police brutality, induced famine, curfew); (4) violence between a state and non-state
actor (e.g. rebellion, rioting, revolution, civil war, counter-insurgency); (5) violence between states
(e.g. direct and proxy wars.) The absence of political violence is envisioned in utopian states, along
with complete human fulfilment and eradication of social evils. e.g. More’s ‘Utopia’ island; Platonic
philosopher king’s rule; Marxian communist society; Augustine’s ‘City of God’; Campanella’s ‘The
City of the Sun’; Bacon’s ‘New Atlantis’; Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’; Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’;
socialist doctrines by Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, Cabet etc.
Democracy’s advantages regarding political violence: (1) Democratic regimes, by allowing political
competition and participation diffuse political violence. (2) Democratic institutions provide peaceful
channels for resolving political conflict. (3) Democratic government’s legally constrained response to
political violence is often seen as more legitimate. (4) Democratic socio-economic development
fosters peaceful interactions.

Democracy’s disadvantages regarding political violence: (1) Political violence is most likely where
opportunities to organize exist and ineffective institutional channels provide the motivation - as in
many democracies. E.g. non-state parties seeking territorial autonomy (e.g. IRA of Northern Ireland,
separatists of northeast India); opportunistic actors with narrow objectives (e.g. separatists in
Eastern Ukraine). Mostly these are due to centralised polity favouring majority (e.g. conflict in Sri
Lanka) and democracies seldom outlawing political groups (exception – illegitimately functioning
Baader-Meinhof, Germany). (2) The process of democratization is often violent. E.g. Britain after
Glorious Revolution, France after French Revolution, India after its freedom struggle against
colonisation etc. (3) Democracies can be vulnerable to transnational terrorism (e.g. 9/11 attacks in
USA, terrorism in India) and mass demonstrations (e.g. anti-austerity protests in Greece, Red Shirt
protests in Thailand).

(4) Democracies that are victims of political violence may curtail certain freedoms in order to
increase security (surveillance state). However, such actions may erode democracy and contribute to
greater political violence, due to suppression of opposition. (5) Internal conflict seems more in
developing democracies than in high-income ones. e.g. India, Sri Lanka and Colombia versus Europe.
It may be fuelled by democratic deficiencies — including corruption, weaker legal systems,
ineffective bureaucracies and electoral irregularities. (6) Semi-democracies - when democratically
elected get autocratic power – see more violence. e.g. South Africa, Israel, many African nations.
These facilitate the use of violence to gain and maintain office.

Autocracy and political violence dynamics: (1) Although autocratic repression may be effective in
the short-run, it tends to increase discontent in the long-run. e.g. Syria. (2) In middle-income
authoritarian systems, with educated but unemployed urban youth, conflict over the nature of the
political system is dominant. (3) Autocracies stifle political violence but fail at grassroot poverty
reduction. e.g. China, North Korea, Zimbabwe etc.

Study of political violence in a few autocratic societies: (1) Roman Empire (27 BC): Ruled by
emperors. Initially, Rome was peaceful and prosperous, until the dictatorial 160s A.D. Then, 300s
A.D. saw invasions as well as economic decline. Eventually, the empire was politically split into two.
One half (Western Roman Empire) fell in 476 after civic unrest, further economic decline, and
invasions. (2) Aztec Empire: A military powerhouse, in Mesoamerica. The Aztec Emperor was the
ruler, military commander and religious figurehead. He drove the Empire's aggressive foreign policy
and used to sacrifice captured prisoners-of-war. (3) Mongol Empire: This autocratic monarchy grew
under Emperor Genghis Khan, who carrying out widespread invasions and capturing major areas of
Asia and Europe. They were notorious for their war atrocities and killings. (4) Tokugawa Shogunate:
Medieval Japan was mired in political violence - skirmishes between warring clans and rulers.
Tokugawa seized power through tactics and diplomacy. His Shogunate controlled all aspects of life
and closed the borders of Japan (policy of isolationism).

(5) Tsarist and Imperial Russia: Tsar Ivan (‘Ivan the Terrible’) established dominance and expanded
his kingdom’s borders. The military enforced his rule. It is said that Ivan established the autocratic
nature in Russia that continues today. (6) Soviet Union: Joseph Stalin's rule, as visible during Cold
War, precipitated much political violence for maintaining Soviet’s superpower status, e.g. class-
based violence, purges, executions, deportations, suppressing civil unrests etc. But later, as
Gorbachev’s policies gave vent to simmering civilian angst, the Soviet disintegrated and splintered
into Russia and other nations. (7) Russian Federation: Arguably, President Vladimir Putin's
prolonged rule is labelled sternly autocratic. His regime is characterised by economic liberalism, a
lack of transparency in governance, cronyism, nepotism, pervasive corruption and military-security
establishment controlling much of the political and financial power. Many accuse Putin of
“dismantlement of democracy and suppression of human rights.”

(8) Nazi Germany: With the change of government from a patriarchy (House of Hohenzollern), to a
democratic republic, political unrest ensued. With class fluidity, from sudden fall of authority, new
political voices emerged. Many rioted. The Nazis, under Adolf Hitler, took advantage of the civil
unrest to seize power through propaganda and Hitler’s charismatic speeches. They began to restrict
civil liberties. With a combination of cooperation and intimidation, they systematically weakened all
opposition, transforming into a fascist dictatorship. Nazis massacred Jews and were aggressive in
World War II. (9) China: Earlier, ruled by imperialist dynasties, more recently, by a single communist
party. State perpetrates political violence through internet and media censorship; silencing of civil
unrest by force (e.g. Tiananmen Square protests); incessant territorial disputes etc. Chinese
authorities detest "three evils": terrorism, separatism, and religious fundamentalism, such as
conflicts involving Tibetans and Xinjiang Uyghurs. Simultaneously, China has had fast economic
growth, a strong military and quick governance.

Comparative study of democracy versus autocracy, w.r.t. political violence shows: (1) Democracies
provide slow but sustainable peace, while authoritarians provide quick but temporary peace. (2)
Unlike autocracies, democracies are held accountable - so expected to safeguard citizenry. Hence,
have to put more effort to contain political violence, especially terrorism, insurgency, civil wars etc.
(3) Democracies have to act more responsible than autocracies, having to maintain legitimacy.
Democracies are expected to protect individual rights and act through the legal system, so have to
respond with restrained, calculated and reasonable steps while dealing with politically violent actors.
(4) Oxford professor Paul Collier argues that: (i) authoritarianism can be good for growth, especially
in homogeneous societies (e.g. South Korea, which democratised under dictators’ policies). (ii) In
ethnically diverse societies, only democracy can work for growth, as autocratic leaders with a narrow
support base syphon off national income. That explains why diverse India has democracy-led
growth.

(5) Research shows that democratic governments experience more transnational terrorism than
other governments. (6) Rebel groups fighting democracies in civil wars are known to target civilians
more often than those fighting non-democracies. (7) Armed conflicts tend to last longer in
democracies than in non-democracies, possibly because counter-insurgency efforts are less brutal
and hence less effective. (8) Well-established democracies experience considerably less political
violence than non-democracies. E.g. France or Japan. i.e., lesser domestic terrorism, internal armed
conflicts and civil wars. Rare conflicts (e.g. Basque event) have fewer casualties.

Conclusion: The relationship between regime type and political violence is complicated. Both
democracies and autocracies are prone to political violence and cope with it in their own ways.
Democracies provide slow but sustainable peace, while autocracies provide quick but temporary
peace.

**********************************************************************************
Qn. 7. Party system in India is neither western nor indigenous. Explain. (2014/II/Q.1a/10m)

Answer: Party system refers to the set of all the significant parties in a country, their interactions
and (sometimes) the electoral system and voter loyalties that produce it. Party system in India has
evolved as a hybrid, with neither purely Indian characteristics, nor western.

Party system in India, being neither western nor indigenous, can be studied by comparing its
features: (1) One party dominance: Although Indian polity accommodates a multi-party system,
often a single party has dominated. This seems counter to the plural character of India. Also, it is
different from the two-party systems of Britain and USA, and the multi-party model in most of
western Europe (e.g. in France, Italy etc). In India, the Congress, which was a nationalist movement
pre-independence, emerged post-independence as a dominant political party. Morris Jones
described the Indian party system as a ‘one party dominance’ system. Rajni Kothari called it the
‘Congress System’. Recently BJP has dominated. (2) Multi-party system: With the disintegration of
the Congress system, the Indian party system blossomed into multiple parties. By 2016, India has
recognised 7 national parties (Congress, BJP, BSP, CPI, CPI-M, NCP and All India Trinamool Congress)
and 49 state parties. Many others await recognition and function under the radar. The west does not
witness such multiplicity. (3) Emergence of regional politics: In India, major pan-India parties have
been losing strength and influence, which was gained by regional parties. These parties articulate
and seek to defend a regionally-based ethnic or religious-cultural identity. Thus, rose DMK and
AIADMK in Tamil Nadu; the Shiromani Akali Dal in Punjab; Asom Gana Parishad in Assam; National
Conference in Jammu & Kashmir; and Shiv Sena in Maharashtra.

(4) Lack of strong opposition: India lacks a strongly-oriented, well-organised opposition party –
which is essential for the success of parliamentary democracy. The opposition is meant to compel it
the government to improve by highlighting its flaws. Opposition in India is more interested in
delegitimising the ruling party. (5) Personality cult: Indian party system flourishes under charismatic
leaders. When a party ceases to have such a personality, it starts declining. e.g. J. Nehru and I.
Gandhi for Congress; S. P. Mukherjee for Jan Sangh; R. M. Lohia for socialist forces; C.
Rajagopalachari for Swatantra Party; A. B. Vajpayee and N. D. Modi for BJP etc. (6) The use of extra-
constitutional means to power: Political parties frequently try to exploit political or social
dissatisfaction. Instead of focusing on electioneering and campaigning, they deviate towards such
extra-constitutional means as civil disobedience, mass demonstrations, strikes, protest rallies and
even violence to negatively affect the party in power.

(7) Lack of ideological commitment: Parties in India generally become ‘catch-all’ and issue-oriented,
lacking disciplined commitment to any ideology. e.g. National Front Government at the centre was
issue-oriented and gained support from the extreme left (CPI (M)) to the extreme right (BJP). Since
1971, elections have been steered by issue-politics. (8) Factionalism: Factional leaders compete with
each other and build patron-client relations with various groups. Such alliances being non-ideological
and dynamic, keep the parties in a state of flux. (9) Communalism and Casteism: India with its
unique religious plurality and various social stratifications, often witnesses communal and caste-
based factors influence politics.

Conclusion: Indian party system has evolved to suit contexts post-independence. In contemporary
times, developing India stands as a mix of diversities and complexities. Its party system remained
neither a blind replication of the west nor purely indigenous in character.
**********************************************************************************

Qn. Are the pressure groups in India in a position to fully protect or promote the interests of their
members? (2015/II/Q.1c/10m)

Answer: Pressure groups are a manifestation of group behaviour. In India, as per the context, motive
and opportunity, various pressure groups operate.

Pressure groups are forms of organisations, which exert pressure on the political or administrative
system of a country to extract benefits out of it and to advance their own interests. These are
political actors and sometimes also referred to as civil society organisations, interest groups or
catalytic groups. Genesis of pressure groups: Pressure groups have been in existence in different
forms ever since governmental machinery assumed both welfare role and discretionary authority.
They took more concrete form in the wake of the industrial revolution and market-oriented
economies. In India, pressure groups germinate and function as per their context.

Types and operations of pressure groups in India are mainly: (1) Business groups: most prominent,
organised, resource-backed and effective groups in India. They exert varied kinds of pressures -
trying to influence planning, licensing bodies and economic ministries. Businesspersons are present
in legislatures; every ministry has some business representation or committee; before making
budget, the finance ministry takes inputs from them. e.g. Confederation of Indian Industry, FICCI,
ASSOCHAM, All India Manufacturer’s Organisation, All India Exporters’ Organisation etc.; (2) Trade
unions: were present prior independence and have developed since. Communist movement fuelled
their growth. When required can be strongly vocal and militant in their actions. They often have links
with political parties. They are well recognized and exert significant pressure in policy formulation.
Through strikes and demonstrations, they have been able to achieve changes in wage structure etc.
Encourage class consciousness and solidarity among workers. Were active when PSU disinvestments
were done. Despite ideological differences, internal splits, external pressures, lack of international
backing etc., they remain strong. e.g. AITUC, INTUC, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, United Trade Union
Congress, Hind Mazdoor Parishad, All India Bank Employee Association, Centre of Indian Trade
Union, National Federation etc.; (3) Professional groups function in a similar way. e.g. Bar Council of
India, Dental Council of India, Association of Engineers etc.

(4) Agrarian or peasant organisations flourished after the abolition of Zamindari System and
implementation of Panchayati Raj, land reform measures and Green Revolution. Mainly organised
on territorial basis. Many are linked with parties, while some remain non-political. Their demands
relate to procurement prices of agricultural products, fertiliser subsidy, tenancy rights, electricity
charges, etc. They have been substantially successful. e.g. All India Kisan Sabha (1936), Bharatiya
Kisan Sangh, Hind Kisan Panchayat, United Kisan Sabha etc.; (5) Student associations: acted both
pre- and post-independence. Many are affiliated with political parties. They try to pressurise
governmental policy on various crucial issues (not just confined to educational issues). They are a
major force of social mobilisation and change. e.g. All Bengal Students Association (1928), All India
Students Federation (1936), JNU Students’ Union, All India Students' Association, National Students’
Union of India, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Youth Congress, Janata Yuva Morcha, All Assam
Students’ Union etc. Similarly, India also has teachers' associations.; (6) Women organisations work
for emancipation, upliftment and empowerment of women. Have influenced government actions.
They are becoming increasingly influential in modern times. Anti-Dowry Council, Women Welfare
Sabhas, Nari Sudhar Sabhas, Mahila Mandals, Women Liberation Organisations etc.;
(7) Caste groups are most politically significant as India has immense social stratifications. They spur
debates, articulate specific interests and influence legislations. Major determinants of electoral and
voting behaviour. e.g. Scheduled Castes Federations, Jat Sabha, Aggarwal Sabha, Gujjar Sabha,
Vanniyakul Kshatriya Sangam, Marwari Association, Harijan Sevak Sangh etc. (8) Religious groups
garner massive legitimacy in India as religious sentiments are intense. Also, traditionally multi-
religious India has many groups. Majority-religion groups have ridden elections to power. Minority
groups enjoy protections under the Constitution. Many parties in power also resort to minority
appeasement. Shiv Sena, RSS, Arya Samaj, Jamaat-e-Islami, Brahmin Sabha, Parsi Association, Anglo-
Indian Christian Association, Chief Khalsa Diwan etc.; (9) Linguistic groups seek recognition, language
development, protection and other benefits in governance. Many groups were behind the
formations of states on lingual basis. Tamil Sangh, Anjuman Urdu Taraqqi, Hindi Protection Parishad,
Punjabi Sahit Sabhas, Sahitya Sammelan etc.;

(10) Tribal-regional groups pursue their specific interests. e.g. United Mizo Federal Organisation,
Tribal Sangh of Assam, Naga National Council, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, National Social Council of
Nagaland, Tribal National Volunteers etc.; (11) Anomic pressure groups – are formed spontaneously,
through riots, demonstrations, assassinations etc. Depending on the cause, some of them flourish.
They have been significant for administrative and law-&-order agencies. They emerge & dissolve as
per circumstances or for a specific purpose. e.g. anti-dowry and anti-sati groups, Naxalite groups,
United Liberation Front of Assam, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front etc.; (12) Ideology-based
groups occupy political space, as per their magnitude and cause. e.g. Chipko movement; Narmada
Bachao movement, Gandhi Peace Foundation etc.

Features of Indian pressure groups: (1) interest-based; (2) (most groups) lack alignment with any
single party; (3) use party platform to articulate and fulfil interests; (4) presence of political party
sponsored pressure groups (e.g. Congress-Youth Congress, Bhartiya Janata Party-Akhil Bhartiya
Vidhjarthi Parisad etc.); (5) resulting out of increasing competition for resources; (6) Employ both
traditional methods (caste and religious solidarities) and modern means (lobbying, using
government machinery); (7) check on politics (e.g. regarding MRPT Act or land reforms); (8) transient
(e.g. anti-sati, anti-dowry groups etc.); (9) use direct action (e.g. bandh, strikes, fasts, chakka-jams,
gheraos etc.); (10) shift from negative to positive (e.g. from preventing nationalization to
participating in law-making).

Functioning of pressure groups in India: In general, their influence is growing. These groups not only
act as interest articulators but also as educators of public opinion. Mass media, internet and growing
awareness and affluence among youth help them garner support. Negative aspect: many groups (1)
are organised around religious, ethnic or regional interests, (2) do not have autonomous existence,
(3) are unsustainable, unstable, short-lived and lack resources and commitment, (4) shift loyalties
with political situations, (5) resort to unconstitutional means (e.g. Naxalite movement) and (6)
influence policy implementation rather than formulation, (7) politicise trivial issues, hampering
socio-economic development etc. These not only waste resources and opportunities, but also divert
attention from critical issues.

Conclusion: Considering India’s complex profile, pressure groups remain integral. They have
protected their respective interests but to varying degrees. As most modern political parties adopt
catch-all strategies, it reduces the chance of groups being neglected. Need is to sort and prioritise
issues which would ensure healthy and balanced development.
**********************************************************************************

Qn. 10. Comment on the decline of political parties and examine whether new social movements
shall be an alternate strategy for establishing link between government and society.
(2016/II/Q.1b/10m)

Answer: Political parties are organisations seeking government office. New social movements are
group phenomenon articulating specific post-materialist interests. In the modern age, changing roles
of political parties and social movements can be linked.

A political party is an organised group with similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to
influence public policy, by getting its candidates elected to public office. Decline of political parties
principally stems from the evidence of their decline as agents of representation and as effective links
between the government and the people. Reasons can be (1) Parties are viewed as political
professionals, pursuing power, high office and corruption, and not ‘of the people’ and (2) real or
perceived oligarchical character (being viewed as bureaucratised political machines, with grassroot
members inactive or engaged in impotent roles), and (3) traditional social identities which gave birth
to the parties have begun to fade in a globalising world (e.g. decline of class-politics, old social,
religious and other solidarities).

A ‘crisis of party politics’ can be witnessed in decline of both party membership and partisanship
(reflected in partisan de-alignment). Research suggests (1) lesser proportion of people join political
parties, (2) average age of party member has risen, (3) voter turnout is falling, (4) dramatic electoral
swings etc. Many herald ‘anti-politics’ - the rise of political movements and organisations, solely as
apathy towards conventional power holders. The emergence of these new phenomena is also
reflected in the rise of new social movements.

New social movements are labelled to select collective actions that emerged and flourished since
the 1960s, in the West, and 1970s, in the East. These were facilitated by globalisation and fuelled by
information and communication technology. These mainly include: (1) the women’s movement
(pursue gender equality and anti-patriarchy, including equal pay and opportunities etc.) (2) the
environmental (or green) movement (advocating valuing and conservation of the environment, as
per recognition of its fragility and deterioration by anthropogenic factors), (3) peace movement
(shunning violence and promoting compassion), (4) anti-capitalist or anti-globalisation movements
(such as ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement, 2011 and ‘battle of Seattle’, 1999) – these involve
environmental, developmental, ethnic-nationalist, anarchist and revolutionary socialist groups, inter
alia.

New social movements as alternate strategy: Complex, modern societies are difficult to govern.
Cynicism and disillusionment grow as parties promise improvement and problem-solving but fail to
deliver when in government power. This adds to the growing influence of interest groups. Plus, with
fading social identities and old solidarities, new aspirations and sensibilities have come into the
agenda – notably those associated with post-materialism (as projected by new social movements).

Even when these new social movements articulate their interests through party organisation, they
assume the mantle of anti-party parties. In addition, single issue based protest movements are
successfully attracting membership and support (particularly youth), as they are (1) more loosely
based, (2) localised, (3) emphasise participation and (4) encourage activism. Information and
communication technology has accelerated awareness, organisation and social mobilisation. It has
been witnessed in the Arab Spring chain-reaction, western anti-capitalist protests and even women
rights, anti-corruption and environmental movements in India.

Conclusion: In the modern globalising world, traditional political party functioning has been
inadequate. Thus, these new social movements and single-issue groups may well be gradually taking
over the role of traditional political parties – articulating, needs, aspirations and goals of the
electorate – i.e. linking government and society.

**********************************************************************************