Parliaments in India: Is There Order Midst the Chaos
By Dean E. McHenry, Jr. Claremont Graduate University
A paper prepared for presentation at the Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 9, 2007.
Parliaments in India: Is There Order Midst the Chaos By Dean E. McHenry, Jr. Claremont Graduate University
Abstract
Indian parliaments, both at the center and in the states, are characterized by repeated disruptions that appear to interfere with their ability to serve as forums for the translation of public sentiment into public policy. The question asked is "How can India be considered 'the world's largest democracy' when parliamentary institutions appear dysfunctional " Both the parliamentary chaos and the democratic attribution are described. Then, the "chaos" is assessed. What we find is that much of the disruption actually has some democratic content—apparently enough to off-set the negative consequences it engenders. The implications of this finding are several: Disruptive activities may have both functional and dysfunctional impacts. The critical factors determining the nature of their impacts on democracy appear related to both the nature of the activities and the context within which they take place. Contextual factors like the culture, history, and demography of the country appear to be significant determinants of the effect of disruptive activities on democracy in India.
I. The Problem The puzzle addressed in this paper is the contradiction between what many scholars consider a requisite of democracy and the practical experiences of India. The requisite is the presence of a legislature where thoughtful debate among elected representatives produces public policy. That requisite (premise #1) and a widely made observation (premise #2) lead logically to the conclusion that India is not a democracy: 1. If the legislatures of a country do not function properly, then that country is not a democracy. 2. India's legislatures do not function properly. Therefore, India is not a democracy. This conclusion, though, contradicts the widely held belief that India is the world's largest democracy. The objective of this paper is to describe and resolve this puzzle. In order to accomplish this task, we will: (1) Present evidence to show that the nondisruption of parliament is widely viewed as a requisite of democracy; (2) describe the disruption of India's parliaments to show its forms and prevalence; (3) describe the scholarly studies that indicate India practices democracy; (4) describe the concerns of India that parliamentary disruptions may be undermining Indian democracy; (5) assess the forms of disruption to determine whether they have democratic content; and, (6)

下一页