Parliamentary Democracy in South Asia: A Regional Comparative Perspective

India is the most populous democracy and largest developing country with a democratic system. It is interesting to note that India, surrounded by non-democratic regimes in the region, belongs to a small group of developing countries, such as Malaysia, Sri Lanka (highly questionable in the wake of the recent Tamil crisis), and some Caribbean countries where parliamentary democracy has so far been successful. Most of the Third World part of the globe is dominated by military regimes or civil-military coalitions. This is what happened in a number of young nations of Asia and Africa which having adopted, upon achieving independence, the Westminster model of democracy, had to experience varying levels of military intervention and erosion of democracy. 1 It is hard to deny that India's most remarkable political achievement has been to maintain for over three decades the world's largest democracy. The record is more remarkable in view of the appalling problems of low economic development, sharp differences in income, mass poverty, illiteracy, ethnic antagonism, and absence of any linguist ic unity. 2 Such a situation is not in conformity with a democratic system which the government should rest on the active consensus of those who were governed. As an essential condition for the stability of democracy, mostly economic factors, 3 high degree of education 4 sense of identification 5 , and a relatively small nation or a gradual historical change 6 are mentioned. But all these interpretations do not at all fit the Indian situation; they are without explanatory force. However, when one turns to neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh for comparative illumination, the Indian puzzle grows. Though these countries match closely to India in a number of ways relating to history, colonial experience and post-independence problems, yet they have experienced frequent military interventions. In sharp contrast to India these two partitioned states of Pakistan and Bangladesh have—except for brief spells in each 1947-58 and 1971-77 and 1972-75 and 1976-79—essentially been under military rule. The persistent praetorion traditions of Pakistan 7 and Bangladesh indicate that the armed forces have attained not only a fairly entrenched position in the political structure of the respective countries, but it has beeomc extremely difficult to combine this position with the recognition of civilian political forces within any generally acceptable constitutional framework. Therefore, the consolidation of parliamentary democracy in India, despite numerous difficulties in the way of its survival, represent a unique case in South Asia as well as in the Third World. This article seeks to explain this phenomenon of remarkable combination of political stability and orderly political development within a South Asian regional comparative perspective which has often been called Indian “Political Miracle.†8 While in mid-1965 pervasive violence and instability in the domestic politics of developing countries was endemic, (for example, Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda became victims of military coups) the Indian political system could successfully stem political decay and instability in India. This article attempts to explain the relationship between the political democratic traditions, level of political institutionalization role of dominant party, and political leadership and democracy.