A COMPARISON OF TWO DEMOCRACIES INDIA & THE US

 A COMPARISON OF TWO DEMOCRACIES

INDIA & THE US

A comparative study of the democracies of India and the United States can be quite enlightening, given the distinct historical, cultural, and institutional differences between the two renowned democratic nations. By exploring some key areas and insights that might help readers in this study, people can gain a nuanced understanding of how democracy functions in India and the US, appreciating both the similarities and differences in their democratic practices and challenges.

Historical context

In 1947, India gained independence from British rule. It adopted a federal parliamentary system of government, with the President as the ceremonial head of State and the Prime Minister as the head of Government. The council of ministers is responsible to the Lok Sabha (House of the People), and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) has an independent judiciary with the Supreme Court at the apex. India's democratic framework is deeply influenced by its diverse cultural and linguistic landscape.

The US declared its independence in 1776 and established a federal presidential democratic system with a strong emphasis on individual rights and federalism. The US Constitution, adopted in 1787, has been a foundational document for its democratic processes. The President is the Head of State and Government, with a Vice President and Cabinet members consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate and an independent judiciary with the Supreme Court at the apex.

Electoral system

In the electoral system, India uses a first-past-the-post system for general elections, which can lead to a disproportionate representation of votes. Elections are held every five years, and the Prime Minister is elected by the majority party or coalition in the Lok Sabha. The US, too, uses a first-past-the-post system for congressional elections but with an Electoral College system for presidential elections. However, each system can lead to a mismatch between the popular and the electoral vote.

Political Parties and Leadership

India features a multi-party system with significant participation of regional parties alongside national parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress. Coalition politics is common in the country. However, the US is dominated by two major parties—the Democratic and the Republican Party. Third parties have historically limited impact on national elections.

Federalism and State Relations

In India, States have significant powers, however, the central government holds the ultimate authority to dissolve any state government and impose the President’s Rule if necessitated displaying a strong power-centralizing tendency. As per the US Constitution, the federal government has limited powers compared to States which enjoy substantial autonomy with their legislatures, executive branches, and judicial systems.

Civil Rights and Freedoms

The Constitution of India equivocally guarantees fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, equality, and protection against discrimination. However, the implementation and protection of these rights may vary. The US Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) guarantees a range of civil liberties, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press. These rights are strongly protected and often stand as a point of national debate.

Judicial Review and Constitutionality

The Supreme Court in India has the power of judicial review to ensure laws and policies comply with the Constitution. This includes reviewing amendments to the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the US also similarly exercises judicial review to ensure that laws and policies align with the Constitution. Landmark cases often shape the interpretation of the Constitution.

Role of Media and Public Opinion

Indian media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion, but issues like media ownership concentration and political influence usually affect its impartiality. Whereas, the US media is highly influential and diverse, with a strong tradition of investigative journalism. However, issues like media polarization and the impact of social media on public opinion are significant.

Challenges and Criticisms

India faces challenges such as deep-rooted corruption, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and social inequality in the disguise of caste systems. The vast diversity, many a time, leads to social tensions and conflicts. The US also struggles to tackle political polarization, campaign finance, and systemic inequalities. The effectiveness of democracy can be affected by these challenges.

Comparative Insights

Both nations uphold democratic values but interpret and implement them differently based on their unique contexts. Each democracy has adapted its institutions to address its challenges and cultural realities, which offers valuable lessons on the flexibility and resilience of democratic systems.

While recalling Abraham Lincoln’s famously defined democracy as ‘government by the people, of the people and for the people’, in principle, it remains true to the spirit. But in practice, it sounds complicated. Let us look at the examples of the world’s two largest democracies–India and the US.

To initiate a discussion on the story, let’s find out who exactly are ‘the people’. The term has had many evolving connotations over the past few centuries, and today, we have come to formally accept it as referring to a voting majority of the adult population of a given democracy.

In 1787, when America started its journey as a pioneering republican democracy, enriched with a written constitution guaranteeing specific rights and liberties to ‘We, the people of America’, the majority of its four million and odd people were not given their rights to vote. Only whites, that too those male property owners, had the right to exercise their franchise.

Women didn’t get their right to vote till 1920, the native Americans had to wait till 1924. The American constitution never allowed the blacks, who were treated as slaves, their right to vote and enjoy equality at par under the law across the country until 1964.

Thus the concept of Lincoln’s democracy of ‘the people’, in the real sense, only evolved in America. The framers of the US Constitution in their atrocious desire to rein in the possibility of sheer tyranny “feared not only the people’s rulers but the people themselves”, wrote Robert A Caro in an open outburst through his best-selling book—The Years Of Lyndon Johnson: Master Of The Senate. This audacious act of indecency happened because the constitution makers came mainly from a highly aristocratic, educated, well-born, and well-to-do background showing the least regard for those unfortunate by birth. They mistrusted all of them who were not similarly privileged.

James Madison, one of the US constitution-makers, became president later (1807-17), looking at the scenario wrote distinctly on the real and supposed differences of interest between the rich and the poor Americans and predicted that in an expanding future democracy, the latter would prevail upon and come to outnumber the former. The constitution framers feared the power of the people and viewed that if they were left unchecked, it could become a tyranny of the majority in a system that ensured majority rule.

As a nation, India’s example was quite similar in one way and significantly different in another. It was the same because its founding fathers, Pt. Nehru, or even Ambedkar, though a Dalit, all came from a well-educated, well-groomed, and privileged class in a poor and largely illiterate country. Indian constitution was framed in an espousing language bound by the soaring ideals that a vast majority of Indians could not even read let alone fathom. In the first decade or two, after January 26, 1950, an elite band of privileged Congress leaders, then the only pan-Indian political entity, governed.

But somehow, India’s experiment with democracy was sharply different from the US. India’s constitution makers magnanimously opted to offer every citizen the solemn right to vote, differing from the US. Magnanimity shown by allowing voting rights to one and all was a constitutional guarantee given because the cries for independence rode on the tsunami of a mass movement under Gandhi’s persuasion which endorsed the people a concept of India’s reality, the equality and liberty for all, that could not be snatched away with the dawn of a new republic by any limited franchise.

Yes, it was in the quest for that reality, which was a mind-boggling ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity of kind never before housed in a single constitutional framework like that of India which practices a fully participatory democracy. By recognizing the creation of states on a linguistic basis, India’s constitution framers confirmed that this country was a coalition of sub-national identities.

Fast forward to the present, ever since 1989 till Modi 3.0 in 2024, no government has adorned the crown in Delhi without the support of regional political satraps. Oh, of course, one party may get an impressive plurality but to govern it will have to depend on the help of groups representing a rich diverse nation.

Today’s deepening democracy aided by rapid mass communication through the Internet, proactive social media, and expanding literacy, has proven, as Madson foresaw centuries ago, that a gradual eclipse of the old elite is a foregone conclusion. No longer can India be run as an oligarchy of the privileged pulling strings from Lutyens enclaves.

It’s a completely different India in comparison to its 1950 stature. New Indian leaders must sincerely figure out how to negotiate with the country’s myriad in-house differences while ensuring that the majority rule doesn’t lead to tyranny.

By Prof. (Dr.) Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya

(The writer is an Emeritus Professor of Management and an independent political analyst)

*Views are personal