CHAPTER 1

DEMOCRACY AND PEACE PROCESS: SOME

THEORETICAL ISSUES

"Trying to understand democracy is like reaching into a black plastic bag. You can feel a farge object, but accurate description is difficult because the shape is extremely complex. In particular, it seems to jet out in two directions. On one side democracy appears as a decision-making method (Schumpeter, 1966) and as a set of political institutions that embody, to varying degrees, certain basic democratic principles, (Dahl, 1989; Beetham, 1999). On the other, we see a revival of the ancient notion of democrac_v as a civic virtue, as a way of life, as a mode of interpersonal conduct oriented to what is good for all. In other words, as an ethical ideal, (Ardent, 1973; Carter, 1973; Putnam, 1992)."

-Ricardo Blaug

1.1 Introduction

This chapter analyses different perspectives on democracy. It tries to explore the

democratic process and its various institutions. Simultaneously the link between

democracy and peace has been explored so that why peace process is necessary to resolve

the problems of democratic discontent can be analysed in a wider framework. Indian

democracy has been scrutinised from various dimensions. The points of view of different

scholars have been taken into account to evaluate the success or failures of Indian

democracy. The democratic discontent prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir has been

explained as one of the outcome of the fundamental paradox of Indian democracy, as

increase in political mobilization in the absence of political institutions has resulted in

insurgency in the state.

20

1.2 Representative Democracy

The common dictionary meaning of 'democracy' appears to be "self-government"

or "rule by the people". Power is derived from the authority of the people. Seymour

Lipset was one of the first commentators to provide a definition of democracy by giving a

special emphasis to procedures. He defines it as a procedure guaranteeing majority rule

and minority rights. Democracy (in a complex society) is defined as a political system

which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials.

It is a social mechanism for the resolution of the problems of societal decision-making

among conflicting interest groups. It permits the largest possible part of the population to

influence these decisions through their ability to choose among alternative contenders for

political office. This definition implies a number of specific conditions: (a) a "political

0 rl fonnula", a system of beliefs legitimizing the democratic system and specifying the units

.....a (::4' like parties, free press and so forth which are legitimized; (b) one set of political leaders -l in office; and (c) one or more sets of leaders, out of office which act as a legitimate f opposition attempting to gain office.'

Henry B. Mayo identifies four principles for a system to be democratic: (1)

Popular control of policymakers (2) Political equality (3) Effectiveness of political

control or political freedoms, and (4) Majority rule. He defines a democratic polity as

"one in which public policies are made on a majority basis, by representatives subject to

effective popular control at periodic elections which are conducted on the principle of

political equality and under conditions of political freedom."2

1 Lipset, Seymour Martin (1959), "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and

Political Legitimacy" American Political Science Review, 53( 1 ): 69-105. :'Mayo, Henry B. (1960), An Introduction to Democratic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

21

While discussing the form of democracy Joseph Schumpeter remarks, "The

democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in

which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the

people's vote." The role of the people in a democracy is to produce a government or else

an intennediate body which in tum will produce a national executive or government. He

says, what distinguishes democracy from other fom1s of government is not what rulers

are supposed to do or how they come to be rulers. The crux of the matter is the selection

of the supreme makers of law and policy. It is easier to discover whether rulers get their

authority by competing for the people's vote than to discover whether they use it to give

effect to the people's will. The competition must, he analyses, be 'free competition for a

free vote' .3 In the opinion of Plamenatz, there is democracy where rulers are politically

responsible to their subjects. There is political responsibility where two conditions hold:

where citizens are free to criticize their rulers and to come together to make demands on

them, to win support for the policies they favour and the beliefs they hold; and where the

supreme makers of law and policy are elected to their offices at free and periodic

elections. The criteria for determining whether these conditions hold are not easily

defined.4

3 Schumpct<:r, Joseph (1950), Capitalism, Socialism and De111ocracy, New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, p. 269. In the Schumpeterian model of democracy, the figure of the politician is not simply a political 'producer' who reacts to existing demand but a political entrepreneur who does not cater to existing demands but creates new demand by supplying new policies. He fulfills a role in the political process similar to that of an orator or statesman in the Aristotelian and sophistic n{)tion of Greek democracy. He has used the analogy of the entrepreneur to iII urn in ate the role of the political leaders in the process of political will-making. According to the concept of the political entrepreneur, politicians in Down's rational (utilitarian) model of democracy are simple 'producers' who satisfy the existing demand. Andras Korosenyi (2005), "Political Representation in leader Democracy", Government and Opposition, 40(3): 358-378. 4 Plamenatz. John (1973), Democracv and Illusion, london: Longman Group ltd.

22

Democratic institutions serve as channels of transmitting and receiving messages

and feedback from the general population and governing dites. Institutions come into

existence as concrete manifestations of needs and desires of the population. David Held

argues that the effective participation ofequally free citizens who engage in public life to

form their likes and preferences, to express reason for supporting one action rather than

another and to debate them in the appropriate public arena constitutes one of the basic

institutional requisites of a democracy.

Further enlightened understanding of the processes and events of the political life

with adequate and equal opportunities along with all the knowledge needed to examine

and affinn their choices on any matter creates another condition for the better functioning

of the political system. Citizens should also have the authority what matters are and are

not on the public agenda, subject to conditions and constraints imposed by the public law.

It also requires that every citizen should be assured that his/her judgement will be

counted as equal in weight to the judgements of other citizens at the decisive moments -of

collective decision making. In addition the political processes should ensure that all

citizens are secured with equal rights in the society along with the right to vote and

contest any post open to the electoral process.5

A measurement of democracy sensitive to the extent of popular control must be

based on principles that lead to higher levels of control. Zehra F. Arat has identified these

as; Participation, inclusiveness, competitiveness and civil liberties:6

Participation - the component of participation includes measure of the extent to which

the popular consent is sought in selecting people for the decision making offices.

5 Held, David ( 1995), Democracy and the Global Order, Cambri-dge: Polity Press, pp. 207-210. 6 Arat, Zehra F. (1999). Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries, Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers. pp. 23-26.

23

Inclusiveness of the process - Even when popular consent is sought in selecting

representatives, the process of selection may still be -closed to segments of the population.

Restrictions may be imposed according to gender, race, education, property etc.

Competitiveness - The competitiveness of the political system refers to the extent to

which the electorate is provided with choice.

Civil liberties or government coerciveness- ~ecause of lack of reliable information on

the extent to which governments recognize and respect civil liberties. Thus, the equation

for measuring democraticness is:

Score of Democraticness = Participation + Inclusiveness + Competitiveness -

Coerciveness

So, if we define democracy as the freedom of the ruled to choose their rulers at

regular intervals, we have a clear definition of the institutional mechanism without which

democracy cannot exist. No popular power can be described as democratic if it has not

been achieved or renewed by an act of free choice. Nor there can be democracy if a

significant proportion of the ruled do not have a 1ight to vote.

1.3 Democracy and Civil Society

Many scholars argue that democracy exists when there is a political space that· can

protect citizens' rights from the omnipotence of the state. So, this definition contradicts

the idea that there can be a direct correlation between people and power. Democracy

exists when the distance between state and private life is recognized and preserved by

political institutions and the law. Democracy, in the views of Alain Touraine is not

24

reducible to procedures because, it represents a set of mediations between a unitary state

and a multiplicity of social actors. The basic rights of individuals must be guaranteed.

\\tbat is more important is that individuals must feel that they are citizens and must

participate in the construction of collective life. 7

He further says, the two worlds of state and civil society must remain separate but

they must also be bound together by the representativity of political leadership. The three

dimensions of democracy- respect for basic rights, citizenship and the representativity of

leaders are complementary. It is their independence that constitutes democracy.

The first requirement of democracy is that rulers should be representatives of the

people. This implies the existence of social actors and of political agents who are

representatives. Moreover, civil society is made up of a plurality of social actors so

democracy cannot be representative unless it is pluralistic. All democrats reject the image

of a homogenous society and agree that the nation is a political figure rather than a social

actor. A political society that does not recognize the plurality of social actors and

relations cannot be democratic, even if the government or party in power insists that it

has the support of the majority.8

The second characteristic of a democratic society is that voters are and regard

themselves as citizens. The freedom to choose rulers is meaningless if the ruled are not

interested in the government and if they feel no sense of belonging to a political society

but merely to a family, a village, a professional category etc. the government is often seen

as belonging to a world that is divorced from the world of ordinary people. As the saying

goes 'they do not live in the same world as vve'.

7 Touraine, Alain (1997), What is Democracy? Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 26-29.

8 Ibid.

y _)

Thirdly, freedom of choice cannot ·exist if there are no limitations on the power of

rulers. Their power must be limited by both the existence of elections and more

concretely by respect for laws within which power can be exercised. In sum, the

representation of interests combined with the limitation of power within a political

society provides the most accurate definition of democracy.

Scholars like Luckham, Goetz and Kaldor have distinguished democratic

institutions from democratic politics.9 The distinction between democratic institutions

and democratic politics parallels the distinction between fonnal or procedural democracy

and substantive democracy which was originally introduced by De Tocquivelle. Formal

democracy refers to institutions, procedures or routines of democratic systems.

Substantive democracy refers to the redistribution of power, the degree to which citizens

can participate in the decisions which affect their lives. 10

This distinction is significant because according to David Beetham even inside

the fonnal structures of democratic institutions, all forms of politics are not democratic.

Democratic politics require not only political contestation but that contestation should

also be tempered by certain basic moral and political principles which include popular

control over governments and political elites and political equality among all citizens.

Democratic institutions have been created to meet many goals like - to enable

participation either directly or through elections, to avoid tyranny by autocratic rulers, to

promote open and fair competition for power on the basis of the popular vote, to ensure

9 Luckham, Robin, Anne Marie Goetz and l\bry Kaldor (2003), "Democratic Institutions and Democratic

Politics" in Sunil Bastan and Robin Luckham (eds.) Can Democracy Be Designed: The Politics Of Institutional Choice In Conflict-Torn Societies. New York: Zed Books. 1° Kaldor, Mary and I. Vejvoda. "Democratization in Central and East European Countries'', International Affairs, 73( I): 59-82.

26

the accountability of governments and to provide a forum for rational discussion of

political problems or conflicting social interests.''

Democratic politics practices aim to hold democratic institutions to their

democratic promise by the following: 12

l) Ensuring open and effective challenges to governments and their policies .through free

and fair elections,

2) Increasing citizens' participation at all levels of political authority,

3) Ensuring fully inclusive citizenship based on respect for gender, cultural and other

differences,

4) Providing accessible procedures through which rights and entitlements can be

guaranteed, and

5) Maximising the accountability and transparency of the holders of political power and

bureaucratic office at all levels of government.

Democratic politics is broader than the processes of political contestation.

Democratic politics thus depends upon a culture of participation, an active civil society, a

pluralistic media, competing political parties etc. through which all citizens can, if they

want to acquire a political voice. It is through democratic politics that governments and

democratic institutions acquire legitimacy and are made accountable to their citizens.

Democratization is not just a process of implanting formal institutions of liberal

democracy, but it's a project of norm creation and cultural change. Democratic

11 Beetham, D. (1994), "Conditions for Democratic Consolidation". Review of African Political Econom_v, 21(60): 157-172. 1:' Ibid.

27

institutions can create incentives for democratic politics. They can also build conditions

to resolve problems of inequality and conflict. 13

Democratic liberalism is a system in which individual and group liberties are well

protected and autonomous spheres of civil society and private life exist. A vigorous civil

society enhances not only accountability but also the representativeness and vitality of

democracy. A dense network of autonomous voluntary associations and mass media is

necessary to scrutinize and check state power. They also enhance legitimacy of

democracy by providing new means to express political interests, by increasing the

political awareness, efficiency and confidence of citizens and recruiting new political

leaders. 14

1.4 Participatory Democracy

Democracy or what Robert Dahl tenns "polyarchy" denotes a system of

government that meets three essential conditions. 15 Meaningful and extensive

competition among individuals and organized groups (especially political parties) for ail

effective positions of government power, at regular intervals and excluding the use of

force; a highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and

policies, at least through regular and fair elections such that no major social group is

13 Arat, Zehra f. (1999), Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries, Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers, pp. 23-26. 14 Diamond, Larry (1990), "The Paradoxes of Democracy", Journal of Democracy, 1(3 ): 48-66. 15 Dahl, Robert (1971), Polyarchy: Participation And Opposition, New Heaven: Yale University Press, pp. 3-20, Jan Srzednicki also points out, the democratic perspectiv.e is: (a) of representative government. of responsive government and (b) the government by the people and the elective government. These express the widespread idea that the political organizations, its leaders and its institutions should be geared towards serving the people and its objective should be to satisfy their wishes and to meet their demands. Srzednicki, Jan ( 1987). The Democratic Perspective. Political and Social Philosophy, The Hague. Netherlands: Martin us Nijhoff Publishers, p 3.

28

excluded; and a level of civil and political liberties freedom of expression, freedom for

the press, freedom to form and join organizations sufficient to ensure the integrity of

political competition and participation.

Different models of democracy have maximised different goals. Broadly, a

distinction can be made between popular or direct models of democracy for which

Athens is the paradigmatic example and liberal representative models for which U.S

Constitution is the reference point. The liberal representative model put far more

emphasis on institutions than the Athenian model. In the liberal model tyranny was to be

avoided by control of the executive assured through the separation of powers. Individual

rights were given primary importance. Citizens enjoyed rights to security, private

property and liberty, but primarily as individuals rather than as members of groups or

communities. 16

Twentieth century democracy brought a contradictory fusion of the institutions of

the liberal state with the politics of participatory democracy. It is the product of the two

overlapping historical revolutions which established 'modem' politics. The first was the

bourgeoisie revolution and second was the political mobilization of the broad mass of

citizens. As Huber and others have argued that, this second democratic revolution not

only increased citizens' involvement in the affairs of the government, but also expanded

the concept of citizenship itself to cover economic, social as well as political

entitlements. It introduced the idea of social democracy not as an alternative system of

16 A rat, Zehra F. ( 1999). Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries, Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers, pp. 23-26.

29

rule to liberal democracy but to ensure the responsiveness of the latter to the demands of

social justice. 17

The degree to which democracy is actualized in a community is not detem1ined

by its formal structures. That structure may or may not be instrumental in realizing the

processes of decision-making that are genuinely participatory. Carl Cohen says, processes

are 'goings-on' and democratic. processes are a certain sort of' goings-on'. This is why he

asserts democracy is never complete, never accomplished. It is a way of doing things and

that way is more or less fully actualized in the doing. Indeed, a healthy democracy will be

constantly experimenting with its fonns to create instruments for promoting more

genuine participation. Democracy is government by the people, in the sense that people

and members of the community participate in the detem1ination of policy for the

community as a whole. Democracy is constituted by participation which makes

democracy possible. 18

1.5 Processes of Democratisation

Fukuyama in his work The End of History and the Last Man says, there are three

historical stages of political development - First stage is of liberal democracy which is

based on consensus politics and a rejection of extremism. It is synonymous with

passionless, low temperate politics where mass politics wiH be marked by possessive

individualism, consumerism, materialism etc. Second stage is of growing sense of mass

alienation, futility, anomie disillusionment, restlessness, loss of identity and individual

pride. In the third stage, people may tum to old style ideologies, conflict and battles. He

li Huber, E., D. Rueschemeyer and J.D. Stephens (1997), "The Paradoxes Of Contemporary Democracy: Formal. Participatory And Social Dimensions", Comparative Politics, 29(3): 232-242. 18 Cohen, Carl (1971 ). Democracy, Georgia: University of Georgia Press. pp. 4-5.

30

further says, by 1990 a worldwide consensus has emerged which considers liberal

democracy as the only legitimate form of government. Liberal democracy is the only

viable alternative in modern world.

The post cold war period has been proclaimed as one signifying the triumph of

liberal democracy and market capitalism to such an extent that he calls it 'the end of

history'. This is because according to him ideological differences have ceased to exist

and the world is well on to the path of attaining Hegel's ideal world where all needs are

satisfied. 19 Liberal democracy would provide consensus politics and reject extremism. It

also provides a viable alternative in conflict situations.

A democracy is a compound of institutions of a modem state and institutions of

mass participation and representation. The creation of a stable and established democracy

is thus the result of two separate processes - modernization of the state and

democratization of participation in goveming the state. The sequence in which countries

develop a modem state and introduce democratic elections has differed radically between

waves of democratization.20

Democratization involves the installation and consolidation of the democratic

regime. It is a complex phenomenon involving various stages and has no standard route.

Samuel Huntington in his celebrated work The Third Wave talks of three reasons why

democratization is important. The first reason is that it enhances freedom of the

19 Fukuyama, Francis (1992), The End Of History And The Last Man, New York: Free Press Maxwell Macmillan International. He says, liberal democracy may constitute the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the final form of human government and as such constitutes the end of history. The last man is essentially the victorious slave who has successfully struggled for freedom and self-esteem. He is pessimistic about present and future spiritual and political well being of citizens. After liberal democracy, there are no big issues to fight for and only possessive individualism, materialism, consumerism and self­absorption will be there in a life that is without passion or struggle. ~0 Rose, Richard and Doh Chull Shin (2001), "Democratization Backwards: The Problem Of Third Wave Democracies", British Journal of Political Science, 31(2): 8-30.

31

individual. Second, it provides for channels of expression of opposition and dissent and

the third reason, which is related to the second one, is its impact on international relations

in the form of democratic peace.21

Countries in the first wave, such as Britain and Sweden became modem states

before introducing competitive elections or before democratizing participation in

governing the state. They established the rule of law, institutions of civil society and

horizontal accountability to aristocratic parliaments first. Democratization followed in

Britain as the government became accountable to Members of the Parliament elected by a

franchise that gradually broadened until universal suffrage was achieved.

Second wave democracies are characterised by the breakdown of the initial

attempt at introducing free elections and later getting success in the second round.

Germany and Austria were modern states by the First World War, but the introduction of

universal suffrage in 1919 was followed by the breakdown of democracy in these

countries. Some second wave democracies showed persistent difficulties in following the

process of democratization. For example after the Second World War, Italy and Greece

introduced new democratic regimes before establishing institutions of a modem state.

Greece subsequently had a military coup and the Italian democracy has been challenged

from both left and right.22

Third wave democracies have begun democratization backwards. Free elections

and accountability of the government to the electorate is introduced before the institutions

21 Huntington. Samuel P. (1991 ), The Third Wave: Democratization In The Late Twentieth Century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pp. 28-30 2 ~ Huber, E .• D. Rueschemeyer and J.D. Stephens (1997). 'The Paradoxes Of Contemporary Democracy: Formal. Participatory And Social Dimensions", Comparatil·e Politics, 29(3): 232-242.

32

of a modem state are fully secured.23 The governors of these new democracies thus face a

double challenge of completing the construction of a modem state while competing with

their critics in free elections. These democracies did not establish basic institutions as the

rule of law and civil society before introducing free elections and they have yet to

complete the process of becoming both modem and democratic states. The Republic of

Korea, the Russian Federation and the Czech Republic have shown democratization

backwards.24

In fact a successful transition and consolidation of democracy takes place when

three interrelated changes are in evidence:

(1) When not significant actors, groups or organizations spend time or resources to create

non-democratic alternatives or advocate separation;

(2) A majority of population believes that democracy is the only way to govern collective

life;

(3) Conflict resolution is done through established laws, procedures and institutions of

d . 25 emocrat1c processes.

23 Elklit Jorgin and Palle Svensson (1997), "What Makes Elections Free And Fair?" Journal of Democracy, 8(3): 32-46. 24 Huber. E., D. Rueschemeyer and J.D. Stephens (1997), "The Paradoxes Of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory And Social Dimensions", Comparative Politics, 29(3): 232-242. Rose and Shin analyze most third wave countries are currently incomplete democracies as they have democratized backwards. Incomplete democracies can develop in three different ways: in completing democratization; in repudiating free elections and turning to an undemocratic alternative; or falling into a low-level equilibrium trap in which the inadequacies of elites are matched by low popular demands and expectations. 25 Ruthermend, Diet mar ( 1997), "Conflict As A Challenge To Legitimacy: A Historical Perspective" in S.K. Mitra and Dietmar Ruhermund (eds.) Legitimacy and Conflict in South Asia, New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, p.I2

33

1.6 Democracy and Peace

The presence of short-lived governments is taken as evidence of poor

performance in democracies and in other systems as well. Political order means the

absence of tunnoil and violence and the maintenam:e of the basic forms of the democratic

regime. G. Bingham opines that almost all regimes and certainly the democratic ones

seek to limit violence and disorder. Widespread violence is generally accepted as a sign

of failure of the democratic process. 26

Democracies have a very special relationship to political conflict. Most other

types of regimes either forbid any expressions of serious disagreement or allow them

only through very powerful leaders. Legitimate efforts to influence policy by those who

are outside the ruling circle are limited to petitions and suggestions.27

The norms of peaceful co-existence among democracies can be traced to

Immanuel Kant who enunciated liberal peace in his book Perpetual Peace in 1795.

Peaceful ways of resolving conflicts domestically are seen as morally superior to violent

behaviour and this view has been transferred to international relations between

democracies. He envisioned a world peace rooted in democratic processes through the

implementation of three definitive articles. First, he says democratic constitutional

governments would usher in moral autonomy of individuals' representative governments

"6 PowelL G. Bingham JR (1982), Contemporary Democracies, Participation. Stability And Violence,

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 12-21. ='

7 Ibid, p. 13. Powell corroborates that 'democracy from this perspective is a gamble that discontent can be channeled through the legitimate electoral channels. An outbreak of serious collective violence in a democratic society is manifest evidence that the regime is not performing well'.

34

and separation of powers with an appropriate balance between individual freedom and

social order. It will establish internally peaceful sovereign polities.28

The second argument envisages a pacific union of sovereign polities desirous of

maintaining and perpetuating the peace. Perhaps they could enter into non-aggression

pacts to strengthen peace among them. The pacific union will gradually expand to cover

the entire group of democratic states. The third article calls for a common law among

states in order to ensure a mutually advantageous policy of honouring the rights of the

foreigners. It implies rights and duties which must be accepted if people are to learn to

tolerate each other's company and to exist peacefully. Kant argues that perpetual peace

will be guaranteed by the ever widening acceptance of these three articles of peace.

A culture of peace is intimately linked with a culture of human rights and

democracy. Peace cannot be preserved if the basic rights and fundamental freedoms of

individuals or groups are violated and where discrimination and exclusion generate

conflict. Therefore, the protection of human rights and the promotion of a culture of

democracy which imply the formation of well informed, democratically minded and

responsible citizens, become important elements in the construction of internal and

international peace. 29

Initiation of peace becomes necessary in conflict ridden situations to create a

sustainable peace environment. The term sustainable peace refers to a situation

characterised by the absence of physical violence; the elimination of unacceptable

political, economic and cultural forms of discrimination; a high level of internal and

~ 8 Doyle, Michael W. (1983 ), "Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs", Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3 ): 205-35. "9 Rotferd, Adam Daniel and Janusz Symonides (1998), "Introduction: A Cooperative Security System and

a Culture of Peace" in Peace. Security and Conflict Prevention, SIPRI - UNESCO Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 6-9.

35

external legitimacy and support and a propensity to enhance the constructive

c . f n· 3o transtormahon o con 1cts.

The most important pre-condition for establishing a sustainable peace is the

presence of an effective communication, consultation and negotiation system at different

levels and between the major stakeholders. Further, the establishment of a series of peace

enhancing structures are necessary for sustainable peace. First of these structures is the

establishment of a consolidated democracy second, is an effective justice system, third is

a social, free market system and fourth structure is the education, information and

• • 31 commumcation system.

An important distinction should be made between negative and positive peace.

Negative peace simply denotes the absence of war. An alternative view to this realist or

real politik perspective is one that emphasizes the importance of positive peace. Positive

peace is more than the mere absence of war or even absence of inter-state violence. :It

refers to a social condition in which exploitation is minimized or eliminated. There is

neither overt violence nor the more subtle phenomena of underlying structural violence.32

Negative peace is thus a more conservative goal as it seeks to keep things as they

are (if the waris not taking place), where as positive peace is more active and bolder as it

implies the creation of something that does not cun·ently exist Supporters of positive

peace uniformly agree that a repressive society, even if it is not at war should be

considered 'at peace' that tolerates outbreaks of domestic violence on a widespread level,

despite an absence of violent conflict with other nations, is really not at peace with itself

30 Reychler, Luc (2001), "From Conflict to Sustainable Peace Building" in Luc Reychler and Thania Paffenholz (eds.) Peacebuilding: A Field Guide, Boulder. Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers, pp. 3-15. 31 Ibid. 3

" Barash, David P. and Charles P. Webel, eds. (2002), Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp.6-9.

36

Positive peace is not a static state but a dynamically conceived mm of

international and national communities. The indispensable values on which a positive

peace can be built are- justice, human rights, democracy, development, non-violence and

a peaceful resolution of conflicts.33

The former Secretary General of United Nations, Boutros Boutros Ghali rightly

said, 'a culture of democracy is a culture of peace'. The mere existence of political

processes and institutions is not enough to sustain their strength and vitality. Norms of

democrf}tic culture are necessary for their successful working. The strength and longevity

of democratic institutions depend crucially on the civic culture.34

Building a robust civil society is therefore postulated as a pre-condition for

democratization and democratic consolidation. In fact the correlation between 'civil

society' and democracy may be spurious as both the phenomena are being shaped by

deeper social processes related to modernization and individualism. 35

Atul Kohli is of the opinion that introduction of democracy to a developing

country exacerbates political conflicts over the short to medium tenn. Extrapolating from

western experience, they expect democracy to be a solution to existing rather than a

source of new power conflicts. In the west, democracy evolved over a long time. Political

competition and suffrage expanded slowly within the framework of centralized authority

33 Ibid. Many cultural and spiritual traditions have identified political and social goals that are closer to positive peace than negative peace. The ancient Greek concept of eireinei denotes harmony and justice as well as peace. Similarly, the Arabic salaam and the Hebrew shalom connote not only the absence of violence but also the presence of well being, wholeness and harmony within oneself, and among all nations and peoples. The Sanskrit word shanty refers to not only peace but also to spiritual tranquility, just as Chinese noun Peng denotes harmony and the achievement of unity from diversity. In Russian the word mir means peace, a village community and the entire world. 3-1 Diamond, Larry (1990), "The Paradoxes of Democracy", Journal of Democracy, 1{3 ): 48-66. 35 Sardamov, lvelin (2005), "Civil Society and the Limits of Democratic As~istance" Government and Opposition, 40(3), 379-4{)2.

37

structures at the apex and growing pressures from below. So, in this sense democracy in

the west was indeed a solution to growing power conflicts in society.36

By contrast, democracy to most developing countries comes as 'imported' ideas.

He says, as these ideas are translated into democratic institutions of follower democracies

which provide new incentives for political actors to organize and mobilize, the results

over the short to medium terms are often disquieting. So, expansionary political pressures

are inherent to the design of follower democracies and will need to be accommodated.

This suggests that for strengthening developing country democracies, institutions

that genuinely devolve political and economic power will remain a pre-requisite. A

central political tendency in follower democracies will be towards the emergence of two

track polities. A democratic track will emerge in the sphere of society and polity

especially in the electoral politics and a not so democratic track in the state sphere,

especially in the areas of economic policy making. 37

The political society of many follower democracies is thus increasingly

characterized by 'too much democracy' i.e. by a variety of political, class and ethnic

conflicts.

By contrast, the state in these settings increasingly insulates itself from social

demands and conflicts and thus exhibits 'not enough democracy'. It will be necessary to

bridge the gap between 'too much' and 'not enough' democracy before these follower

democracies become institutionalized with effective political systems. Creation of new

36 Kohli, Atul (1997), "On Sources of Social and Political Conflicts in Follower Democracies" in Axel Hadenius (ed.) Democracy's Victory and Crisis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71-80. 37 Ibid. Atul Kohli says, western political models have spread to the non-west and British colonialism has left behind the legacy of democracy in several colonies. Rapid introduction of democracy has a disquieting impact on established social and cultural patterns. The spread of democratic politics undermines the authority of traditional elites. As a reaction, some groups attempt to regroup again thus it gives rise to a variety of 'reactionary movements'. In sum, as imported political models and indigenous cultural conditions interact and adapt to each other, political turbulence is ought to be expected.

38

institutions would be required that systematically devolve political and economic power

to bridge this gap.

Leaders in these settings mobilize socio-economic groups more as power

resources in intra-elite struggles and less to satisfy group aspirations. There can be

emergence of mobilized but unorganized groups that are ignored by politicians once they

have served their political purposes. This mobilization from above often attracts

demagogues who utilize populist, nationalist and etimic appeals to bolster their position

and tend to generate political turmoil periodically.38

Democracy has fared better in India, and the most important reason for this is that,

India was helped by a prolonged nationalist movement. This movement generated a

unifying ideology and patterns of organization that facilitated the formation of a national,

hegemonic political party. The emergence of the 'Congress System' after independence

had provided both the organizational pull and the rallying symbols and metaphors that

legitimized the national enterprise in the eyes of diverse populations.39 It provided a

variety of entry points for both existing and emergent groups and interests. The Indian

National Congress provided the modus operandi of the Indian enterprise in nation-

building and the 'network' through which the Indian nation reverberated.

Democracy was the most generalized ideological component of Indian polity at

the time of its emergence as a nation-state. The anti-colonial struggle was seen as a

democratic struggle and the post-colonial future was seen in terms of a democratic polity.

38 Kohli, Atul (1997), "On Sources of Social and Political Conflicts in Follower Democracies" in Axel Haden ius (ed.) Democracy's Victory and Crisis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71-80. 39 Kothari, Rajni (1989), Politics And The People, New Delhi: Ajanta Publications, pp. 501-512. Rajni Kothari calls the emergence of the Congress Party after independence as the 'Congress System' since the Congress Party carried forward a wide ranging civilizational diversity in a single national framework. Such a system did not allow the growth of alternative political forces because the Congress represented alternative views within itself and had a method of reconciling them within its organizational framework.

39

Sumit Sarkar emphasizes the role of the Indians in shaping their own versiOn of

democracy. The British had introduced some electoral politics but hey resisted mass adult

suffrage. Adult franchise was eventually pushed forward by Indian nationalist leaders

. who were working closely with politicised Indian masses.40

Crafting a unified nationalist movement also forced Indian leaders to develop

conceptions of 'unity in diversity' that eventually led to a federal structure. To counter

the colonial 'divide and rule' politics they crafted a pragmatic, political secularism to

provide symmetrical treatment to various religious conununities. He analyses two broad

political tendencies over the first half of the twentieth century. On the one hand he

notices, some Indian leaders argued for full adult franchise, political equality for a variety

of religious communities, genuine federalism and decentralization of power.41

On the other hand, there was a significant dissent from this position which was

marked by silences on issues of adult suffrage, overtones of pro-Hindu religious politics

and a preference for a unitary, centralized state. This position preferred a more limited

democracy. These early divisions among the Indian elite led Sarkar to suggest that there

may be an elective affinity in India for democracy, secularism and federalism.

Indian democracy was also helped by the fact that Indian political society in this

early phase was not that mobilized. Elite versus mass conflict in India in these decades

was minimal. These conflicts were successfully accommodated by a federal system

which recognized linguistic communities as legitimate political components .

. Institutions and practices of democracy found considerable acceptance during the

first phase from 1950s to late 1960s, which was dominated by Nehru. India benefited in

40 Sarkar. Sum it (2001 ). "Indian Democracy: The Historical Inheritance" in Atul Kohli (ed.) The Success of

india's Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23-46. 41 Ibid.

40

this phase from the presence of two very impotiant institutions - a well functioning civil

service and a popular ruling party, the Indian National Congress.42

In the second phase between the 1970s and the 1980s, numerous new elites

entered the political arena to challenge the Congress's hold on power. Indian politics,

during this phase became considerably more turbulent. After Congress's popularity

declined in the second half of the 1960s, Indira Gandhi recreated the Congress during the

1970s and the 80s as a much more populist and personalistic organ. Kohli says,

personalistic power simultaneously created a viable political centre but weakened

institutional polities.43

Identity based mobilizations statied coming up. These mobilizations were based

on language (like anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu and conflict between the Assamese

and the Bengalis in Assam), religion (as demand for Punjabi Suba) or region (as in the

'sons of the soil' movement in Maharashtra). These mobilizations took various forms like

movements for greater autonomy or statehood, mobilizations by the backward classes and

movements related to tribal identity. Ethnic conflict in Punjab and Assam was at the fore

front of Indian politics in the 1980s, while the north-east and Jammu and Kashmir have

remained more continuously troubied.44

Atul Kohli has interpreted the proliferation of political mobilization as too much

of wrong kind of democracy. He says Indian democracy is characterised by weakening of

political institutions, concentration and personalization of political power and politics and

popular mobilization without adequate resources. The gap between economic capability

~~ Kohli. Atul (2001 ), "Introduction·· in Atul Kohli (ed.) The Success of India "s Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 6-11 . . n Ibid. 44

Jayal. Neerja Go pal (2001 ). '"Introduction" in Neerja Gopal Jayal ( ed.) Democracy in India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 24-30.

41

and political capability undermines Indian democracy. There is ever increasing popular

awareness and diminishing avenues to participate effectively in the politics with growing

accumulation of power in fewer and fewer hands. This leads to disjuncture between

popular expectations from the polity and its capacity to deliver on those expectations.

The weakening of state institutions, unable to accommodate and manage these conflicting

demands has led to a crisis of govemability.45

Similarly, Larry Diamond considers India as an unstable transitional democracy

because of the regime instability, rampant corruption, deep seated poverty, inequality and

endemic violence.46

The third and current phase which began around 1990s has been characterised by

a variety of national level political experiments to fend a substitute for the old Congress

Party rule, especially by the emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party {BJP) and other

regional parties. This phase of Indian politics has been characterised by considerable

governmental instability.47

In recent years, the logic of democratisation has, along with other factors provided

some counter weight to the centralisation of power. Niija Gopal has identified three such

counter weights.48 The first of these is the federalization of polity which resulted in the

gradual erosion of what Rajni Kothari called 'the Congress System' and the emergence of

regional parties as strong forces. By participation in government or lending critical

~ 5 Kohli. Atul (1990), Democracy and Discontent: India's Growing Crisis of Governability, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 385. 46

Diamond, Larry (1999), Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. p. I 25. 47

Kohli, Atul (2001 ), "Introduction" in Atul Kohli (ed.) The Success of India's Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 6-11. 48 Jayal, Neerja Gopal (2001), "Introduction" in Neetja Gopal Jayal (ed.) Democracy in India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 24-30.

42

political support, these pmiies have drawn attention to the regional imbalances

engendered by the centralized model of development planning.

A second democratization factor has been the revival by the 73rd and the 74th

constitutional amendments of the Panchayati Raj System. These amendments have

sought to revitalize the democratic element in local govemment by making regular

elections to the panchayats mandatory. It devolved greater decision-making power to

these bodies to determine local development priorities and allocate resources accordingly.

A third factor has been the emergence of environmental and other movements,

protesting against the dominant strategy of development. Through such movements

people have begun to demand a voice in the choice and location of development projects.

Recent years have witnessed the emergence of two trends; multitude of social movements

and the political assertions of the historically disadvantaged lower castes, primarily the

dalits and other backward classes. The newer social movements emerged as to defend

human rights and civil liberties, to protect environment, to uplift women's position in

society or to defend tribal culture etc.

The political assertions of the historically disadvantaged castes in the 1990s have

partly linked to the implementation of the Mandai Commission Report. Their rise for the

first time seriously questions upper caste domination of the public sphere. Christophe

Jafferelot says, for the first time lower caste people have started to vote en masse for

leaders belonging to their own milieu. It means that political class is changing with the

replacement of an upper caste oligarchy by rather plebeian newcomers.49 This silent

revolution has probably opened the second age of Indian democracy as the 'second

49 Jaffrelot Christophe (2000), "The Rise of Other Backward Classes in the Hindi Belt", The Journal of Asian Studies, 59(1 ): 87-107.

43

democratic revolution' convincingly argued by Yogendra Yadav. He further says, 'the

expression OBC has travelled a long way from a rather careless bureaucratic

nomenclature in the document of the constitution to a vibrant and subjectively

experienced political community'. 50

Many scholars have observed that these developments have contributed to the

deepening of Indian democracy. Myron Weiner points out that Indian democracy has

proved too inclusive which has accommodated members of lower and middle castes into

the political system. 51 By drawing the caste system into its web of organization, Kothari

says, politics finds material for its articulation and moulds it into its own design. In

making politics their sphere of activity, caste and kin groups get a chance to assert their

identity and to strive for positions.52

Democracy has been linked to development and good governance also. Without

doubt, both development and democracy were integral to the modernizing project of the

Indian state at the time of independence. India, which adopted the strategy of

industrialization led by the public sector and based on import substitution, maintained a

very modest but consistent rate of growth. India's performance has however been dismal

in the area of human development as compared to Sub-Saharan Africa. 53

50 Yadav, Yogendra (1997), "Reconfiguration in Indian Politics: State Assembly Elections 1993-1995" in Partha Chattergee ( ed.) State and Politics in India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177-207. 51 Weiner, Myron (2001), "The Struggle for Equality: Caste in Indian Politics" in Atul Kohli (ed.) The Success of India's Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-225. 52 Kothari, Rajni (1970), "Introduction" in Rajni Kothari (ed.) Caste in Indian Politics, New Delhi: Orient Longman, pp. 3-17. 53 Dreze, Jean and Amartya Sen (1995), India: Economic Del'e!opment and Social Opportunity, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.30-32. Dreze and Sen have noted that. despite India's relative political stability and democratic record. economic and social inequalities including gender inequality are more acute in India than in Sub-Saharan Africa. They have also shown in their findings that famines do not occur in democracies that suggest that competitive politics and I iberal rights and freedoms do at least facilitate public action against the most extreme expressions of human deprivation. Thus empirically linking democracy and development. Dreze, Jean and Amartya Sen (1989). Hunger and Public Action, Oxford: World Institute for Development Economics Research.

44

Current discourses on democratic governance in India have reflected the

broadening of the sphere of the market, on the one hand and the increase of the non-

governmental sector's activity. The new definitions of governance that have emerged in

recent years include not merely institutions of national government but also of local and

global governance. Institutions of local government (such as panchayats); civil society

organizations (ranging from social movements to NGOs, and from cooperatives to civic

associations); and private corporations as well as other market institutions are all relevant

actors in the new lexicon of governance. Governance is no longer simply equated with

civil service reform or with the application of management strategies devised in the

private sector, to public organizations. Instead there is now a greater emphasis on

participation, decentralization, accountability and governmental responsiveness. 54

The importance of civil society in India is intimately linked to the future of

democracy. One of the most important tasks of civil society in India is arguably to bridge

the gap between democracy in the formal structure of governance and the absence of the

necessary conditions for the realization of democracy.55

Ayesha Jalal has suggested a distinction between formal and substantive

democracy. Substantive democracy refers to the existence of citizens as 'active agents

capable of pursuing their interests with a measure of autonomy from entrenched

structures of dominance and privilege'. Formal democracy refers to a set of genuine

guarantees regarding political rights. 56

54 Jayal, Nirja Gopal and Sudha Pai (2001 ). "Introduction" in Ni1ja Gopal Jayal and Sudha Pai (ed.)

Democratic Governance in India, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 9-11. 55 Ibid. 56 Jalal, Ayesha (1995), Democracy and Awhoritarianism in South Asia. New Delhi: Foundation Books, pp.3-7.

45

The proponents of a substantive definition of democracy argue that the

democratic project is incomplete until the meaningful exercise of the equal rights of the

citizenship have been guaranteed to all. On this account, free and fair elections, freedom

of speech and expression and the rule of law and protection to all are necessary, but by no

means sufficient conditions for a democracy to be meaningful. The project of democracy

is not accomplished by merely securing legal and political equality. It may be severely

compromised by inequalities of wealth, power and social status which deny many from

having a truly equal opportunity to influence government decisions.57

Democracy therefore should not be seen as confined to the sphere of state and

government, but also as the principle governing collective life in society. Nitja Gopal

opines that those who view Indian democracy from the procedural perspective find it to

be the world's largest democracy which has successfully voted out corrupt or repressive

regimes. But to those who view it from the substantive perspective, find it a poor

candidate for that. 58

Pratap Bhanu Mehta argues that the experience of democracy in India has opened

up numerous points of dissent, new conflicts of values and identities and a pem1anent

antagonism of meaning and interest. This gives a sense to its citizens that the Indian

society is flying off in many directions at once and the unity of all reference points seem

to vanish. 59

He says the great discontent of Indian democracy is that while the practices of

popular authorized elections, public discussion and so forth are deeply entrenched, we are

far from producing modes of governance that we could freely accept.

57 JayaL Neerja Gopal (2001), "Introduction" in Neerja Gopal Jayal (ed.) Democracy in India, Oxford: 9xford University Press, pp-3-4. '8 Ibid.

59 Mehta, Pratap Bhanu (2003), The Burden o(Democracy, New Delhi: Penguin Books, pp.3-40.

46

However, democracy's biggest triumph is that it has proven to be an effective -

perhaps the 9nly mechanism for holding India together. Democracy has both brought out

conflicts into the open and provided an effective mechanism for accommodating them.

India has worked not because of 'unity in diversity' but because we are 'diverse in our

unities', thus each one is able to imagine the connection with others in his/her own way.

Ashutosh Varshney also holds the same view, that despite of poverty, widespread

illiteracy and deeply hierarchical social structures, which are impediments to democracy,

India has been successfully maintaining its democratic institutions.60

Sunil Khilnani says, in India the idea of democracy has released prodigious

energies of creation and destruction. Within a very short time, India has moved from

being a society in which the state had a distant profile, limited responsibilities and a few

had access to it, to one where state responsibilities have swollen and every one can

imagine exercising some influence upon it.61

Lloyd and Susan Rudolph have argued that the Indian state is a 'third actor' (in

addition to capital and labour) and that its command over public authority as well as

economic resources makes it possible for the state to be a self-determining entity, acting

its own interests even as it is subject to and constrained by demands from a variety of

social groups. This, they conclude, makes it simultaneously a 'weak-strong' state.62

Over the years, Bhikhu Parekh observes, India has broadened and deepened its

political structure to accommodate new social groups and aspirations and has moved

60 Varshney, Ashutosh ( 1998). "Why Democracy Survives", Journal of Democracy, 9(3): 36-50. Anirudha Gupta also mentions that despite all the stress and violence, the democratic ethos and institutions of post­independent India have not only survived but taken root. This-constitutes a conundrum which ahs not been seen elsewhere. An impossibly fragmented society, driven by innumerable castes. tribes and communities, pulling and clashing against each other, suffer violence sometimes on limited single issues or sometimes in periodic conflict is yet united and governed largely though not efficiently by democratic means. Anirudha Gupta, "India: Democracy and Dissent" Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 53, No. I, 2000. pp. 181-88. 61

Khilnani, Sunil (1997), The Idea of India, London: Hamilton, pp.57-59. 62

Rudolph, Lloyd and Sussane Rudolph (1987), In Pursuit of Lakshrni: The Political Economv of the Indian State. New Delhi: Orient Longman.

47

towards a participatory democracy. Still, he says, India's success has been shadowed by

its failures also. The institutions of the state have become haHowed out. The flabby and

porous state is increasingly at the mercy of pressure groups, sectional interests and selfish

and short-sighted politicians. Corruption in its crude fonn continues to distort India's

I. . I 1· fi 63 po 1hca 1 e.

As new classes and social groups constantly enter political life, they need to be

inducted into the democratic, political culture. India therefore, he says, needs to develop a

national consensus around the ground rules and basic norms of political life.

According to Sumit Ganguly, insurgency in Kashmir is the result of a

fundamental paradox of Indian Democracy. Kashmir represents both the mobilization

success and simultaneously the institutional failure of Indian democracy .... and it is in

this dichotomy, the increase in political mobilization against a background of institutional

decay that best explains the origins of the secessionist insurgency. For Ganguly,

Huntington's thesis that social mobilization and a consequently increased level of

political participation unless accompanied by robust political institutions, breeds political

instability, clearly explains the case of J & K 64.

Ganguly underlines the phenomenal growth in literacy rates and ranks of the

educated unemployed youth whose political aspirations were choked off by the decaying

political institution in the valley. The process of decay of political institutions in Kashmir

precedes Mrs Gandhi's leadership. According to him the singular political tragedy of

63 Parekh. Bhikhu (200 I), "A Political Audit of Independent India", The Round Table. 90(362): 70 I -709. 64 Ganguly,Sumit (l997),The Crisis Of Kashmir: Patents Of War, Hopes Of Peace, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 182. He argues that given dramatic expansion literacy and media exposure, a generation ofKashmiris has now emerged that is far more conscious of its political rights and priveleges. This generation is also most likely aware of political development well beyond the valley of Kashmir and is far more politically sophisticated and knowledgable than previous generations of Kashmiris. Ganguly's thesis of increased participation and the absence of solid political institutions resulting in a political decay, holds true so far as the valley is concerned.

48

Kashmir politics was the longstanding failure of the local and national political

leaderships to permit the development of an honest political opposition. Second, the

insurgency was a result of the ethno-religious mobilization that took place in Kashmir.

He argues that Pakistan sensing an opportunity to weaken India's hold on

Kashmir funded, trained and organised a loose unstructured movement that the

insurgency was, into an organised enterprise directed towards challenging the writ of the

Indian state in Kashmir. Third, he contents that the insurgency was due to the failure of

the central political leadership in India which saw demands for political autonomy as

incipient move towards secession which ultimately drove the Kashmiri's towards more

extreme fonns of political expression. He argues that the flawed 1987 elections and

dismal performance of the Farooq Government in attending to people's problems and the

violence that the valley saw in 1988 exacerbated the situation and led to the beginnings of

insurgency from 198 9.

The strategy which Ganguly finally suggests to the Indian state as workable for

bringing an end to insurgency in the valley is that of negotiating with the insurgents and

offering them a time-bound cease-fire arrangement. He concedes that the Indian state

initiated negotiations in 1994-96. The talks did not progress as the insurgents could

neither agree on their core demands nor on the means of achieving them. He argues that

Government should strive to build trust and confidence among the insurgents which can

be done unilaterally also. Sumit Ganguly has analyzed that due to failure of political

institutions to channelize the aspirations of the people there is rise in discontent among

people which resulted in the instigation of insurgency in the valley. In order to solve the

crisis he has suggested that there should be negotiation and talks with the insurgents.

49

However Ganguly's argument is linked to the Indo-Pak dimension of the Kashmir

conflict and he does not address the Jammu and Ladakh factor at all. He also does not

take into account the deep divide between Kashmiri muslims and Kashmiri pandits that

emerged in 1990's 65

Democratic discontent prevailing in J & K is the outcome of erosion of

democratic norms in the state. Democratic institutions in the form of participation of

people in decision making machinery of the Government, providing opposition to the

Govemment and devolution of grass root level of democracy were never allowed to grow

there. At times democratically elected leaders of the state were removed through the

Central Government's intervention and democratic movements were suppressed which

increased the political vacuum between the people and the Central Government. Rising

political demands were not accommodated within an institutional framework which

resulted in the political violence.

Dialogue and peace processes are necessary in conflict ridden situations so that

democratic norms can be established to preserve the basic rights or fundamental freedom

of individuals or groups. Intra-state and Inter-state conflicts can be negotiated through

dialogue which in tum would promote culture of democracy. To establish sustainable

peace there should be effective communication, consultation and negotiation system at

different levels and between the major stakeholders. Peace process in J & K has been

started to restore the democratic norms in the state. Major stakeholders of the state have

been invited by the Government for talk. Central Govemment has invited all Kashmiri

65 Behera. Navnita Chaddha, Demystifying Kashmir. Washington,D.C.: Pearson Longman 2007, end notes.

50

militant organisations and the Hurriyat Conference for a dialogue without any pre-

condition. Views of different groups in valley, Jammu & Ladakh are taking into account.

1. 7 Conclusion

This chapter discussed vanous perspectives towards democracy. I began by

critically assessing representative democracy and the processes of democratization. I

argued in this chapter that dominant 'aggregative' conceptions of democracy, which

focus on voting and election procedures, were found inadequate by many scholars.

Instead a new 'deliberative' model of democracy has been given preference. This model

emphasizes that democracy must involve discussion on an equal and inclusive basis

which operates to deepen the participants' knowledge of issues. It looks to transform

peoples' preferences and attitudes through open and inclusive discussion in which

. . d d l 66 partiCipants are accor e equa respect.

The recent developments in the Indian polity reflect a growing preoccupation with

many paradoxes, as Myron Weiner has called 'the Indian paradox'. Though there is

sustenance of democratic political system, there has been erosion of authority that links

the core and the periphery. There has been mobilization of many groups leading to over-

politicization of society without the requisite institutional mechanisms to satisfy their

demands.67

Establishment of democratic norms which ensure protection of human rights, free

and fair elections , participation of people in decision making process are only possible in

a sustainable peace environment .Sustainable peace refers to a situation which is

66 Saward, Michael (2001) "Restructuring Democracy: Current Thinking and New Directions",

Government and Opposition, 36(4): 559-82. 67

Sandhu, Rajinder Singh and Ranjit Singh Mann (2005), "India's Discorded Democracy: A Crisis of Govemability" in Gopal Singh and Ramesh K. Chandran (eds.) South Asia Today, New Delhi: Anamika Publishers, pp. 370-379.

51

characterised by the absence of physical violence, high level of internal and external

legitimacy and a propensity to enhance the constructive transformation of conflicts. So

democratic norms can be well protected in a sustainable peace environment .Processes of

democratisation will include participation of people in decision making, protection of

individual and group liberties and accountability of the government.

Alienation in Jammu and Kashmir and discontent among people have been the

outcome of erosion of democratic norms in the state. Poor record of democracy in Jammu

and Kashmir is characterised by constant rigging of elections , lack of participatory

democracy , various forms of intervention by the central government and lack of

protection of civil liberties . Sumit Ganguly has analyzed that the roots of insurgency in

Kashmir is due to the lack of political institutions to express the aspirations of the people,

so there is a need to build trust and confidence among the insurgents through negotiation

to solve the crisis. Substantive democracy will. be incomplete until the meaningful

exercise of the equal rights of the citizenship have been guaranteed to all . Therefore a

sustainable peace process is necessary to resolve the problems of democratic discontent

prevailing in the state .

The next chapter is going to overview the historical genesis of the democratic

discontent prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir.

52