Demo - lokniti Mehta Shreyas Sardesai, Dhananjay Kumar Singh and Anuradha Singh. We would also like to

Lokniti: Programme for Comparative Democracy Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)

29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054 India

A Report by Lokniti

centre for thestudy of developingsocieties

Democracyin India

A C i t i z e n s’ Pe r s p e c t i v e

Copyright ©2015

Published by

Designed and Printed by

Lokniti - Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)

Saphire Printers Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer

The material in this publication is copyrighted. No part of this report can be reproduced either

on paper or electronic media without permission in writing from CSDS. Request for permission

to reproduce any part of the report may be sent to CSDS.

Usage of Information

Forwarding/copy/using in publications without approval from CSDS will be considered as

infringement of intellectual property rights.

29 Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi -110054 Phone: +91-11-23942199 Fax : +91-11-23943450Email: [email protected] Website: www.csds.in

[email protected]

centre for thestudy of developingsocieties

Programme for Comparative Democracy

Principal Investigators

Sanjay Kumar

Suhas Palshikar

Sandeep Shastri

Analysis & Report Writing

Jyoti Mishra

Kinjal Sampat

l

l

l

l

l

Research Support

Vibha Attri

Himanshu Bhattacharya

Pranav Gupta

KAQA Hilal

Kanchan Malhotra

Nitin Mehta

Shreyas Sardesai

Anuradha Singh

Dhananjay Kumar Singh

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

TEAM

Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens’ Perspective III

CONTENTS

Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens’ Perspective V

List of Tables and Graphs

Introduction

Chapter 2. Political Participation

Chapter 3. Trust in Institutions

APPENDICES

Chapter 1. State of Democracy in India: Support, Orientation and Meaning

1. Method Note

2. Questionnaire

3. Indices

4. Basic Findings

Conclusion

Chapter 4. Governance

Acknowledgements

VII-VIII

IX-X

1-8

9-28

29-50

51-74

75-100

101-110

111-118

119-146

147-149

150-206

Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens’ Perspective VII


Page No.

Political orientations over time

Participation in electoral and non-electoral activities

Political Participation and Political Orientation

Marginalized sections avoid approaching Police and Courts more thannon-advantaged sections

Social background and orientationSocial background and Political orientation Essential characteristics of democracy - Welfare and Ensuring Freedom Political orientation and essential characteristics of democracy Essential characteristic of democracy and economic class

Participation of social groups in various electoral and non-electoral activitiesParticipation in various political activities by Age

Participation in electoral and non-electoral activities andpreference for Political RegimesCivic participation and preference for regime type Civic participation is more effective than other kinds ofparticipation for preferring democratic regimeHigh trust versus No trustGeneral trust in institutions by socio-economic statusTrust in various institutions by socio-economic status, 2013Trust in institutions and Orientation towards political regimePerception of corruption influences level of trust

Objective and subjective Exclusion across socio-economic groupsExclusion and Orientation towards political regimesOrientation, exclusion and preference for regime typeClass and major issues that need redressalApproaches to get effective and speedy services from government officesPerception of improvement in health services morepositive in urban than rural areas Experience, Economic class and Expectations

TableTable No.

Page No.

1.1

2.1

2.4

3.6

1.21.31.41.51.6

2.2

2.3

2.5

2.62.7 3.13.23.3 3.43.5

4.14.24.34.44.54.6

4.7

13 18 202425 263538 3940 41

48

585959626370

818384868996

99

47

Sampling Framework Number of Investigators in each StateRepresentativeness

115117118

A1A2A3

VIII Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)Democracy in India: A Citizens’ Perspective


Page No.Figure

Figure No.

Page No.

1.11.21.31.41.51.62.12.2

2.32.42.52.62.7

2.82.9

3.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.84.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.94.104.114.124.134.144.15

Satisfaction with democracy overtimeFunnel of Democracy – breadth and depth of support for itVote efficacy and orientationIndex of DemocracyPolyvocality of democracyEssential characteristic of democracy and political orientationExtent of participation in electoral and non-electoral activitiesOptimism towards individual and collective financial betterment lead to active participationBelief in government's effectiveness leads to active participation in political activitiesPessimism about government's effectiveness and Preference for regime type Optimism about family's future economic condition and Preference for regime typeOptimism about India's future economic condition and Preference for regime typePreference for authoritarian regime least among those who prefer citizens' participation in civic issues Willingness for civic participation encourages preference for democratic regime Pessimism about government's effectiveness prompts one to takedirect part in decision makingTrust in Popular Institutions Trust in Non-elected InstitutionsHigh Trust in various institutions by political orientationReasons for avoiding interaction with Police and Courts Perception of corruption in Police and Court and levels of trust Experience in dealing with police and level of trust Experience with police results in them being perceived as more corrupt Does police discriminate: popular perception People's political orientation and their expectations from the state Exclusion and political orientationMost important issue to be addressed by Government Issue of basic amenities is more important for excluded people Optimism-Pessimism and Orientation towards political regimesDistance of nearest Healthcare Centre and Public School Reasons for approaching and avoiding Government hospitalsReasons behind people's preference for government schools and private schoolsChoice vs. No choice for accessChoice, Choicelessness and Government hospitalsReasons for choosing Private schoolsPeople living in urban areas more satisfied with Govt. schools than those in rural areasStrong desire among people for public funding of Govt. hospitals and schoolsDesire for public funding of education greater among those who assess it poorlyPrevious experience at public health centres determines likelihood of going again

1415172223273642 4344444546

4749 5757616567686971798285868891919293939496979898

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Report Democracy in India: A Citizens' Perspective tries to assess people's understanding

and perception towards democracy. The present study is part of the State of Democracy in

South Asia (SDSA) round II and covers five countries of the region- Bangladesh, India, Nepal,

Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The first round of the SDSA was a benchmark study (SDSA I) as it completed

a first ever cross-country empirical study within the South Asia region. It aimed at assessing

democracy and its functioning, regime preference and governance issues. The SDSA I survey was

conducted in 2005 and a report based on it was published by Oxford University Press in 2008. After

SDSA I, many political events have taken place that have changed the course of democracy as well as

the lives of citizens. With this in view, Lokniti, CSDS initiated the second round of SDSA, in

collaboration with colleagues from partner countries in 2011. SDSA II not only helps to understand

how the changes that have taken place at the macro level have impacted the socio-economic and

political conditions of the citizens at the macro level in the five countries, but also offers an

opportunity to understand complex relationships between them. SDSA II covers various themes such

as people's opinion on their household economic condition as well as the country's economic

condition, role of state in service delivery and citizen security, people's interest in politics and the

extent of their participation in political activities and people's opinion on relations with neighbouring

countries.

The present study covered 22 states of India and all major states were included in the study.

Conducting fieldwork for an extensive study like SDSA survey was not an easy task. Therefore, in

order to undertake the fieldwork, field investigators were recruited from various universities

and colleges across selected states. In order to provide the finer details of fieldwork to the field

investigators, training workshops were organized in these states. The training workshops and

fieldwork of this survey was coordinated by scholars from the Lokniti Network: E. Venkatesu

(Andhra Pradesh), Subhrajeet Konwar (Assam), Rakesh Ranjan (Bihar), Anupama Saxena

(Chhattisgarh), Biswajit Mohanty (Delhi), Bhanu Parmar (Gujarat), Kushal Pal (Haryana),

Ramesh Chauhan (Himachal Pradesh), Gul Mohammad Wani (Jammu & Kashmir), Harishwar

Dayal (Jharkhand), Sandeep Shastri and Veena Devi (Karnataka), Sajad Ibrahim (Kerala), Yatindra

Singh Sisodia (Madhya Pradesh), Nitin Birmal (Maharashtra), Prabhat Mohanty (Orissa), Jagroop

Singh Sekhon (Punjab), Sanjay Lodha (Rajasthan), R.K. Satpathy (Meghalaya) P. Ramajayam

(Tamil Nadu), A. K. Verma, M. Asmer Beg, and Sudhir Kumar (Uttar Pradesh), Annapurna Nautiyal

(Uttarakhand) and Suprio Basu (West Bengal). We would like to thank all of them for their valuable

support to this study, especially in helping us conduct the training workshops for field investigators

and for coordinating data collection in their respective states. We would also like to thank all field

investigators who did the hard work of data collection in different rural and urban locations. Thanks

are also due to all the respondents who spared their valuable time for the interview.

Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens’ Perspective IX

We are also grateful to Yogendra Yadav who spent a lot of time conceptualizing this study

design at the initial stage of the study. The suggestions received from different colleagues from

Lokniti network and the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies at various stages of the project

were very helpful and we would like to thank all of them for their inputs in this study. We would also

like to thank Taiwan Foundation for Democracy in providing seed funds for this study.

All filled in questionnaires were checked carefully by a team of research investigators

supervised by Kanchan Malhotra and we would like to thank her for helping us with data and

code checking. We would also like to thank KAQA Hilal under whose supervision a team of data entry

operators entered the data.

The entire task of data analysis could not have been completed without the active involvement

of Himanshu Bhattacharya. We would like to thank him for his help in data analysis. We would also

like to thank the CSDS Data Unit for data related help while working on the project.

Thanks are also due to the team of researchers who helped in completion of this study in

capacity of Research Officers and Research Assistants. The team included Vibha Attri, Pranav Gupta,

Nitin Mehta Shreyas Sardesai, Dhananjay Kumar Singh and Anuradha Singh. We would also like to

thank Mr. Neeraj Srivastava and his team for designing and printing the Report.

Lastly, maximum credit goes to Kinjal Sampat and Jyoti Mishra for their commitment and

hard work in analysing the data and putting together this report in its current form.

Sanjay Kumar, Suhas Palshikar and Sandeep Shastri

Principal Investigators

Acknowledgments

X Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)Democracy in India: A Citizens’ Perspective

INTRODUCTION

Democracy in India: A Citizens' Perspective

Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)

This report presents the findings of a study of Indian citizens' ideas, expectations,

perceptions, and their evaluations of India's democracy as well as the idea of

democracy in general. It is a part of a comparative study of five South Asian countries

that include, besides India - Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The report is

divided into four major sections. The first section lays down the democracy in India in its

present moment. The second, third and fourth sections deal with some of the essentials of

democracy—political participation, trust in institutions of democracy and

governance—and examine their relationship with the political orientations of the

citizens of India.

This is the second round of such South Asia-wide studies. In 2004-05, a group of

South Asian scholars came together to undertake a first-ever study of the state of

democracy spanning five countries of South Asia – The SDSA which was published in 1 2008. Following that, a second round has been launched in 2012 (the first preparatory

meeting was held in September 2011). The present report is the outcome of this second

round of study that took place in India. The field study was conducted in India in the year

2013 (more details of the field work and methodology are presented in Appendix I). Like

the first round, this second round is also a part of the Global Barometer - a broad network

of scholars and social organizations interested in tracking popular perceptions of 2democracy in different parts of the globe on a regular basis. The main foci of the present

study follows the themes emanating from the consensus amongst partner organizations

of the Global Barometer, allowing for a greater comparability in the assessment of

democracy in different societies (For detailed interview schedule see Appendix II).

INTRODUCTION

I

Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens’ Perspective 3

1Lokniti, Programme for Comparative Democracy at CSDS has been the main institutional anchor to both these

studies. For more details, see http://www.lokniti.org2For details of Global Barometer and its partner organizations, see http://www.globalbarometer.net

Democracy, both as a goal and as a system of government, has long become one of the

cherished objectives of most modern societies. The twentieth century witnessed an

unprecedented expansion of democracy across the globe. As the twenty first century

began to unfold, societies in newer territories began to move in the direction of adopting

democracy as the basis of their public political lives. Of course, even after

the end of the cold war, the idea that democracy needs promotion was prevalent in some

circles, and the enterprise of 'democracy promotion' continues even now. But the

discourse of democracy has gone beyond this. With the increased acceptability and

renewed interest in democracy, the democracy-discourse has shifted to increasingly

diverse social terrains

In fact, democratic theory and assessments of democracy have both adopted more

nuanced strategies and emphases. The practice of democracy and its assessments has

produced new themes in democracy-discourse. On one hand, the discourse has moved to

discussions of expansion of democracy to newer areas of social life, sometimes

engulfing interpersonal relations, and on the other hand, the penetration of the

democratic norm—its depth and durability-has produced the discussion of deepening of

democracy. At the turn of the century, discussions of democracy also began to concern

themselves with the 'deliverables' of democracy in the form of governance, further

expanding the scope of inquiry about the outcomes of democracy. The governance

discourse has had its share of criticisms too, but it has succeeded in pushing the

discussion of democracy beyond mere platitudes and the façade of holding elections.

Whether the outcome of democracy includes transparency and whether the rulers and

institutions actually produce governance are dominating concerns in democracy

literature.

In the backdrop of these developments, as democracy became an accepted, almost

consensual goal, the most critical issue associated with discussions of democracy is the

quality of democracy. Societies and governments may claim to have democracy but the

extent and authenticity of this democracy will always remain a matter of claims and

counterclaims. So, how does one engage in the debate over quality of democracy? There

are broadly three genres of literature on critical assessment of democracy: normative-

mostly contributed by political philosophers; radical and participatory-contributed by

activists and movements; and empirical-emerging from careful examination of the

perceptions and actions of ordinary citizens.

The Freedom House is an international platform driven by the activist orientation 3

and engagement, in evaluating democracy, and 'ranking' different countries. Its

rankings and method of relying solely on elites and activists is open to debate. To desist

4 Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)Democracy in India: A Citizens’ Perspective

Introduction

3https://www.freedomhouse.org/

from ranking methods and to combine normative criteria and concerns of the

movements, IDEA (International Institute of Democracy & Electoral Assistance) has

developed a framework for 'quality assessment' of democracy. It has evolved a detailed 4

module for such 'citizen-led' assessment. This assessment framework allows any citizen

or citizen group to assess the quality of democracy in their country using the framework

and the questions recommended by IDEA. Many groups of democracy-activists across

the globe adopt that framework. However, one of its limitations is that it does not yield to

large scale generalization and lacks a dependable quantitative dimension. But more than

the methodological concerns regarding generalizations, the issue is to infuse the voice of

the people into the discourse of democracy as argued in the first South Asia survey

mentioned in the beginning. If we intend to debate over the 'quality' of democracy

(which is primarily a matter of actual practice of democracy in a given society) rather

than its professed goals, then it is only natural that we should take into account people's

views on the practice and arrive at an empirical basis for the assessment of

democracyThat is the approach the present report adopts and advocates. We are

primarily concerned with the following questions: what do people think about

democracy? How do they perceive its successes and failures? What does democracy

mean in people's lives? These beliefs and perceptions constitute the basis on which

actual practice of democracy is both based and evaluated. We focus here on four

elements: people's ideas of democracy and its worth, popular participation in politics,

trust enjoyed by institutions and evaluation of governance and performance.


Introduction

II

4 For details of the IIDEA framework for Quality Assessment of Democracy, see http://www.idea.int/sod/

Experience of democracy often involves many contradictions and gaps, some of which

were brought to light by the first report (SDSA Team, 2008) on democracy in South Asia.

The idea of democracy is so broad and ambitious that it is bound to produce its own

failures and shortcomings wherever it is practiced. However, the global South seems

tobe the host to many more such contradictions for reasons of own-their historic

trajectories and the socio-economic contexts in which democracies exist in these

societies. India is no exception to that. India and societies of the global South are prone to

experience many tensions due to the gaps and contradictions. We have observed four of

these gaps-firstly, between principle and practice; the second between institutional

design and the working of these institutions; the third deals with the trust in, and the

legitimacy of these institutions and the fourth is between participation and belief in

democracy. The gap between prescription and achievements as well as

betweenaspirations and fulfillments runs as a common thread in most narratives of the

living experience of democracy. Public discourse on democracy as well as the

indictments by social activists is abound with such narratives. The present report also

comes across some of these gaps. As we proceed to read an account of the many

disappointments of Indian citizens in the form of systematic collation of such gaps based

on empirical data, it would be useful to remind ourselves of the broader context that

informs these disappointments.

Public opinion has a dual structure. Partly, it is an offshoot of long term

orientations and perspectives developed through historical and institutional legacies,

and what is broadly described as the political culture. At the same time, this political

culture and the expressions of anxieties also emanate from the contemporary context and

the more recent experience of politics, politicians and the 'outcomes' of democracy.

Findings from the present study are no exception to that. At one level, this Report

shapes in the immediate context the politics of India during 2005-12. It could be argued

that this period brought some governmental stability at the national level since two

successive governments (NDA: 1999-2004 and UPA: 2004-2009) completed their

terms. But at the same time, this period also witnessed a sudden upsurge of popular

protests and manifestation of disappointments-directed not just towards the

'government' or ruling coalition but towards the established political players and the

inability of the 'system' to self-correct. Thus, ironically, while in the backdrop of more

than ten years of political instability, the system looked like it was veering towards a

semblance of stable political competition, but its ability to deliver and accommodate

appeared to be weak - the system appeared to be non-responsive-democracy looked like

it only existed in formalities and procedures rather than in its capacity to govern well, and

govern in public interest. This was surely not a period of acute economic crisis-it took

place in the backdrop of the comparatively better performance of the

economybetween1999 and 2008-the economy was losing momentum since 2008-09,

particularly losing its capacity to generate employment. Coupled with the sense of non-

economy, the perception that politics was not in the public interest pushed both the vocal

sections and the silent majority towards the politics of disenchantment and protest. Both

thegovernment in power at Delhi, i.e., at the national level, and the political system

across the country, failed to respond satisfactorily to this development and became the

targets of popular disaffection.


Introduction

There would always be some incipient reservations about democracy in every

society. Developments such as those mentioned here would perhaps push those into

being more prominent. There will always be citizens or sections of the citizenry cynical

enough to doubt the efficacy or meaningfulness of competitive democracy, and critical

enough to doubt democracy's ability to generate good choices or good policies. However

when the practice of competitive politics either fails to adhere to norms or fails to

convince people of the authenticity of the game of power, these doubts and the cynical

suspicions become more articulate and wide-spread. The moment of 2011-12 in the

Indian context precisely represented this complex process.

The entire period of 2010-13 was marked by corruption scandals involving the

ruling coalition. It was also characterized by many cases of institutional failures, and an

intense popular mobilization on issues ranging from corruption to systemic reforms. The

extensive media exposure these issues received, also contributed to the penetration of

politics of disgruntlement across the country. The agitation on the issue of Lokpal

unfolded both in the national capital and on the televisions screens all over the country.

The unfortunate and brutal incident of sexual violence in Delhi symbolically showcased

the failures of the system and brought the establishment to disrepute. The protests

symbolized the more wide-spread sentiment of anger and anxiety.

While this context may help better situate some of the findings here, this is not to say that

the findings in this report are only contextual; and therefore likely to vary or vanish

easily with a different context. As pointed above, assessments of democracy will

alwayshave both contextual and long-term dimensions, the former often transforming

into more durable orientations, if similar contextual features persist over time. The

objective of a study of this kind is mainly to link these contextual and long-term dimen-

sions to arrive at a measure of the popular assessment of the idea of democracy and its

practice in India. That is why this report makes repeated reference to the 2008 study. That

study (based on the 2005 field work) helps us better understand which of the traits of

public opinion regarding democracy are a continuation of the long term trends and which

have formed or become stronger in the decade previous to this study. One of the striking

features of that report was the 'institutional deficit' experienced by India's (and indeed,

more generally South Asia's) democratic practice. On one hand, this deficit reflected in

limited trust in institutions and on the other hand it also reflected in unfulfilled

III

Introduction


expectations. Therefore, in the present study, we have incorporated the component of

governance to find out what people think of the performance of the institutions and the

outcomes there from. Similarly, the first study pointed to a somewhat odd combination of

adherence to the norm of democracy, and at the same time readiness to tilt towards non-

democratic alternatives. It therefore is not easy to simply categorize popular orientations

as democratic and non-democratic.

This report too, engages with this problematic feature. The baseline of the political

culture of India's citizens by the turn of the century was that people were firmly located

within the discourse of democracy, but at the same time, they did not bind themselves

with received or theoretical frameworks of democracy. Indeed, just as the actual practice

of democracy being rather 'noisy' (Kohli 1998: 14), the popular conception of what

democracy means and what it is meant for, continue to be noisy, unorthodox and even

enigmatic. A report of this kind cannot possibly unravel the entire riddle of what and why

people think of democracy; it can only map the multiple sounds and claims; it can only

define the challenges theorization of popular orientations towards democracy throw up

for the analyst.

We hope that this report will bring out the gap between expectations from

democracy and the disappointments from its practice and that this gap will constitute one

of the major themes in the discourse of democracy in India.

Introduction


References: Kohli, Atul. (1998). Can Democracies Accommodate Ethnic Nationalism? The Rise and Decline of Self-Determination Movements in India in Amrita Basu and Atul Kohli (eds.) Community Conflicts and the State in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

SDSA Team. (2008). State of Democracy in India: A Report. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Documents

Demo - lokniti Mehta Shreyas Sardesai, Dhananjay Kumar Singh and Anuradha Singh. We would also like to