Democracy in South Asia: Getting beyond the Structure-Agency Dichotomy

Abstract

With reference to South Asia, we argue that recourse to the conventional structuralist and transition accounts of democratisation sustains an unhelpful dichotomy. Those approaches tend towards either determinism or agent-driven contingency. In contrast, an alternative approach that recognises the relevance of both structure and agency is proposed. In certain circumstances, human agency opens up the possibility of the relatively rapid transformation of structures. In particular, there are periods of political openness when structures are malleable, and individuals, or individuals acting collectively, are able to reshape structures. Decolonisation both constituted a moment of transition and opened up the possibility of structural change in the context of enhanced elite agency. For the purposes of comparison, the discussion covers the three cases of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Particular attention is drawn to political parties and the structure of ethnic diversity as leading explanatory variables.

Democratization Under Military Rule: A Critical Review

“…Although the argument carries some weight, it is evident that in many cases, objective conditions do not inevitably lead to regime transformation (Prezeworski, 1986). Katharine Adeney and Andrew Wyat referred to Sri Lanka as a leading case that has been able to consolidate its democracy since independence, irrespective of long-running civil war and poor economic performance (Adeney & Wyatt, 2004). Similarly, these studies fail to explain the correlation between economic growth and democratic consolidation in the Pak-India case, if taken in comparative terms, as Pakistan has had a higher growth rate than India for most of the time since the partition of India (Adeney & Wyatt, 2004).…”

‘Cabined, cribbed, confined, bound in’ or ‘we are not a government poodle’: Structure and agency in museums and galleries

“…This can be seen in both the large number of discussions of the ontological and epistemological bases underpinning possible understandings of the relationships between the two component elements of the debate (Hay & Wincott, 1998;Sibeon, 1999;Dowding, 2001, 97-100;Hay, 2002, 89-134;Lewis, 2002;McAnulla, 2005;Jessop, 2007;Hay, 2009aHay, , 2009bPleasants, 2009;Cruickshank, 2010), and in the increasing use of the structure-agency relationship as a means for undertaking forms of analysis of issues ranging from institutional racism (Wight, 2003), to democratisation in South Asia (Adeney & Wyatt, 2004), to local political participation (Lowndes et al, 2006) to British governance (Goodwin & Grix, 2011). These discussions may have their own intrinsic interest and, usually, lead to a clarification of the basic ground-rules under which substantive empirical analyses of the relationship of structure and agency can take place but they have generally been weak at developing the relationship between ontological and epistemological positions and the methodological consequences of them.…”

“…While consideration of the relationship between structure and agency has a long – and highly contested – tradition with sociology (Bhaskar, 1979; Giddens, 1984; Archer, 1988, 1995, 2003; Parker, 2000; Martin and Dennis, 2010) 3 it is only relatively recently that a direct consideration of this relationship has become a part of the landscape of British political analysis. 4 Part of this development is connected to considerations of the ontological and epistemological bases underpinning possible understandings of the component parts of the debate (Hay and Wincott, 1998; Sibeon, 1998; Dowding, 2001: 97–100; Hay, 2002: 89–134; Lewis, 2002; McAnulla, 2005; Jessop, 2007; Hay, 2009a, 2009b; Pleasants, 2009; Cruikshank, 2010), and part to the increasing use of the relationship as a mechanism for the analysis of political and policy phenomena, ranging from institutional racism (Wight, 2003), to democratisation in South Asia (Adeney and Wyatt, 2004), to local political participation (Lowndes et al, 2006), to British governance (Goodwin and Grix, 2011). The basic concern in this work is with identifying the combination of individual choices and actions and the contextual settings within which these individuals are working within that give rise to the policy actions that are produced.…”

Promoting Tourism in South Asia

“…To develop a tourism promotion plan for South Asia, the following elements are needed: a conducive environment for attracting international visitors, an effective potential demand on which the region can rely, and a program of promotion to deliver the region from the shackles it has been bound by in the past. The reality on the ground is far from meeting those needs (Adeney and Wyatt 2004;Lal 2006). The South Asian region possesses all the ingredients needed to be a prime international tourism destination.…”