Deviant Democratization in India1

McMillan, Alistair

doi:10.1080/13510340802191094

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Decentralization and local disunity facilitated the penetration of merchants from Portugal, the Netherlands, and eventually the British East Indian Company (Scammell 1989, 66), whose practices gradually expanded to include attributes of statehood (e.g., the right of taxation in parts of the country). When colonization ended in 1947 (administration had passed from the East Indian Company to the Crown in 1858), the British left an administrative basis and a framework for local representative government that, it has been argued, facilitated institutionalization of the democratic norms under Nehru (Manor 1990;McMillan 2008).…”

Section: A Note On a Few Outliersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article documents that precolonial state development was an impediment to the development of democracy outside Europe, because indigenous state institutions constrained the European colonial endeavor and limited the diffusion of European institutions and ideas. Some countries were strong enough to resist colonization; others had enough state infrastructure that the colonizers would rule through existing institutions. Neither group therefore experienced institutional transplantation or European settlement. Less developed states, in contrast, were easier to colonize and were often colonized with institutional transplantation and an influx of settlers carrying ideals of parliamentarism. Using OLS and IV estimation, I present statistical evidence of an autocratic legacy of early statehood and document the proposed causal channel for a large sample of non-European countries. The conclusion is robust to different samples, different democracy indices, an array of exogenous controls, and several alternative theories of the causes and correlates of democracy.

show abstract

Section: A Note On a Few Outliersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, as seen above, Nepal attempted to establish a new political system with two characteristics: a democracy with minimalist standard and some characteristics of nonmajoritarian democracy. Though India remains the constantexceptionalexample of this kind of political regime (see: McMillan, 2008, Andeney and Wyatt, 2004, Moore, 1996, whether Nepal could achieve the democratic consolidation similarly is a question to be discussed continuously in future.…”

Section: Structural Factors and Nepali Loktantramentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Determinants of Democratic Consolidation and Nepal’s Loktantra Since 2017

Humagain

2021

J Polit Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite frequent political changes, democratic consolidation is not a popular question among the researchers of democracy in Nepal. This article aims to connect the theoretical discussion of consolidation of democracy, mostly focusing on the structural factors and Nepali Loktantra. Two findings of this study are particularly important for the discussion of the consolidation of Loktantra in Nepal. First, the macro structural factors – e.g., economic modernization, regime type, and party -system – make pessimistic predictions on future of Nepali democracy. In other words, the macro structural conditions are unfavorable for the consolidation of the democracy in contemporary Nepal. Second, procedural dimensions of the democracy are insufficient to define Nepali Loktantra. The newly adopted regime has attempted to merge few components of non-majoritarian democracy too. We need more critical evaluation on the characteristics of Nepali Loktantra. If it is different with a procedural democracy, its relation with socio-economic structure also should be different.

show abstract

“…India is typically referred to as the world’s largest democracy; yet, it remains among the outliers in terms of stability of the electoral system among postcolonial states. With its high rates of poverty, illiteracy, low urbanization, pervasive ethnic, religious and linguistic divisions, weak capitalist class and a weak civil society, India has been a popular example defying modernization theory and institutional notions of democratic development (McMillan, 2008).…”

Section: Elections and Indiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance and Electoral Integrity: Evidence from Subnational India

Mahmood

2020

Studies in Indian Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the findings of perceptions of electoral integrity survey for subnational elections in India between 2015 and 2017. The perceptions of electoral integrity survey is an attempt to provide a comprehensive, impartial and independent source of information derived from experts about elections conforming to internationally recognized principles and standards. The article then evaluates the factors that account for differences in the perceptions of electoral integrity in India. We show that higher-income states in India tend to have higher levels of electoral integrity. However, we argue that differences in the quality of governance best explain subnational variation in the perceptions of electoral integrity in India.

show abstract

Deviant Democratization in India1

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood

The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood

Structural Determinants of Democratic Consolidation and Nepal’s Loktantra Since 2017

Governance and Electoral Integrity: Evidence from Subnational India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About