Advertisement

Political Field Dynamics and the Elite’s Interest in Democracy: Insights from the Political Elite’s Role in Consolidating Indian Democracy

  • Sourabh Singh
Article
  • 243 Downloads

Abstract

In this article, I argue that democracy scholars cannot explain the political elite’s interest in democracy consolidation processes because they have yet to conceptualize the relation between the political elite and structure. This shortcoming can be rectified by using Bourdieu’s field theory insight that subjectivity and structure are constructed, reproduced, or altered due to contests among field actors over the symbolic capital of their field. I illustrate the significance of this solution by using it to explain the stability of Indian democracy during the early postcolonial period. Using data on the Indian political elite’s trajectories in institutional politics and observations on their everyday politics, I show that their differing interest in democracy during the early transition period was shaped by their unique political habitus, which was structured by their conflicts since the late colonial period to establish their respective political capital as the symbolic capital of the Indian political field. The general lesson to be learned from this study is that in order to comprehend democracy consolidation processes, it is important to shift attention from static, disjointed models of the political elite’s subjectivity and structure to the history of contests among the political elite over the symbolic capital of the political field, which couples the political elite’s subjectivity and structure.

Keywords

Political elite subjectivity/structure Field theory Symbolic capital Indian democracy 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

None

Conflict of Interest

Author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Abente-Brun, D. (2009). Paraguay: the unraveling of one-party rule. Journal of Democracy, 20(1), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdukadirov, S. (2009). The failure of presidentialism in Central Asia. Asian Journal of Political Science, 17(3), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams, J. (1994). The familial state: elite family practices and state-making in the early modern Netherlands. Theory and Society, 23(4), 505–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adney, K., & Wyatt, A. (2001). Explaining South Asia’s uneven democratic career. In J. Haynes (Ed.), Towards the sustainable democracy in the Third World. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  5. Adney, K., & Wyatt, A. (2004). Democracy in South Asia: getting beyond the structure agency dichotomy. Political Studies, 52, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahlquist, J. S., & Levi, M. (2011). Leadership: what it means, what it does, and what we want to know about it. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ahluwalia, B. K. (1974). Sardar Patel: a life. New Delhi: Sagar Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, C. (1976). The congress at the 1937 elections in Madras. Modern Asian Studies, 10(4), 557–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bayly, C. A. (1975). The local roots of Indian politics: Allahabad 1880–1920. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bose, S., & Jalal, A. (1998). Modern South Asia: history, culture, political economy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1999). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1986 [1983]). The forms of capitals. In J. Richardson’s (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  14. Brecher, M. (1959). Nehru: a political biography. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, J. M. (2003). Nehru: a political life. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cappocia, G., & Ziblatt, D. (2010). The historical turn in democratization studies. Comparative Political Studies, 43(8/9), 931–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chiriyankandath, J. (2001). Democracy’ under the Raj: elections and separate representation in British India. In N. G. Jayal (Ed.), Democracy in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Craig, A. L., & Cornelius, W. A. (1995). Houses divided: Parties and political reform in Mexico. Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America, 249–297.Google Scholar
  19. Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Depelteau, F. (2008). Relational thinking: a critique of co-deterministic theories of structure and agency. Sociological Theory, 26(1), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Domhoff, G. W. (1967). Who rules America? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Domhoff, G. W., & Zweigenhaft, R. (1999). Diversity in the power elite. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  23. Field, G. L., & Higley, J. (1973). Elites and non-elites: The possibilities and their side effects. Andover: Warner Modular Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Field, G. L., & Higley, J. (1985). National elites and political stability. Research in Politics and Society, 1, 1–44.Google Scholar
  25. Frankel, F. R. (1978). India’s political economy, 1947–77: the gradual revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fukuyama, F., Dressel, B., & Chang, B.-S. (2005). Facing the perils of presidentialism? Journal of Democracy, 16(2), 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ganguly, S. (2007). Introduction. In S. Ganguly, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The state of India’s democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gopal, S. (1976). Jawaharlal Nehru: a biography. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Griffiths, P. J. (1952). The British impact on India. London: Macdonald.Google Scholar
  30. Habib, I. (1995). Gandhi and the national movement. Social Scientist, 23, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Higley, J. (2010). Elite theory and elites. In Handbook of Politics (pp. 161–176). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Higley, J., & Burton, M. G. (2006). The elite foundations of liberal democracy. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Higley, J., Hoffmann-Lange, U., Kadushin, C., & Moore, G. (1991). Elite integration in stable democracies: a reconsideration. European Sociological Review, 7(1), 35–53.Google Scholar
  34. Huber, E., & Stephens, J. D. (1999). The bourgeoisie and democracy: historical and contemporary perspectives. Social Research, 66, 759–788.Google Scholar
  35. Jaffrelot, C. (2002). India and Pakistan: interpreting the divergence of two political trajectories. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 15(2), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jalal, A. (1995). Democracy and authoritarianism in South Asia: a comparative and historical perspective (p 9–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Jeffrey, R. (1991). Jawaharlal Nehru and the smoking gun: who pulled the trigger on Kerala’s communist government in 1959? Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 29(1), 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kohli, A. (2001). Introduction. In A. Kohli (Ed.), The success of Indian democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kochanek, S. A. (1968). The congress party of India: the dynamics of one-party democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kogekar, S. V., & Park, R. L. (1956). Reports on the Indian General Elections, 1951–52. Bombay: Popular Book Depot.Google Scholar
  41. Kulkarni, V. B. (1969). The Indian triumvirate: a political biography of Mahtama Gandhi, Sardar Patel and Pandit Nehru. Bombay: Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan.Google Scholar
  42. Lachmann, R. (1990). Class formation without class struggle: an elite conflict theory of the transition to capitalism. American Sociological Review, 55, 398–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lachmann, R. (2003). Elite self-interest and economic decline in early modern Europe. American Sociological Review, 68, 346–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levy, D. C., & Bruhn, K. (1989). Mexico: Sustained civilian rule without democracy. Politics in developing countries: Comparing experiences with democracy. In L. Diamond, J. J. Linz, & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1990), 464–465.Google Scholar
  45. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy. Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lipset, S. M. (1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited: 1993 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 59(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in plural societies: a comparative exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lijphart, A. (1996). The puzzle of Indian democracy. A consociational interpretation. American Political Science Review, 90(2), 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lizardo, O. (2010). “Beyond the antinomies of structure: Levi-Strauss, Giddens, Bourdieu, and Sewell.”. Theory & Society, 39(6), 651–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Low, D. A. (Ed.). (2006). Congress and the Raj: facets of the Indian struggle, 1917–47. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Luebbert, G. M. (1991). Liberalism, fascism or social democracy (Social classes and the political origins of regimes). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Mahoney, J., & Snyder, R. (1999). Rethinking agency and structure in the study of regime change. Studies in Comparative International Development, 34(2), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mainwaring, S., & Scully, T. R. (1995). Building democratic institutions: party systems in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mainwaring, S., & Torcal, M. (2006). Party System Institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization. In R. S. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds.), Handbook of party politics. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  57. Mainwaring, S., & Perez-Linan, A. (2013). Democratic breakdown and survival: lessons from Latin America. Journal of Democracy, 24(2), 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Markoff, J. (2005). Transitions to democracy. In T. Janoski, R. R. Alford, A. M. Hicks, & M. A. Schwartz (Eds.), The handbook of political sociology: states, civil societies, and globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. McLean, P. D. (2007). The art of the network: Strategic interaction and patronage in renaissance Florence. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Michels, R. (1915). Political parties: a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York: Hearst’s International Library Company.Google Scholar
  61. Mills, C. W. (2000). The power elite. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  62. Misra, B. B. (1976). The Indian political parties: an historical analysis of political behaviour up to 1947. Bombay: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Møller, J., & Skaaning, S. E. (2013). Regime types and democratic sequencing. Journal of Democracy, 24(1), 142–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moore, B. J. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  65. Mosca, G. (1960). The ruling class (1939). New York, London, 80–87.Google Scholar
  66. Munck, G. L. (Ed.). (2007). Regimes and democracy in Latin America: theories and methods. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Nehru, J. (1967). Toward freedom: the autobiography of Jawaharlal Nehru. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  68. Nehru, J. (1938). The unity of India. Foreign Affairs, 16(2), 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nyong’o, P. A. (1992). Africa: the failure of one-party rule. Journal of Democracy, 3(1), 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. O’Donnell, G. A., & Schmitter, P. C. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Oldenburg, P. (2010). India, Pakistan, and democracy: solving the puzzle of divergent path. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust action and the rise of Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pareto, V. (1935). The mind and society. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  74. Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and development: political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Punjabi, K. L. (1962). The indomitable Sardar: a political biography of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.Google Scholar
  76. Reeves, P. (1971). A handbook to elections in Uttar Pradesh, 1920–1951. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Rueschemeyer, D., Huber, E., & Stephens, J. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  78. Rustow, A. D. (1970). Transitions to democracy: toward a dynamic model. Comparative Politics, 2(3), 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Samuels, D. J. (2000). The gubernatorial coattails effect: federalism and congressional elections in Brazil. The Journal of Politics, 62(01), 240–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sarin, L. N. (1972). Sardar Patel. New Delhi: S Chand.Google Scholar
  81. Sarkar, S. (2014). Modern India 1886–1947. India: Pearson Education India.Google Scholar
  82. Schofield, N., & Sened, I. (2006). Multiparty democracy: elections and legislative politics. Cambridgde: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What democracy is…and is not. Journal of Democracy, 3(2), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Socialism, capitalism and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  85. Stephan, A., & Skach, C. (1993). Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation: parliamentarianism versus presidentialism. World Politics, 46(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Strøm, K. (1997). Rules, reasons and routines: legislative roles in parliamentary democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(1), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sewell, W. H., Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  89. Talbot, I. A. (1986). Muslim political mobilization in rural Punjab 1937–46. In P. Robb (Ed.), Rural India, land, power and society under British rule. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Tendulkar, D. G. (1951). Mahatma: a life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Bombay: Bombay Times of India Press.Google Scholar
  91. Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tomlinson, B. R. (1976). The Indian National Congress and the Raj, 1929–1942: the penultimate phase. Canada: Mclean Hunter Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Varshney, A. (1998). Why democracy survives. Journal of Democracy, 9(3), 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. California: Univ of California Press.Google Scholar
  95. Zolberg, A. R. (1966). Creating political order: The party-states of West Africa. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyRutgers, The State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations