Logical Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 60

A silent democratic backlash in South Asia

The recent developments in Bangladesh, and the earlier events in Sri Lanka and Pakistan as well as the recent electoral outcome of the general election in India, clearly suggest a silent democratic backlash in South Asia. While there have been different historical trajectories in postcolonial democracies, we will make sense of this backlash by comparing the Indian case with that of Pakistan.

Comparisons of the Indian and Pakistani political systems in the post-colonial years have concentrated primarily on reasons why democracy endured in India while Pakistan transgressed into authoritarianism, despite both having a similar colonial legacy. Many scholars have detailed the reasons contributing to democracy in India compared to Pakistan. These range from the presence of a mass-based political party system in India versus an organisationally weak Muslim League to the dominance of particular social classes constituting the Congress (middle classes) and the Muslim League (the landed aristocracy).

While the value of such works is evident and advances our understanding of the political trajectories of India and Pakistan, the traditional comparison has undermined attempts at understanding the democratic space in Pakistan in the same vein that it has obfuscated analysis of an authoritarian tendency in the Indian political system despite its democratic credentials. We expand on what we understand and imply by this particular reassessment to argue that India and Pakistan are in the midst of a silent democratic backlash, where social forces are seeking to reclaim democratic space.

Accountable democracy to an overreach?

India was typified as a case of exceptionalism with a functional democracy, a history of a free and fair election model and constitutional order for the abatement of authoritarian powers. Barring the brief imposition of martial law in 1975–77 during Mrs. Gandhi’s tenure, India did not inherit the colonial legacy or continued watch of the post-colonial legacy. Consistent with the view, and in the account of Krishna Menon, who never believed that he as Prime Minister (1957-62) would ever face a coup, India has put an internal challenge ahead of the authority of a ‘civilian’ vision of maintaining itself. Several authors have also attributed this to the “meanest and pettiest” towards his generals, as Jairam Ramesh notes in his recent biography of Krishna Menon. India never faced the threat of military dictatorship.

However, the rise of Narendra Modi in 2014 changed all that. India played the catch-up game in moving briskly towards an authoritarian model of governance based on executive overreach. It was, perhaps, for the first time that the Indian democratic exercise not only took a presidential form but also campaigned for an Opposition-free democracy with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s campaign for a ‘Congress-mukt Bharat’. The current dispensation has been politicising issues related to security and the armed forces. Universities in India are sought to be converted into havens of religiosity and symbolism of armed forces to counter the democratic protest politics of students and youth.

In Pakistan

Pakistan, on the other hand, started out as a lost cause with the bureaucracy and the military outmaneuvering the political process and setting it in the direction of authoritarianism. Despite the deep-seated authoritarian tendencies, all three military dictatorships, from 1958, saw their demise through large-scale protests underlined with the actions of the masses within major cities. In one case, mass protests resulted in Pakistan’s first general election, the onset of military oppression in state in 1971 — the exact opposite of the military rule-watching that typified India. The entire trajectory indicated that mistaken was to believe that Pakistan, because of its history of being coup-prone, typified by a strong embedded state, was least likely to host any comeback to democracy. Instead, as has happened since 2008, Pakistan has had four full terms of elected House, many changes of government and two non-military elections.

The result, however, for the political elites preferred tactical alliances with the military rather than military rule itself has been the contrary. What Pakistan has witnessed since 2008 is a further deepening and widening of the citizenry’s advocacy for democracy, and a developing contradiction between the political class and military over who has the right to rule. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) government moving briskly handed an “one page” mantra only to have the Pakistan Muslim League (or the PMLN, even the PPP, more crucially, among others, to actively criticise the military for its political engineering. The difference between both has been Mr. Modi’s shoes by targeting the military for its dismissal which deeply resonated with the public. The result: the PTI emerged as the largest vote-getter and political party in Parliament in the general election despite the entire state machinery acting outside the centre. What one learns is that a military overreach in the military provides political short-term route to power but has accumulated increased reputational costs as a more politicised citizenry criticises the military’s political adventures.

A general election in India witnessed a similar authoritarian push against the BJP’s authoritarian politics. In Pakistan, the democratic party nexus has come under the same scrutiny as mass movements have started to check the actions of political elites. Both Pakistan and India can learn from these developments. Despite certain historical differences, the two share a similar trajectory in that managing the role of the military and political class has always been a key element. Middle class has also occupied a pivotal role at multiple times supporting the military or political class’ democratic policies. A younger generation though has emerged increasingly critical of the military’s role in politics.

In perspective

Comparative histories of the Indian and Pakistani historical experience finds that as an assertion against established class interests, and the political and military dominance, the political backlash in the form of mass protest politics in both India and Pakistan, they have spoken through electoral outcomes leading to a silent democratic backlash. One has to watch what form it will take in Pakistan.

Question -1) Which of the following best describes the author’s view on the Indian political system after 2014?

A) India has become more democratic with increased citizen participation.

B) India has shifted towards a more authoritarian model of governance.

C) India has maintained its tradition of free and fair elections.

D) India’s political system has remained largely unchanged since its independence.

Question -2) The passage implies that the traditional comparison between India and Pakistan’s political systems has:

A) Accurately captured the dynamics of democracy in both countries.

B) Overemphasized the role of military influence in both countries.

C) Failed to account for authoritarian tendencies in India’s political system.

D) Correctly predicted the democratic backlash occurring in both countries.

Question -3) What does the author suggest is a commonality between India and Pakistan in recent years?

A) Both countries have successfully avoided authoritarianism.

B) Both countries have seen a silent democratic backlash.

C) Both countries have strengthened their military’s role in politics.

D) Both countries have experienced a decline in citizen advocacy for democracy.

Question -4) According to the passage, what has been a significant outcome of the military-party nexus in Pakistan?

A) Increased stability in the political system.

B) A short-term route to power for political elites with long-term reputational costs.

C) Enhanced military control over the political process.

D) Complete suppression of democratic movements.

Question -5) Based on the passage, which of the following best explains the role of the middle class in both India and Pakistan regarding authoritarianism?

A) The middle class in both countries consistently supports democratic governance.

B) The middle class in both countries has historically favored authoritarianism at certain times.

C) The middle class in both countries is indifferent to the type of governance.

D) The middle class in both countries has recently begun to oppose all forms of authoritarianism.

Question -6) What does the author imply about the future of democracy in Pakistan?

A) It will continue to deteriorate due to military influence.

B) It is likely to stabilize with continued military-party alliances.

C) It faces uncertainty but is witnessing a deepening citizen advocacy for democracy.

D) It will likely follow the same trajectory as India’s political system.