IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v90y1996i02p258-268_20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation

Author

Listed:
  • Lijphart, Arend

Abstract

India has been the one major deviant case for consociational (power-sharing) theory, and its sheer size makes the exception especially damaging. A deeply divided society with, supposedly, a mainly majoritarian type of democracy, India nevertheless has been able to maintain its democratic system. Careful examination reveals, however, that Indian democracy has displayed all four crucial elements of power-sharing theory. In fact, it was a perfectly and thoroughly consociational system during its first two decades. From the late 1960s on, although India has remained basically consociational, some of its power-sharing elements have weakened under the pressure of greater mass mobilization. Concomitantly, in accordance with consociational theory, intergroup hostility and violence have increased. Therefore, India is not a deviant case for consociational theory but, instead, an impressive confirming case.

Suggested Citation

  • Lijphart, Arend, 1996. "The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 258-268, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:02:p:258-268_20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400206187/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arend Lijphart, 2000. "Definitions, Evidence, and Policy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(4), pages 425-431, October.
    2. Joan Esteban & Debraj Ray, 2008. "Polarization, Fractionalization and Conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 45(2), pages 163-182, March.
    3. Khusrav Gaibulloev & Todd Sandler, 2016. "Decentralization, institutions, and maritime piracy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 357-374, December.
    4. Collin Constantine, 2022. "Income Inequality in Guyana: Class or Ethnicity? New Evidence from Survey Data," Working Papers 631, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    5. Salvatore Vassallo, 1998. "Le basi politico-istituzionali del rigore finanziario," Stato e mercato, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 3, pages 433-468.
    6. Tranchant Jean-Pierre, 2016. "Is Regional Autonomy a Solution to Ethnic Conflict? Some Lessons from a Dynamic Analysis," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 22(4), pages 449-460, December.
    7. Jon Fraenkel & Bernard Grofman, 2004. "A Neo-Downsian Model of the Alternative Vote as a Mechanism for Mitigating Ethnic Conflict in Plural Societies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 487-506, February.
    8. Helga Malmin Binningsbø, 2013. "Power sharing, peace and democracy: Any obvious relationships?," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 16(1), pages 89-112, March.
    9. Rajiv Krishnan Kozhikode, 2016. "Dormancy as a Strategic Response to Detrimental Public Policy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 189-206, February.
    10. Matthijs Bogaards, 2000. "The Uneasy Relationship between Empirical and Normative Types in Consociational Theory," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(4), pages 395-423, October.
    11. Dos Santos André Marenco, 2006. "Instituciones o cultura: ¿de qué materia prima está hecha la legitimidad de las nuevas democracias?," Revista Desarrollo y Sociedad, Universidad de los Andes,Facultad de Economía, CEDE, September.
    12. Yelizaveta Mikhailovna Sharonova, 2021. "Quantitative Cross-country Analysis of Nuclear Power Discourse in Politically Distinct India and Russia," South Asian Survey, , vol. 28(2), pages 205-221, September.
    13. Nachane, Dilip M., 2010. "Liberalization, globalization and the dynamics of democracy in India," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 38356, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:02:p:258-268_20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.