Class Notes (837,550)
Canada (510,314)
POLI 322 (59)

Poli 323.docx

4 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
POLI 322
Narendra Subramanian

Poli 322 Ayesha jalal: uses terms in slightly unusual ways. Shows some limitations of the indian democ. Some limits to the free franchise cos of powers of landed elites Problems with early indian democ: - Govt violated democ norms when they feared secessionist movements - Or in relation to property rights Naga land in Kashmir  national conference came to power in Kashmir  by 1953  indian govt decided that when the Kashmiri said autonomy they really meant secession and so cracked down and imprisoned the leader sheikh abdullah Kerala: communist party voted to power. National govt overthrew the state govt and eventually the congree party came back to power. 20 years after independence: 2 states where other parties than congress came in power but congress couldn’t accommodate them and so this showed weak democ and weak federal structure Economy strategy followed: long term projects. That’s y benefits weren’t that widely distributed. So some rural groups were dissatisified with this. 50’s voter participation rate were quite low (less than 50 percent) So some groups (lower classes and castes) participated less in politics. some better off land holding groups were vary of the signals that the govt wanted to push through land reforms even though land reforms dint happen that much. The industrial classes benefitted from state involvement in some ways but also felt that govt involvement also restrained them in some way. Education groups were looking for alternative identities. These dissatifiction weren’t that open till late 1960s but then more groups begain to move away from congress by late 1960s. War with china  62  india lost  Nehru popularity down  died 2 years later  congress party down  political system gradually changed from 70s to 90s. by 90s it wasn’t the dominant party. Regimes in south asia slide. India: democ except 75 to 77. But even in good times, sometimes democ was seriously curtailed cos of armed insurgency. In naga land, in Kashmir (mid 50s to 70s), in Punjab (80s), the secessionist insurgency from 70s to 2008 in kashmir. Since early 90s, another secessionist armed scene from borders of Nepal to some part of center india. Some limits to democ. Much of the country has basic democ. Pakistan: full democ since 2008. Armed insurgency limits the control of national govt. Authoritarian from 55-70. 77-88. 99-2008 Bangla  democ only first 3 years Awami league suspended stuff. Then dictatorship cos of a military coup. Alternatation of power then btw 2 parties. Sri lanka: democ 48 to 83 Semi democ from 83 to 95 95 to 2008 democ 2008 to 14 semi democ Nepal: monarchy 47 – 91 2001 – 6 91-2001 and 06 07  elections and parli which shared power with monarchy 2008  republic established, monarchy demolished Democ theories: - Modernization theory (lipset) - States and social class (moore): it helps if there are no peasants. Peasants shouldn’t be around as a class. - Institutionalism (Huntington): institutions matter and have to be strong enough to accoomodate the levels of mobilization that are going on in the society. If u don’t have that you don’t get order. With no order doesn’t matter if you have liberty cos iots not stable. To have order and stability you need a multi party system. Lipset: modernization: - With high levels of industrialization and urbanization  strong middle class  democracy - It helps industrialization and urbanization diminish the power and influence of elites. And weakens traditions that may act against democracy Moore: - Balance of power btw nobility and crown (state) before a soverign state gets fully formed. Why?  initially bfre industrialization, the nobility was the main social force in the society, if any one was to take on the crown, it will be the nobility and so nobility had to be indepenedent. Brit  nobility formed parli and then later parli became representative for societ - Strong town dweller class  bourgeoisie  commercial trader groups  no bourgeoisie  no democ. You need a specific kind of middle class  an urban commercial middle class - It makes a difference depending on how these two classes act which depends on how land owners act. Some of the land owners may choose to improving agri and through that make money and so they develop an interest in commercialization and so have a common aik with bourgeoisis and so the two classes can have same ai
More Less

Related notes for POLI 322

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.