social movement sociology name of module: democracy and

Sociology

Name of Paper: Social Movement

Name of Module: Democracy and Social Movements

1

Development Team

Module Detail and its Structure

Subject Name Sociology

Paper Name Social Movement

Module Name/Title Democracy and Social Movements

Module Id SM 07

Pre-requisites Some Knowledge of Democracy and Social Movements

Objectives To introduce the learners to the linkages between liberal democracy and social

movements.

Keywords Democracy, Social Movements, Democratisation, De-Democratisation, Protest

Against Autocracy, Women’s movement, Ethnic Movement, Ethnic Marginalization,

Democratic Social Transformation.

Role in Content

Development

Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof. Sujata Patel Dept. of Sociology,

University of Hyderabad

Paper Coordinator Prof. Biswajit Ghosh

Professor of Sociology, The University of Burdwan,

Burdwan 713104, Email: [email protected]

Ph. M +91 9002769014

Content Writer Dr. Rabindra Garada

Associate Professor of Sociology, Utkal University,

Bhubaneswar,751004,

Email:[email protected]

Content Reviewer (CR) &

Language Editor (LE)

Prof. Biswajit Ghosh

Professor of Sociology, The University of Burdwan,

Burdwan, 713104

mailto:[email protected]

Sociology



2

Contents

1. Objective………...………………………………………………………………...3

2. Introduction……………………………………………..

3. Learning Outcome……………………………….

4. Nature of Liberal Democracy…………………………..

4.1 Features of Liberal Democracy……….

4.2 Limits of Democracy……………………

5. State, Democracy and Social Movement……………………

Self-Check Exercise 1……………………………………………………………..6

6. Social Movement as Democratisation …………………………………….6

7. Social Movement as Protest………………

7.1Protest against Autocracy…………..

7.2 Protest against Marginalization and Inequality………………..

7.3 Protests against Gender Inequality and Marginalization…..

7.4. Protest against Ethnic Marginalization…………………..

8. Democracy and Social Transformation in India……………………

Self-Check Exercise 2……………………………………………………………19

9. Summary…………………………………………………………………………...21

Sociology



3

1. Objective

The objective of this module is to introduce learners to the linkages between liberal democracy

and social movements. It introduces processes like mass politics and mass movement, and the

extent of interdependence between state, social movement, democracy, democratisation and de-

democratisation as explained by social scientists like Charles Tilly. It also reveals the influence

of social movements on democracy. This module also interrogates the democratic

transformation of Indian society.

2. Introduction

Since French revolution the world has been moving toward democratisation. Until now no other

political system proved to be the most desirable alternative to the democratic system of

government. Rather, democracy has become a globally accepted form of government as out of

195 states in the world as much as 125 (64%) states are found to be the electoral democracies at

present (Freedom House 2016; Puddington and Roylance 2016). Since democratisation has

been the welcoming phenomenon for all nation-states, some of them have been in their

transition phases; other are yet to follow and still a few others reject this process altogether.

Countries like China also raise counter narratives against democratic government (Habets

2015). It is argued that democratic regime often become more protective to state than its

citizens, more compatible with globalisation than civilisational diversity and more comfortable

with modernity than traditional morality at present. Democracy also seems to be unfolding its

true character in the form of mass politics and mass movements that challenges the

malfunctioning of government. When the spirit of democracy gets limited to majority rule

(Mahajan 2005), dissents take the shape of social movement.

It is true that attaining social and economic democracy is a difficult endeavour as the citizens do

have different interests with different socio-economic background. Further, each citizen cannot

equally access all of the democratic rights. Consequently, many of them are pushed or pulled

toward forming their collective actions. The push factors establish democracy against

authoritarian regime while the pull factors further help democratising the regime from its earlier

form. Thus, democracy, democratisation and social movements are intimately connected to one

another.

The social movements and democratisation - the most significant political processes have now

been strengthening global democracy in the current century (Tilly 2004). The democratization

process often motivates people to form social movements which further leads toward more

democratization. But not all social movements contribute to democratization; they also lead

toward de-democratization.

3. Learning Outcome

In this module, we would learn about the relationship between state, democracy and social

movement and how and to what extent democracy as a process promotes democratisation. We

would analyse the possibility of collective action and the extent of social transformation as

Sociology



4

brought forward in democratic India. This module enables us to examine the possibility,

desirability and feasibility of social movements for democratisation.

4. Nature of Liberal Democracy

Democracy refers to a direct or indirect form of government that is ruled by the people and not by a

single person or by a few persons or by military force. Hence, it is opposed to the governments of

monarchy, theocracy, oligarchy, anarchy and dictatorship. In all democratic countries, the most key

rights are the right to freedom and equality. However, all democracies cannot ensure such rights

against undemocratic possibilities in their actual operation. It is the liberal democracy which promotes

such rights inalienable and intrinsic to the individuals through its constitutional or statutory

declarations (Doomen 2014). It also seems to play a bridging role between liberal individualism and

democratic collectivism (Schmitt 1985). Besides, it ensures that no majority in power can suppress

these rights. The liberal democracy protects citizens and their civil societies from the state’s arbitrary

action and repression (Diamond 1999).

4.1 Features of Liberal Democracy

Like democracy, the liberal democracy has many features. However, some distinguishable features are

significant for the effective functioning of a democratic government. Thus, to begin with, liberal

democracy guarantees basic human rights and civil liberties equally. The democracy can only ensure

individual liberty when it follows liberalism in true sense - liberalism and democracy reinforce one

another (Plattner 1998).

Second, liberal democracy promotes an electoral democracy ensuring free and fair elections. The

elections are held within a particular time frame or time interval which guarantees universal suffrage

with secret ballot but with open and competitive election. This ensures the will of the people as they

vote or vote out their political leaders in the government. Thus, it promotes equal participation and

adequate representation (Habets 2015).

Third, liberal democracy generates multiparty system, at least two parties are necessary as one in

power welcomes the opposition of another. The strong opposition can question illegitimacy of the

party in power. The multiple political parties not only gain control of the people in power but also

become effective in making coalition government if situation so demands.

Fourth, it must have a constitution that acts like a reference point guiding and supervising democratic

functionaries in all aspects of their functioning. The democratic state must guarantee personal rights,

economic rights, political rights and social rights to its citizens through constitutional provisions (Offe

2011).

Fifth, it believes in separation of powers - the legislative, executive and judiciary known as trias

politic principles (Vile 1989 & 1967). This separation of power not only promotes checks and

balances but also prevents the concentration of power in one exclusive branch.

Sixth, it evolves a government that is accountable to the people for any wrongdoings, and for that

matter it is accountable to the electorate in periodic elections.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12290-015-0369-z#CR12

Sociology



5

Seventh, the freedom of press and informed public are crucial features of liberal democracy (Herman

and Chomsky 1988). The role of media is significant in the functioning of liberal democracy. Media

has to disseminate free and fair information to the public.

Eighth, liberal democracy also promotes the lobby or pressure groups that work for the specific issues

interest groups. It particularly safeguards the minority interests against majority rule.

4.2 Limits of Democracy

Turning any form of government into democracy is not enough but how it gets transformed into a

participatory and social democracy is important (Huber, Rueschemeyer, and Stephens 1997).

Democracy may be the worst form of governments as was once argued by British Prime Minister Sir

Winston Churchill (Habets 2015). Some major limitations of democracy can be deconstructed in this

regard.

First, liberal democracy may develop either an oligarchic form of government (rule by the few) or

polyarchic form of government (rule by many). Such negative forms may develop due to a lack of

good governance (Freedom House 2015) or decline of constitutional liberalism (Zakaria 1997; Habets

2015). Unlike direct democracy, liberal democracy relies on elected representatives who more often

become unreliable to the people leading to what Robert Michels called ‘a decoration over an

oligarchy’ (James 1995).

Second, liberal democracy often leads to class based-democracy where the rich people control politics

and power. Consequently, the bourgeois democracy perpetuates its vested interests. Vladimir Lenin,

the greatest critique of democracy, therefore commented that liberal democracy is an illusion of

democracy as it tends to maintain bourgeoisie’s dominancy (Chomsky 2016).

Third, liberal democracy cannot avoid the possibility of a biased media and uninformed public. The

distorted information through biased media is the weakest point of liberal democracy. The links

between corporations and media may disrupt the very nature of true democracy. The corporate media,

in the name of liberal democracy, discourages mass views contesting elite views (Herman and

Chomsky 1988; Curran and Seaton 1997).

Fourth, the liberal democracy cannot make voting compulsory. As a result, true mandate for political

position is largely enchased by the vested interests. In most liberal democracy the electoral turnout

declines due to increasing tendencies of cynicism, apathy and powerlessness among the people (Offe

2011). The legitimacy of the electoral system gets further corrupted for which the citizens show their

lack of interest in voting.

Fifth, social conflict is endemic in liberal democracy. Since the liberal democracy ensures cultural

diversities and pluralism, the political representatives coming to power make use of ethnic and

religious loyalties to stay in power. In the process, when some groups become hostile to another

groups, it disrupts the functioning of liberal democracy.

Sixth, it contributes to lethargic bureaucracy. Bureaucratic inertia and ritualism spoil the dynamics of

democracy.

Seventh, the periodic election shortens the public policy. This is because the ruling political party in

order to retain power stress on popular and short term policies. As a consequence, the long term

democratic vision and mission get jeopardised.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12290-015-0369-z#CR17

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

Sociology



6

Eighth, the decision-making behaviour becomes more economic than political in liberal democracy.

The real issues of politics get diverted toward narrow economism as the voters are to be pleased with

benefits that may ultimately harm the interest of people at large.

Ninth, the majoritarian tyranny is a usual outcome in liberal democracy (Deneen 2015). The minority

then becomes vulnerable to the majority rule. In the name of majority, the representative government

favours the elite groups who perpetuate their personal interests by depriving the masses.

Tenth, the liberal democracy often fails to stop corruption and misappropriation of public funds

caused by irresponsible elected representatives as it is quite observable in the developing country like

India.

Finally, it often deviates from the free and fair election (Habets 2015; Huntington 1991). The

excessive use or abuse of politics disrupts the actual formation of political structure in liberal

democracy. The unscrupulous politicians resort to immoral practices - use of money and muscle

power in contesting and wining election.

5. State, Democracy and Social Movement: Mass Politics and Mass Movement

There has been changing relationship between state, democracy and social movements in the nation-

states over the centuries. The formation of state from its early Greek state to modern state has been

possible due to the changing intervention of democracy in the history. But such changes could become

possible only due to the emergence of mass politics, and mass movement in the nation-states. The

states and democracy are mutually supportive and disruptive of each other. Due to rapid spread of

democratic rights, the state has become the target of collective action now (Tarrow 1994). The state

and its policies and programs also encourage, discourage, shape and transform the process of social

movements. Thus, the old variety of western and eastern states has been replaced by the modern states

at present.

However, from Hobbesian contractual state to Weberian bureaucratic state, the conceptualisation of

democracy has been controversial in the world. The social movements have been leading democratic

state toward democratisation. However, it depends upon the democratic extent of a political regime

and the degree of interrelationships among the state and social movement that has been ensuing over

the time. Any political regime - democratic or undemocratic - reflects a set of political relationship

between its government and citizens. The dynamics of such relationship reflect upon the action and

reactions among its state and citizens over the time. However, the citizens’ collective contention can

radically disrupt their relationship. The undemocratic regimes witness the civil wars, whereas the

democratic regimes tolerate social movements (Tilly 2007).

Tilly (2007) has categorized the democratic and undemocratic regimes into four major types such as

high-capacity undemocratic, low-capacity undemocratic, high-capacity democratic and low-capacity

democratic. As per his understanding, the public politics and voices usually get restricted and coerced

by the security forces in the high-capacity undemocratic state. This high undemocratic repressive

government is subjected to change either by the political struggle from the top or by the mass rebellion

from the bottom. Nevertheless, the multiple political actors like warlords and ethnic blocs, the

multiple mobilisations like religious or ethnic movements and the violent struggle like civil wars, etc,

occur in the low-capacity undemocratic state. It is assumed that the contentious politics restricted to

revolution in the former category may result into multiple types of collective actions in the latter

category.

Sociology



7

The high-capacity democratic state facilitates the frequent collective actions - political party

mobilizations, interest group activity, formation of social movements, etc. It also becomes more

effective in monitoring the public politics and political violence. On the contrary, the low-capacity

democratic state become less effective and facilitates high violence in public politics. Thus, the

dynamics of collective action depend upon the high or low level capacity of both democratic and

undemocratic states.

The mafia, criminal gangs, civil armed forces, external political forces, hostile religious movements,

regional separatist mobilisations, autonomous ethnic mobilisations, corruption networks and so on

spoil the democratic capacity of a state (Offe 2011). The leading consequences have been the mass

politics and mass movements. Mass politics is the mass oriented political activity that generally occurs

in a state beyond its institutionalised political settings. It occurs when a large number of people engage

with political activities - seem to be spontaneous, unplanned, undemocratic and controversial in

changing and challenging the established political regime of a nation-state. The extent of mass politics

however depends on the dynamics of mass political parties.

The mass politics gives rise to mass movements as for instance, the way Industrial revolution occurred

in the Western world. The strength and stability of a democratic state depend on its legitimacy and

effectiveness (Offe 2011; Lipset 1981). The mass politics ensure a political platform to the minority

and marginalized sections – the underrepresented people to gain legitimacy and effectiveness of

democratic regimes. It can challenge the democratic inertia and constitutional ritualism developed in

the democracy. Therefore, the civil rights movements, environment movements, anti-nuclear

movements, anti-war movements, etc., get prompted by mass politics and mass movements in the

nation-states. It paves the way to achieve a mature democracy of better government and better

citizens. The strategy of mass politics and mass movements is also used by political parties, trade

union leaders, political activists, NGOs, pressure groups and the like.

It is however argued that direct collective actions – the mass movements - usually hamper the smooth

functioning of political institutions because the people in power then take policy decisions in haste

without going through the merits of real political issues. Such populist politics is, therefore,

considered anti-democratic in nature.

Self – Check Exercise – 1

Q 1. How are state, democracy and social movement related to each other?

The relationship among state, democracy and social movements is increasingly visible in the world.

The formation of state from its early Greek state to modern state has been possible due to the changing

intervention of democracy in the world. The democratic state facilitates greater political participation,

political discussion, free assembly, political factions, etc, thereby contributing to the formation of

political movements. The state and its policies and programmes also shape, reshape, encourage,

discourage and transform the process of social movements. The collective action in forms of mass

politics, mass movement and social movements normally leads the states toward democratisation.

According to Tilly, the undemocratic regimes witness the civil wars whereas the democratic regimes

tolerate social movements.

Q 2. How has Tilly classified political regimes?

Sociology



8

Charles Tilly has categorized the democratic and undemocratic regimes into four major types such as

high-capacity undemocratic, low-capacity undemocratic, high-capacity democratic and low-capacity

democratic.

6. Social Movement as Democratisation

Charles Tilly (2007) claims that the prospect of a democracy lies in its degree of democratization and

collective mobilization. To him, the essential elements of democracy include a state and its citizens-

the former controls the legitimate use of violence within a territory while the latter usually comes

under state’s control and protection. The democracy promotes certain relations between state and its

citizens (with rights and duties), but its democratic degree depends on the extent the former conforms

to the latter’s demands. Further, a regime becoming democratic depends on whether the political

relations between the state and its citizens would be broad, equal, protected, or mutually binding.

The relationship between a state and its citizens gives rise to two changing processes -

democratization and de-democratization. While the process democratization refers to a movement

towards broader, more equal, more protected and more consultative relations, the de-democratization

process refers to its opposite (Tilly 2007). To him the democracy must include the processes of

integration of interpersonal trust networks into politics, insulation of politics from economic and

social inequalities and elimination or neutralization of the coercive powers - state, military elites,

warlords, clans, etc.

Tilly traces the instances of social movements first in the West after 1750 and thereafter these

movements have spread to the world through colonialism, trade and migration (Tilly 2004 &2007). He

also explored social movement as a process of change, collective action and contentious politics. As a

process, the social movement tends to have its own life cycle as it has its own reason to emerge and

grow as well as to decline in due course of time. Both Blumer (1969) and Tilly (1978) have identified

social movements with a four-stage process - preliminary stage, coalescence stage, institutionalization

stage and decline stage. In the first stage, the social movement emerges with the public issues and

discontentment, in the second stage the public issues and discontentment get publicized, in the third

stage social movement moves toward its bureaucratization, and in the final stage public issues are not

taken seriously either due to success or failure of social movement.

Tilly has also identified social movements with three dynamic elements - a campaign, social

movement repertoire and WUNC (worthiness, unity, numbers and commitments) by which the

ordinary people can participate in the public politics (Tilly 2004 & 2007). By ‘campaign’ he means an

organized public effort that makes collective claims on targeted authorities. It refers to a public

campaign by a group of claimants on some objects of claims. The ‘social-movement repertoire’ refers

to combined forms of political action such as public meetings, solemn processions, vigils, rallies,

demonstrations, pamphleteering, petition drives, associations and coalitions. Finally, the WUNC

displays participants' concerted public representation. These context-specific dynamic elements

clearly relate social movement with the process of democratisation and nation building.

6.1 Democratisation or De-democratization

It is true that social movement contributing to democratisation breaks loose the autocratic rule. Its

reverse process may also equally happen - de-democratization. For instance, after the World War I

Weimar Republic introduced a measure of democratization in Germany, whereas Hitler's seizure of

power in 1933 was an example of de-democratization (Tilly 2007). All social movements in the

process of grappling with a given situation either establish democracy or change the democracy in

Sociology



9

different ways. The polity model and mobilisation model explained by Tilly substantiate this

dynamics differently.

The polity model is a system-level model by which its components, i.e., government, polity, coalitions

and contenders help changing the government. According to Tilly, the French revolution is an

example of this. But the mobilisation model explains the extent of collective action along with the

variables like political interests, organisation, mobilisation, collective action, and opportunity. Tilly

and Tarrow (2007) have further developed political opportunity structure (POS) with combined

variables like open and close polity, presence and absence of allies and supporters, the divided elites,

etc., at the macro-level. They also explain the variation of contentious politics from area to area and

time to time.

Democratisation as a democratic process of change breaks loose the authoritarian or autocratic rule.

However, the extent of democratisation is often determined by the nature of political structures and

elite political action. This is also true that no political elites or autocratic authority so motto go for

democratisation unless the collective action compel them to do so (Tilly 2007). But the

democratisation can be activated through both top down mobilization and bottom up mobilization.

This leads to two important approaches to democratization - populist approach and elitist approach. As

per the former approach, democratization takes place as a bottom up process, whereas it is top-down

process in the latter case. The social movements from below promote democracy by creating public

space and transfer of power. On the contrary, the top-down process of democratisation may lead to

new forms of authoritarianism. For instance, the labour movements in the 1970s immensely

contributed in the making of welfare states in the West, but in twentieth century the neoliberal turn of

the West questioned the welfare states and forced the government to stop providing such welfare.

The other processes like modernization, urbanisation or any other social change also promote both

democratization and social movements because they help in increasing social networks, equalizing

access to resources, insulating public politics from existing inequalities or proliferating trust networks

(Tilly 2004 & 2007).

7. Social Movement as Protest against autocracy/inequality/marginalisation

Though social inequality of one or other type is omnipresent in all societies, only a few of these

societies can promote social movements against social inequalities. And it is the democratic form of

government that often encourages social movements as compared to other forms of government. The

movements against undemocratic patterns of inequalities - gender, race or ethnicity seem to be more

mobilised in the Western democratic countries than in non-democratic countries like China and

Russia. Scholars like Tilly (1986), Della Porta and Tarrow (2004) and Tarrow (2005) have also

analysed the undemocratic political regimes - their weakness, institutions and social structures in

general.

7.1 Movements against Autocracy

Any autocratic form of government becomes despotic, tyrannical and dictatorial in nature (Celestino

2011). It is also true that protest movements whether mass-driven or elite inspired or both have been

challenging the autocratic governments all over the world. However, the nature and result of citizens’

protest movement against autocratic governments is region specific and elite or mass specific. For

instance, the protests against any autocratic rule organised by the elites in Latin America and southern

Europe (O’Donnell and Schmitter 1986; Przeworski 1991) are qualitatively different from the protest

movements organised from below - the masses in African, Asian, and post-Communist countries

Sociology



10

(Collier 1999). Some unusual protests also occur in the countries where collective action in any form

seems to be under stiff autocratic control. In the countries like Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and

Palestine, the citizens are fighting for their democratic rights whereas the movements against

autocratic rule in some other countries belonging to Arab league are becoming slow and even not

being grounded with local citizens.

The host of Arab revolts - civil disobedience, civil resistance, silent protests, sit-ins, protest camps,

self-immolation, social media, internet activism, defection, demonstrations, revolution, riots, urban

warfare, uprising, insurgency emerged in-between 2010 and 2011 is popularly known as “Arab

Spring" (Ashley 2011) and “Arab awakening” (Aljazeera 2011). Consequently, since 2010 a series of

protests and demonstrations against autocratic governments occurred in Arab has been causing a

network of diffusion in the Arab-majority states of North Africa and Middle East (Zhukov and Stewart

2013).

However, unlike the political protests, mass politics, mass movements and social movements that take

place in the democratic world the people’s protests against autocratic governments in the Arab world

reveal a unique picture. These protest movements are organised against the imported democracy-

usually perceived as European strategy of democratising the Arabian world. Despite the counter

movements like revitalising the Islamic regime in Arab, many protest movements in Egypt, Syria,

Oman, Yemen and Morocco were also found successful against the autocratic governments. For

instance, the people’s protests could overthrow the autocratic governments once perpetuated by Zine

El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Ali

Abdullah Saleh in Yemen (Ruthven, 2016; Lynch 2012; Massad 2012).

Similarly many African, European and Asian countries have been confronting the challenges of

people’s protest movements due to diffusion impact of Arab springs. Burma (under military rule from

1962 to 2010) could bring many political and economic reforms during 2011–2015 due to a prolonged

democratic movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi and her party National League for Democracy. The

democratic revolution through Facebook campaign also reached Egypt and Myanmar in 2011 (Shah

2011).

7.2 Movement against Marginalisation and Inequality

There is dearth of study on possibility and feasibility of social movements against marginalisation in

the world. It is also true that the agency and politics of marginalised groups are hardly recognised and

often suppressed or undermined by the dominant groups. It is normally perceived that the subalterns

cannot mobilise themselves for collective action. In the developing country like India the social

movements against marginalisation and inequalities are usually perceived as law and order problems.

The “authentic essence and liberating presence of the subaltern groups” even in the academic

discipline like sociology was largely missing in India (Garada, 2013). Indeed it has been a critical

heart searching for dalit, tribal and gender in Indian sociology (ibid). Now the subaltern consciousness

though has gained momentum but grapple with stiff mainstream oppositions in India. It is true that the

marginalised and socially excluded groups lack strategy, resources and support to mobilise collective

actions. However, their physical and cultural traits being stigmatised by the society and disapproved

by the dominant groups destine them to be discriminated in accessing the resources required for

survival in the society. As a result, they suffer from genocide, ethnocide, ethnic-cleansing and

xenophobia often caused by the dominant groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Lynch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Massad

Sociology



11

In order to overcome their socio-cultural, economic and political marginalisation, there has been much

group specific collective action in the democratic nation-states. For instance, the unemployed persons

have mobilised several collective actions in the Europe (Didier and Royall 2010). Instances of

collective action against inequalities organised by women, dalits, adivasis, Muslims, elderly, young,

minorities and other marginal groups are found in India (World Bank 2013).

7.3 Protest against Gender inequality and Marginalisation of Women

It has been documented across time and space that inequality based on gender contributes to large

scale marginalisation of women. It is just a coincidence that women are more illiterate, poor,

unemployed, homeless, or manual worker than man. The feminists reacting to such gender inequality

and discrimination eventually developed the feministic ideology known as feminism in the western

world. Then, in course of time, the feminism became a movement that exposed the extent as well as

the reverse of masculine domination. The feminists of different types have organised social

movements for gender equality, equity and equal opportunities in the society, though differently

(Moosa-Mitha 2005).

Thus, the liberal feminists aim at gender equality and equal opportunity, the Marxist feminists

visualize the possibility of women to have equal access to and the control of the capitalistic means of

production, the radical feminists explore the ways to retaliate the masculine repression or escape from

the cage of feminine subordination, the socialist feminists reject gendered based dichotomy like

public–private spheres and emphasizes women’s equal opportunities in public sphere and the

postmodern feminists reveal the linguistic and social construction of gender inequality and

exploitation.

However, the women's movements in different forms are often contested in the countries like India

where religious diversity is tolerated (Sen 2000, Chaudhuri, 2004). But like western wave of

feministic movements we can also have Indian waves of women's movements. The first wave

explicates the reformation of patriarchal practices and mobilization of women's political participation,

the second wave reveals the resurgence in women's political activity and the third wave results in

women's right and empowerment. Furthermore, the contemporary Indian feminism delves with many

unique issues (Chaudhuri 2005).

7.4 Protests against Ethnic Marginalisation

The racial or ethnic inequality perpetuated with social prejudices and stereotypes sometime result in

xenophobia even in the democratic countries. The ethnic causes of unequal treatment and

opportunities or mass incarceration have provoked social movements in many countries. However, in

country like India, Bangladesh, Australia, Canada or Germany where ethnic diversity is prominent,

ethnic conflict becomes endemic. For instance, the ethnic groups like Tamils and Sinhalas in Sri

Lanka, Shias, Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq, Malay and Chinese in Malaysia, Serbs and Croats in the

former Yugoslavia and Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, Turks in Bulgaria, Greeks in Albania, Kurdish in

Germany, Jews in Hungary and Hmongs in Thailand have engaged themselves in prolonged ethnic

conflicts. Such conflicts also occur when the ethnic minorities challenge their concerned governments

against discriminated policies and programmes (Bates et. al. 2003). For instance, countries like

Srilanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Turkey, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan,

Rwanda, Philippines, Australia, Canada, former Yugoslavia, Germany and the former USSR have

faced such challenges (Hagg & Kagwanja 2007).

Sociology



12

The politics of ethnic identity has of late become an established fact all over the world. The mass

ethnic politics have led to riots, insurgency and civil war in a multi-ethnic country like India. Since its

independence, India has been confronting the challenges of resolving the crisis and troubles related to

its ethnicity - language, religion, tribe, caste, etc. Even the policy of linguistic reorganisation of states

since 1950s could not end this problems. States like Punjab, Kashmir, Jharkhand, Telengana, Assam,

West Bengal including the North Eastern states have witnessed armed conflict and secessionist

movement for long.

8. Democracy and Social Transformation in India

After 1947 India became the largest democracy in the world. She also became a sovereign, socialist,

secular and democratic republic. However, Indian democracy has also been witnessing both

democratic and anti-democratic wave since Independence. Challenges like partition, influx of Hindu

refugees, communal tensions, ethnicity, persistence of caste exclusion and tribal marginalisation have

prompted collective action in many parts of India. This is despite the fact that Indian government,

unlike Pakistan, had promoted administration and army free from theocratic control. The civilian

control of administration and army helped promoting democracy in the beginning (Tilly 2007).

However, the elitist nature of congress party in term of caste, religions and regions soon made

Independent India to move toward an authoritarian and majoritarian democracy. It could not check

majoritarian tyranny against minorities and elite rule against masses. Some early human right

associations emerged in Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab attempted to move the country toward its

democratisation during post-Independence time. They fought for the rights of the working class, small

peasants, marginal farmers and landless labourer (Kothari, 1989). Another process of democratization

came into being in 1967 when the state level parties suddenly stumbled on power. However, India

witnessed weakening of democracy in 1970s when, faced with so many crises, Indira Gandhi declared

emergency in the country. Jayaprakash Narayan’s total revolution against the authoritarian democratic

regime at the centre at that time signalled the power of social movement to foster democratic values.

As a corollary, the Janata government which came to power later was politically more liberal than the

congress party.

The strengthening of Indian democracy through democratic collective actions continued later. These

movements started pleading for right to information, right to environment, right to rehabilitation, right

to life, right to self-assertion and against undemocratic practices in the country. Indian democracy

emerged in its unique forms in 1990s and coalition politics strengthened the dynamics of

democratisation. Now, it is also increasingly confronting the challenges of multiparty politics and rise

of civil society activism in the form of anti-corruption movement. The democratic dividend is also

evident in caste losing its hierarchical significance (Srinivas 2003). Media exposures of undemocratic

practices have also strengthened the voices of civil society.

But, at the same time, processes related to de-democratisation due to inter-religious conflict and inter-

ethnic conflicts in the country found new expressions and language. One may however argues that

these are in reality expressions against the homogenising tendencies of Indian state. The sub-

nationalist movements for separate state (Bodo Land, Gorkha Land, Khalistan etc) challenged the

centralised politics in India. At the other spectrum, environmental movements like Chipko movement,

Appico movement, Silent Valley movement and Narmada Bachao Andolan (Shah, 2004) are able to

Sociology



13

critique certain modern processes of development. Issues of gender, minority, dalit, and tribals are

also finding new routes of expressions. As a result India is witnessing contrary processes of

democratisation and de-democratisation. The real challenges India confronts now include separatism,

casteism, religious fundamentalism, leftist extremism, along with socio-economic issues like

inequality, exclusion and marginalisation.

Obviously, the ideals of democracy are yet to fully realised and actualised in India today. The studies

on post-independence social change reflect both complementary and contradictory relationship

between democracy and social transformation. Despite India being a large and diverse democracy,

there is continuity of poverty, unemployment inequality, along with issues like casteism,

communalism, and regionalism. Despite the long saga of rural development programmes and

introduction of Panchayats in rural India, issues of disparity, deprivation, displacement and divide

persist in rural India (Jodhka 2002; Alexander 2000; Oommen 1985 & 1984).

In liberalised India, the economic and political elites have been able to exert their influence in each

and every sphere of social life. The religious and cultural minorities very often become targets of

Majoritarian politics. Increasing occurrences of crimes, corruption, public violence, and public

insecurity encircle us as we move towards a global society. The process of rich becoming richer is

accompanied by the poor getting encircled by ‘poverty regime’ (Breman 2007) in the countryside.

Rise of violence against Dalits, tribals and other minorities is a testimony to the growing culture of

intolerance in contemporary India. All these prove that we have hardly made use of the democratic

dividend during the last six decades of Indian independence and also allowed extremism to grow at

certain pockets. We might conclude with Balakrishnan (2016) that India has failed to nurture

individual and collective capacities. There has been far too little effort in public policy to create spaces

where citizens interact freely and peacefully.

Self-Check Exercise 2

Q 1. Explain the extent of social transformation caused by democracy in India

The political dynamics of Indian democracy has brought a significant social transformation among

Indian citizens. The Indian democracy could inculcate democratic sense of law-abiding, self-

disciplined and social and moral responsibilities among its citizens at present. The democratic rules of

law, constitutional safeguards, statutory commissions, political rights, legal rights, etc, have been

challenging the primordial social order of Indian society. The hierarchical society traditionally based

on the ritual purity and pollution has been debunked and demystified to a large extent in modern India.

Indian democratic regime over the decades has matured enough to handle caste-based stigma, gender

stereotypes and tribal isolation. The horizontal competition among the castes could weaken the

vertical caste solidarity in the countryside since long. The combined opposition of dalit, women, and

tribal and minority voters is increasingly becoming evident in all types of elections. From political

campaign to political participation, from developing a common platform to forming responsible

government, these groups have been increasingly asserting their presence.

Q 2. Explain the limit of social transformation caused by democracy in India.

The ideals of democracy are yet to fully realised and actualised in India today. Studies on post-

independence social change reflect both complementary and contradictory relationship between

democracy and social transformation. Despite India being a large and diverse democracy, there is

Sociology



14

continuity of poverty, unemployment inequality, along with issues like casteism, communalism, and

regionalism. Despite the long saga of rural development programmes and introduction of Panchayats

in rural India, issues of disparity, deprivation, displacement and divide persist in rural India. In

liberalised India, the economic and political elites have been able to exert their influence in each and

every sphere of social life. The religious and cultural minorities very often become targets of

Majoritarian politics. Increasing occurrences of crimes, corruption, public violence, and public

insecurity encircle us as we move towards a global society. The process of rich becoming richer is

accompanied by the poor getting encircled by ‘poverty regime’ in the countryside. Rise of violence

against Dalits, tribals and other minorities is a testimony to the growing culture of intolerance in

contemporary India. All these prove that we have hardly made use of the democratic dividend during

the last six decades of Indian independence and also allowed extremism to grow at certain pockets.

9. Summary

So far democracy is found to be the most desirable form of government against monarchy, theocracy,

oligarchy, anarchy and dictatorship worldwide. Further elevation to democracy - the liberal

democracy - also claims to ensure no majority rule to suppress the rights of minority, to oppress the

movement of citizens/civil societies and to disrupt the democratic possibilities in its actual

functioning. The empirical evidences however do not completely support the theoretical possibilities.

The conceptual-empirical dilemma demystifies the illusions of democracy at present global scenario.

It often deviates from the free and fair election, perpetuates with bureaucratic inertia and ritualism,

cannot avoid biased media and develops either an oligarchic form of government or polyarchic form

of government. It is a matter of concerns that the democratic regime seems to have gone far away

from its true democratic spirit perpetuating with colonial legacy, western aristocracy, feudalism and

national elitism in the world. In this context, we cannot think of a democracy without thinking of

citizens’ safety, liberty, rights and equality. Likewise we also cannot attain it fully without collective

action. The collective actions or social movement promotes democracy like political activism. It

shapes and reshapes democratic government thereby exploring and extending the democratic regime

in flexible and viable direction. It is just like the moving wheels without which no government can run

or speed up.

Charles Tilly’s approach to democracy epitomises this facts comprehensively. Now the civil rights

movements, environment movements, anti-nuclear movements, anti-war movements, etc. prompted by

mass politics and mass movements in the nation-states are leading toward two important political

processes - democratization and de-democratization. While the former process refers to a movement

towards broader, more equal, more protected and more consultative relations, the latter process refers

to its opposite. The mass movements as direct collective actions also disrupt the smooth functioning of

political institutions. It so happens that the people in power then take policy decisions in haste without

going through the merits of real political issues. Such populist politics is therefore considered anti-

democratic in nature.

It is also true that protest movements whether mass-driven or elite inspired or both have been

challenging the autocratic governments all over the world. However, the nature and result of citizens’

protest movement against autocratic governments is region specific and elite or mass specific. For

instance, unlike western type, the Arab’s revolts have been causing a network of diffusion for protest

movement against autocracy in the Arab-majority states of North Africa and Middle East. Arab

springs revolve around many issues - local, regional, national and international. In other words, while

Sociology



15

targeting their respective autocratic governments, these movements also challenged the western

politics of democratisation as countermovement.

Similarly the ethnic conflict and women’s movement also reveal unique undercurrent. There are many

empirical events where the ethnic movements keep on mobilising collective actions for the provisions

of affirmative discrimination, regional autonomy and ethnic state, ethnic separation and secession.

However, due to lack of required strategy, resources and support in organising collective actions the

ethnic minorities usually suffer from genocide, ethnic-cleansing and xenophobia caused by ethnic

majority worldwide.

The women have also been uniquely organising protest movement against gender inequality and

discrimination in the world. The Feminists are able to expose the extent as well as the reverse of

masculine domination in the western world. The different types of feminism - liberal, radical, Marxist,

socialist and post-modern are energizing the women’s’ movement differently at global scenario.

Consequently, feminist waves have emerged to reveal and rectify the gender based inequality and

marginalization in the society.

Nevertheless all these movements and counter movements have resulted in the democratic and anti-

democratic waves in the global level. In the former wave, the changes brought forward by the reforms

or revolution often lead to more democratic government whereas in the case of later, the changes

brought forward by the revolution may lead to less or no democratic government. After the first,

second and third waves of democratisation in 1820–1926, 1945–62 and 1970s respectively, the world

democracy has been confronting a reverse wave as argued by Habets and Huntington.

In this context, the Indian example provides us a brilliant story of both success and failure of a

democratic regime. After 1947 India became the largest democracy in the world. However, owing to

several socio-economic, political and demographic reasons, India democracy has witnessed turbulence

since Independence. The elitist nature of Indian political system soon made Independent India to move

toward an authoritarian and majoritarian democracy. It could not check majoritarian tyranny against

minorities and elite rule against masses. But, at the same time, fight against Emergency and

authoritarian regime strengthened the dynamics of democratisation. India continues to face challenges

like terrorism, political extremism, communalism, fundamentalism and regionalism. The religious and

cultural minorities very often become targets of Majoritarian politics. Increasing occurrences of

crimes, corruption, public violence and public insecurity encircle us as we move towards a global

society.

The opening of media control since economic liberalisation also had visible impact in popularising

public discontentment. Grassroots empowerment of people through local self government has

extended the corridors of power to the countryside. Further, the human right associations and civil

societies have been moving the country toward its democratisation over the time. Use of strategies like

filing of public interest litigation (PIL), seeking information under Right to Information Act,

formation of citizen awareness programmes, political campaigns, NGO movement etc., have

benefitted Indian democracy. The hierarchical society traditionally based on the ritual purity and

pollution has been debunked and demystified to a large extent in modern India. The democratic rules

of law, constitutional safeguards, statutory commissions, political rights, legal rights, etc, have been

challenging the primordial social order in the society. The democratic regime over the decades has

matured enough to handle caste-based stigma, gender stereotypes and tribal isolation in post-

Independent India. The political dynamics of Indian democracy with a vibrant multi party system and

Sociology



16

tolerating protest movements have brought a significant social transformation in India today

notwithstanding continuation of certain issues of social, economic and political concerns.

social movement sociology name of module: democracy and

Documents