American Political Science Review · 1996 · 545 citations · 57 references
Social SciencesPolitical ScienceSociologyDemocratizationPolitical SociologyPolitical ViolenceAuthoritarianismDemocracyDemocratic ConsolidationPolitical PowerPower In GroupsPower-sharing ArrangementsMajoritarian ViolenceMass Protest MobilizationPolitical Power SharingPost-conflict Power SharingPower In ConflictPower Sharing Mechanisms
India’s large, deeply divided society, despite its majoritarian democratic structure, has maintained a functioning democracy, challenging consociational theory’s expectations. Analysis shows that Indian democracy has consistently exhibited all four power‑sharing elements, was fully consociational in its first two decades, and although some elements weakened later, it remains largely consociational, thereby confirming consociational theory.
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.
57
Leo Kuper, Donald L. Horowitz · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · 1986 · 4.9K citations
Choice Reviews Online · 1990 · 3.6K citations