Demo cracy. A C i t i z e n s P e r s p e c t i v e. A Report by Lokniti

Transcription

1 Demo cracy in A C i t i z e n s P e r s p e c t i v e India centre for the study of deveoping societies A Report by Lokniti Lokniti: Programme for Comparative Democracy Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS) 29 Rajpur Road, Dehi India

2 Copyright 2015 centre for the study of deveoping societies Programme for Comparative Democracy 29 Rajpur Road, Civi Lines, Dehi Phone: Fax : Emai: csdsmain@csds.in Website: Pubished by Lokniti - Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS) Designed and Printed by Saphire Printers Pvt. Ltd. saphireprinters@gmai.com Discaimer The materia in this pubication is copyrighted. No part of this report can be reproduced either on paper or eectronic media without permission in writing from CSDS. Request for permission to reproduce any part of the report may be sent to CSDS. Usage of Information Forwarding/copy/using in pubications without approva from CSDS wi be considered as infringement of inteectua property rights.

3 TEAM Principa Investigators Research Support Sanjay Kumar Vibha Attri Suhas Pashikar Himanshu Bhattacharya Sandeep Shastri Pranav Gupta KAQA Hia Anaysis & Report Writing Kanchan Mahotra Jyoti Mishra Nitin Mehta Kinja Sampat Shreyas Sardesai Anuradha Singh Dhananjay Kumar Singh Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective III

4

5 CONTENTS List of Tabes and Graphs Acknowedgements Introduction Chapter 1. State of Democracy in India: Support, Orientation and Meaning VII-VIII IX-X Chapter 2. Poitica Participation Chapter 3. Trust in Institutions Chapter 4. Governance Concusion APPENDICES 1. Method Note 2. Questionnaire 3. Indices 4. Basic Findings Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective V

6

7 List of Tabes and Graphs Tabe No A1 A2 A3 Tabe Poitica orientations over time Socia background and orientation Socia background and Poitica orientation Essentia characteristics of democracy - Wefare and Ensuring Freedom Poitica orientation and essentia characteristics of democracy Essentia characteristic of democracy and economic cass Participation in eectora and non-eectora activities Participation of socia groups in various eectora and non-eectora activities Participation in various poitica activities by Age Poitica Participation and Poitica Orientation Participation in eectora and non-eectora activities and preference for Poitica Regimes Civic participation and preference for regime type Civic participation is more effective than other kinds of participation for preferring democratic regime High trust versus No trust Genera trust in institutions by socio-economic status Trust in various institutions by socio-economic status, 2013 Trust in institutions and Orientation towards poitica regime Perception of corruption infuences eve of trust Marginaized sections avoid approaching Poice and Courts more than non-advantaged sections Objective and subjective Excusion across socio-economic groups Excusion and Orientation towards poitica regimes Orientation, excusion and preference for regime type Cass and major issues that need redressa Approaches to get effective and speedy services from government offices Perception of improvement in heath services more positive in urban than rura areas Experience, Economic cass and Expectations Samping Framework Number of Investigators in each State Representativeness Page No. Page No Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective VII

8 List of Tabes and Graphs Figure No. Figure Page No. Page No Satisfaction with democracy overtime Funne of Democracy breadth and depth of support for it Vote efficacy and orientation Index of Democracy Poyvocaity of democracy Essentia characteristic of democracy and poitica orientation Extent of participation in eectora and non-eectora activities Optimism towards individua and coective financia betterment ead to active participation Beief in government's effectiveness eads to active participation in poitica activities Pessimism about government's effectiveness and Preference for regime type Optimism about famiy's future economic condition and Preference for regime type Optimism about India's future economic condition and Preference for regime type Preference for authoritarian regime east among those who prefer citizens' participation in civic issues Wiingness for civic participation encourages preference for democratic regime Pessimism about government's effectiveness prompts one to take direct part in decision making Trust in Popuar Institutions Trust in Non-eected Institutions High Trust in various institutions by poitica orientation Reasons for avoiding interaction with Poice and Courts Perception of corruption in Poice and Court and eves of trust Experience in deaing with poice and eve of trust Experience with poice resuts in them being perceived as more corrupt Does poice discriminate: popuar perception Peope's poitica orientation and their expectations from the state Excusion and poitica orientation Most important issue to be addressed by Government Issue of basic amenities is more important for excuded peope Optimism-Pessimism and Orientation towards poitica regimes Distance of nearest Heathcare Centre and Pubic Schoo Reasons for approaching and avoiding Government hospitas Reasons behind peope's preference for government schoos and private schoos Choice vs. No choice for access Choice, Choiceessness and Government hospitas Reasons for choosing Private schoos Peope iving in urban areas more satisfied with Govt. schoos than those in rura areas Strong desire among peope for pubic funding of Govt. hospitas and schoos Desire for pubic funding of education greater among those who assess it poory Previous experience at pubic heath centres determines ikeihood of going again VIII Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS)

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Report Democracy in India: A Citizens' Perspective tries to assess peope's understanding and perception towards democracy. The present study is part of the State of Democracy in South Asia (SDSA) round II and covers five countries of the region- Bangadesh, India, Nepa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The first round of the SDSA was a benchmark study (SDSA I) as it competed a first ever cross-country empirica study within the South Asia region. It aimed at assessing democracy and its functioning, regime preference and governance issues. The SDSA I survey was conducted in 2005 and a report based on it was pubished by Oxford University Press in After SDSA I, many poitica events have taken pace that have changed the course of democracy as we as the ives of citizens. With this in view, Lokniti, CSDS initiated the second round of SDSA, in coaboration with coeagues from partner countries in SDSA II not ony heps to understand how the changes that have taken pace at the macro eve have impacted the socio-economic and poitica conditions of the citizens at the macro eve in the five countries, but aso offers an opportunity to understand compex reationships between them. SDSA II covers various themes such as peope's opinion on their househod economic condition as we as the country's economic condition, roe of state in service deivery and citizen security, peope's interest in poitics and the extent of their participation in poitica activities and peope's opinion on reations with neighbouring countries. The present study covered 22 states of India and a major states were incuded in the study. Conducting fiedwork for an extensive study ike SDSA survey was not an easy task. Therefore, in order to undertake the fiedwork, fied investigators were recruited from various universities and coeges across seected states. In order to provide the finer detais of fiedwork to the fied investigators, training workshops were organized in these states. The training workshops and fiedwork of this survey was coordinated by schoars from the Lokniti Network: E. Venkatesu (Andhra Pradesh), Subhrajeet Konwar (Assam), Rakesh Ranjan (Bihar), Anupama Saxena (Chhattisgarh), Biswajit Mohanty (Dehi), Bhanu Parmar (Gujarat), Kusha Pa (Haryana), Ramesh Chauhan (Himacha Pradesh), Gu Mohammad Wani (Jammu & Kashmir), Harishwar Daya (Jharkhand), Sandeep Shastri and Veena Devi (Karnataka), Sajad Ibrahim (Keraa), Yatindra Singh Sisodia (Madhya Pradesh), Nitin Birma (Maharashtra), Prabhat Mohanty (Orissa), Jagroop Singh Sekhon (Punjab), Sanjay Lodha (Rajasthan), R.K. Satpathy (Meghaaya) P. Ramajayam (Tami Nadu), A. K. Verma, M. Asmer Beg, and Sudhir Kumar (Uttar Pradesh), Annapurna Nautiya (Uttarakhand) and Suprio Basu (West Benga). We woud ike to thank a of them for their vauabe support to this study, especiay in heping us conduct the training workshops for fied investigators and for coordinating data coection in their respective states. We woud aso ike to thank a fied investigators who did the hard work of data coection in different rura and urban ocations. Thanks are aso due to a the respondents who spared their vauabe time for the interview. Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective IX

10 Acknowedgments We are aso gratefu to Yogendra Yadav who spent a ot of time conceptuaizing this study design at the initia stage of the study. The suggestions received from different coeagues from Lokniti network and the Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies at various stages of the project were very hepfu and we woud ike to thank a of them for their inputs in this study. We woud aso ike to thank Taiwan Foundation for Democracy in providing seed funds for this study. A fied in questionnaires were checked carefuy by a team of research investigators supervised by Kanchan Mahotra and we woud ike to thank her for heping us with data and code checking. We woud aso ike to thank KAQA Hia under whose supervision a team of data entry operators entered the data. The entire task of data anaysis coud not have been competed without the active invovement of Himanshu Bhattacharya. We woud ike to thank him for his hep in data anaysis. We woud aso ike to thank the CSDS Data Unit for data reated hep whie working on the project. Thanks are aso due to the team of researchers who heped in competion of this study in capacity of Research Officers and Research Assistants. The team incuded Vibha Attri, Pranav Gupta, Nitin Mehta Shreyas Sardesai, Dhananjay Kumar Singh and Anuradha Singh. We woud aso ike to thank Mr. Neeraj Srivastava and his team for designing and printing the Report. Lasty, maximum credit goes to Kinja Sampat and Jyoti Mishra for their commitment and hard work in anaysing the data and putting together this report in its current form. Sanjay Kumar, Suhas Pashikar and Sandeep Shastri Principa Investigators X Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS)

11 Democracy in India: A Citizens' Perspective INTRODUCTION Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS)

12

13 INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of a study of Indian citizens' ideas, expectations, perceptions, and their evauations of India's democracy as we as the idea of democracy in genera. It is a part of a comparative study of five South Asian countries that incude, besides India - Bangadesh, Nepa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The report is divided into four major sections. The first section ays down the democracy in India in its present moment. The second, third and fourth sections dea with some of the essentias of democracy poitica participation, trust in institutions of democracy and governance and examine their reationship with the poitica orientations of the citizens of India. This is the second round of such South Asia-wide studies. In , a group of South Asian schoars came together to undertake a first-ever study of the state of democracy spanning five countries of South Asia The SDSA which was pubished in Foowing that, a second round has been aunched in 2012 (the first preparatory meeting was hed in September 2011). The present report is the outcome of this second round of study that took pace in India. The fied study was conducted in India in the year 2013 (more detais of the fied work and methodoogy are presented in Appendix I). Like the first round, this second round is aso a part of the Goba Barometer - a broad network of schoars and socia organizations interested in tracking popuar perceptions of 2 democracy in different parts of the gobe on a reguar basis. The main foci of the present study foows the themes emanating from the consensus amongst partner organizations of the Goba Barometer, aowing for a greater comparabiity in the assessment of democracy in different societies (For detaied interview schedue see Appendix II). I Democracy, both as a goa and as a system of government, has ong become one of the cherished objectives of most modern societies. The twentieth century witnessed an unprecedented expansion of democracy across the gobe. As the twenty first century began to unfod, societies in newer territories began to move in the direction of adopting democracy as the basis of their pubic poitica ives. Of course, even after 1 Lokniti, Programme for Comparative Democracy at CSDS has been the main institutiona anchor to both these studies. For more detais, see 2 For detais of Goba Barometer and its partner organizations, see Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective 3

14 Introduction the end of the cod war, the idea that democracy needs promotion was prevaent in some circes, and the enterprise of 'democracy promotion' continues even now. But the discourse of democracy has gone beyond this. With the increased acceptabiity and renewed interest in democracy, the democracy-discourse has shifted to increasingy diverse socia terrains In fact, democratic theory and assessments of democracy have both adopted more nuanced strategies and emphases. The practice of democracy and its assessments has produced new themes in democracy-discourse. On one hand, the discourse has moved to discussions of expansion of democracy to newer areas of socia ife, sometimes engufing interpersona reations, and on the other hand, the penetration of the democratic norm its depth and durabiity-has produced the discussion of deepening of democracy. At the turn of the century, discussions of democracy aso began to concern themseves with the 'deiverabes' of democracy in the form of governance, further expanding the scope of inquiry about the outcomes of democracy. The governance discourse has had its share of criticisms too, but it has succeeded in pushing the discussion of democracy beyond mere patitudes and the façade of hoding eections. Whether the outcome of democracy incudes transparency and whether the ruers and institutions actuay produce governance are dominating concerns in democracy iterature. In the backdrop of these deveopments, as democracy became an accepted, amost consensua goa, the most critica issue associated with discussions of democracy is the quaity of democracy. Societies and governments may caim to have democracy but the extent and authenticity of this democracy wi aways remain a matter of caims and countercaims. So, how does one engage in the debate over quaity of democracy? There are broady three genres of iterature on critica assessment of democracy: normativemosty contributed by poitica phiosophers; radica and participatory-contributed by activists and movements; and empirica-emerging from carefu examination of the perceptions and actions of ordinary citizens. The Freedom House is an internationa patform driven by the activist orientation 3 and engagement, in evauating democracy, and 'ranking' different countries. Its rankings and method of reying soey on eites and activists is open to debate. To desist Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS)

15 Introduction from ranking methods and to combine normative criteria and concerns of the movements, IDEA (Internationa Institute of Democracy & Eectora Assistance) has deveoped a framework for 'quaity assessment' of democracy. It has evoved a detaied 4 modue for such 'citizen-ed' assessment. This assessment framework aows any citizen or citizen group to assess the quaity of democracy in their country using the framework and the questions recommended by IDEA. Many groups of democracy-activists across the gobe adopt that framework. However, one of its imitations is that it does not yied to arge scae generaization and acks a dependabe quantitative dimension. But more than the methodoogica concerns regarding generaizations, the issue is to infuse the voice of the peope into the discourse of democracy as argued in the first South Asia survey mentioned in the beginning. If we intend to debate over the 'quaity' of democracy (which is primariy a matter of actua practice of democracy in a given society) rather than its professed goas, then it is ony natura that we shoud take into account peope's views on the practice and arrive at an empirica basis for the assessment of democracythat is the approach the present report adopts and advocates. We are primariy concerned with the foowing questions: what do peope think about democracy? How do they perceive its successes and faiures? What does democracy mean in peope's ives? These beiefs and perceptions constitute the basis on which actua practice of democracy is both based and evauated. We focus here on four eements: peope's ideas of democracy and its worth, popuar participation in poitics, trust enjoyed by institutions and evauation of governance and performance. II Experience of democracy often invoves many contradictions and gaps, some of which were brought to ight by the first report (SDSA Team, 2008) on democracy in South Asia. The idea of democracy is so broad and ambitious that it is bound to produce its own faiures and shortcomings wherever it is practiced. However, the goba South seems tobe the host to many more such contradictions for reasons of own-their historic trajectories and the socio-economic contexts in which democracies exist in these societies. India is no exception to that. India and societies of the goba South are prone to experience many tensions due to the gaps and contradictions. We have observed four of these gaps-firsty, between principe and practice; the second between institutiona design and the working of these institutions; the third deas with the trust in, and the egitimacy of these institutions and the fourth is between participation and beief in 4 For detais of the IIDEA framework for Quaity Assessment of Democracy, see Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective 5

16 Introduction democracy. The gap between prescription and achievements as we as betweenaspirations and fufiments runs as a common thread in most narratives of the iving experience of democracy. Pubic discourse on democracy as we as the indictments by socia activists is abound with such narratives. The present report aso comes across some of these gaps. As we proceed to read an account of the many disappointments of Indian citizens in the form of systematic coation of such gaps based on empirica data, it woud be usefu to remind ourseves of the broader context that informs these disappointments. Pubic opinion has a dua structure. Party, it is an offshoot of ong term orientations and perspectives deveoped through historica and institutiona egacies, and what is broady described as the poitica cuture. At the same time, this poitica cuture and the expressions of anxieties aso emanate from the contemporary context and the more recent experience of poitics, poiticians and the 'outcomes' of democracy. Findings from the present study are no exception to that. At one eve, this Report shapes in the immediate context the poitics of India during It coud be argued that this period brought some governmenta stabiity at the nationa eve since two successive governments (NDA: and UPA: ) competed their terms. But at the same time, this period aso witnessed a sudden upsurge of popuar protests and manifestation of disappointments-directed not just towards the 'government' or ruing coaition but towards the estabished poitica payers and the inabiity of the 'system' to sef-correct. Thus, ironicay, whie in the backdrop of more than ten years of poitica instabiity, the system ooked ike it was veering towards a sembance of stabe poitica competition, but its abiity to deiver and accommodate appeared to be weak - the system appeared to be non-responsive-democracy ooked ike it ony existed in formaities and procedures rather than in its capacity to govern we, and govern in pubic interest. This was surey not a period of acute economic crisis-it took pace in the backdrop of the comparativey better performance of the economybetween1999 and 2008-the economy was osing momentum since , particuary osing its capacity to generate empoyment. Couped with the sense of noneconomy, the perception that poitics was not in the pubic interest pushed both the voca sections and the sient majority towards the poitics of disenchantment and protest. Both thegovernment in power at Dehi, i.e., at the nationa eve, and the poitica system across the country, faied to respond satisfactoriy to this deveopment and became the targets of popuar disaffection. 6 Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS)

17 Introduction There woud aways be some incipient reservations about democracy in every society. Deveopments such as those mentioned here woud perhaps push those into being more prominent. There wi aways be citizens or sections of the citizenry cynica enough to doubt the efficacy or meaningfuness of competitive democracy, and critica enough to doubt democracy's abiity to generate good choices or good poicies. However when the practice of competitive poitics either fais to adhere to norms or fais to convince peope of the authenticity of the game of power, these doubts and the cynica suspicions become more articuate and wide-spread. The moment of in the Indian context precisey represented this compex process. The entire period of was marked by corruption scandas invoving the ruing coaition. It was aso characterized by many cases of institutiona faiures, and an intense popuar mobiization on issues ranging from corruption to systemic reforms. The extensive media exposure these issues received, aso contributed to the penetration of poitics of disgruntement across the country. The agitation on the issue of Lokpa unfoded both in the nationa capita and on the teevisions screens a over the country. The unfortunate and bruta incident of sexua vioence in Dehi symboicay showcased the faiures of the system and brought the estabishment to disrepute. The protests symboized the more wide-spread sentiment of anger and anxiety. III Whie this context may hep better situate some of the findings here, this is not to say that the findings in this report are ony contextua; and therefore ikey to vary or vanish easiy with a different context. As pointed above, assessments of democracy wi awayshave both contextua and ong-term dimensions, the former often transforming into more durabe orientations, if simiar contextua features persist over time. The objective of a study of this kind is mainy to ink these contextua and ong-term dimensions to arrive at a measure of the popuar assessment of the idea of democracy and its practice in India. That is why this report makes repeated reference to the 2008 study. That study (based on the 2005 fied work) heps us better understand which of the traits of pubic opinion regarding democracy are a continuation of the ong term trends and which have formed or become stronger in the decade previous to this study. One of the striking features of that report was the 'institutiona deficit' experienced by India's (and indeed, more generay South Asia's) democratic practice. On one hand, this deficit refected in imited trust in institutions and on the other hand it aso refected in unfufied Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS) Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective 7

18 Introduction expectations. Therefore, in the present study, we have incorporated the component of governance to find out what peope think of the performance of the institutions and the outcomes there from. Simiary, the first study pointed to a somewhat odd combination of adherence to the norm of democracy, and at the same time readiness to tit towards nondemocratic aternatives. It therefore is not easy to simpy categorize popuar orientations as democratic and non-democratic. This report too, engages with this probematic feature. The baseine of the poitica cuture of India's citizens by the turn of the century was that peope were firmy ocated within the discourse of democracy, but at the same time, they did not bind themseves with received or theoretica frameworks of democracy. Indeed, just as the actua practice of democracy being rather 'noisy' (Kohi 1998: 14), the popuar conception of what democracy means and what it is meant for, continue to be noisy, unorthodox and even enigmatic. A report of this kind cannot possiby unrave the entire ridde of what and why peope think of democracy; it can ony map the mutipe sounds and caims; it can ony define the chaenges theorization of popuar orientations towards democracy throw up for the anayst. We hope that this report wi bring out the gap between expectations from democracy and the disappointments from its practice and that this gap wi constitute one of the major themes in the discourse of democracy in India. References: Kohi, Atu. (1998). Can Democracies Accommodate Ethnic Nationaism? The Rise and Decine of Sef-Determination Movements in India in Amrita Basu and Atu Kohi (eds.) Community Conficts and the State in India. New Dehi: Oxford University Press. SDSA Team. (2008). State of Democracy in India: A Report. New Dehi: Oxford University Press. 8 Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Deveoping Societies (CSDS)