What is Comparative Politics?

Our semester long study of global political systems has enhanced our understanding and knowledge of what it means to compare two states.

 

We have examined the regimes, governments, societies and the economies of states all over the world. The basis of our studies involved the comparison of one factor as an indicator or driver of another phenomenon. The studies of these phenomena were then analyzed and conclusions were postulated that suggest whether or not the realities of a state was a direct event by an outside source.

 

“Comparative Politics itself seems fairly obvious at first glance. “We are comparing two countries”, says a naïve student the first day of class. What he hopefully would say today, having had a semester long survey of readings from a diverse group of political scientists and economists is that “Comparative Politics involves a mind-set and thought process much more than a straight evaluation of two different states. We have to identify what it is we are trying to explain and derive what exactly causes the socio-economic, geo-political or exclusively civil action that we seek to understand.”

 

Does a particular religion impede democratization? Do states with more a more liberal stance on family favor communism? How is the state’s economy affected by corruption and militarization of the government?

 

These are some of the questions we would answer. It takes an understanding of the state in its entirety, from the economy, to the politics to the general culture, in order to identify with the state. Once you appreciate that, a hypothesis can be created and conclusions can be formulated regarding the presence or absence of actions in two or more states.

 

Mock Election and Government Formation in India

The most surprising outcome of yestederday’s government formation experiment was that the FDP, the largest party in the ‘Bundestag’, was excluded from the winning coalition. It actually seems like the Green Party — tied for lowest representation in parliament — turned out to be the deciding factor. Had the FDP courted the Greens early, offering them, say, the Education and Environmental Ministries (and possibly even a third cabinet position), the FDP would have been able to form a coalition government, in which they could have held the other four (or three) ministries and the Chancellorship. The FDP would have had 6 of the 9 seats in this coalition and thus been able to act relatively freely once the government was approved. Instead, the Green Party sided with the CDU and the SDP, and helped them to form the winning coalition.

Recently, there have been a number of articles in the Indian news regarding government formation in the state legislature of Meghalaya, in northeast India. There are 60 seats in the Meghalaya state legislature, elected by proportional representation. Their government formation process seems fairly similar to Germany’s, as political parties debate cabinet posts and budget allocations until an agreement is reached. Over the last month, the elected MPs in Meghalaya have been trying to form a coalition government. Amidst heavy politicking, the largest represented party, Congress, was able to form the winning coalition, by giving cabinet posts to “fence-sitting” independent representatives. This and our example show that, in government formation, you cannot forget about the little guy.

http://inwww.rediff.com/newshound/mg.html (see “Swearing in of Meghalaya Cabinet Today”)

Water Wars

Civil unrest broke out in Chennai (formerly Madras) and other parts of the southeast Indian state of Tamil Nadu today. The disturbances were the latest developments in a month long controversy over the Hogenakkal Drinking Water Project. The multi-billion dollar proposal, announced by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in February, would use water from the Hogenakkal Falls on the Cauvery River on the border of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to provide safe drinking water for Tamils in the region.

The BJP government (a Hindu-nationalist party, see previous post) in Karnataka has openly opposed the proposal, arguing that the government in Chennai (the capital of Tamil Nadu) is neglecting a territorial dispute that is still before the Supreme Court. The political opposition in Karnataka has spilled over into civil unrest, as pro-Kannada (the primary linguistic/ethnic group in Karnataka) activists have attacked Tamil movie theaters and businesses in response to Tamil demonstrations in the region. The violence has continued, and as today’s episode shows, spread to Chennai and other parts of Tamil Nadu, as both Tamils and Kannadans react to earlier demonstrations and violence.

M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, has criticized the violence and has called on the the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, to stop what he considers a humanitarian crisis. Members of the Tamil film industry have also organized a hunger strike to protest the anti-Tamil demonstrations and aggression. The BJP in Tamil Nadu condemned the attacks which have occurred under the watch of their Kannadan counterpart.

This civil unrest exhibits a number of important points about Indian society and democracy. First, Indian society is extremely stratified; socioeconomic, caste, linguistic, ethnic and religious barriers divide people at all levels of society. India’s relative ability to control and overcome such divisions is partly what makes the country’s democratic regime truly remarkable. However, as the disputes in Chennai show, the young south Asian democracy still has some kinks to work out. Sumit Ganguly, in Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino’s Assessing the Quality of Democracy, argues that rule of law in India began to unravel in the 70s, under the rule of Indira Gandhi. Since then, the Indian government has been plagued by corruption and has been unable to prevent outbursts of ethnic and religious violence and civil unrest.

The responses to the water project show that the Indian public is aware of governmental issues and involved in civic groups. Normal citizens have banded together, albeit violently at times, to oppose or support a government project that, to an outsider, seems rather mundane (I don’t want to say that it is unimportant — it very well may be a life or death issue for people in the water deprived regions– however, similar spending bills are passed daily, and peacefully, in democracies around the world). Also, the Tamil film guild’s hunger strike shows political consciousness and activism in Indian civil society.

http://www.newstodaynet.com/newsindex.php?id=6342%20&%20section=7

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/tamil-nadu-launches-new-drinking-water-project_10021543.html

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/karunanidhi-seeks-pms-intervention-slams-bangalore-violence_10033377.html

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/tension-over-tamil-nadu-drinking-water-project_10028059.html

Democracy and Religious Extremism in India

The Republic of India was created in 1947 as a united, secular democracy. Over the last 60 years, Indian politics have been dominated by Congress, a left-wing, secular political party founded by Jawaharal Nehru. Despite the governments commitment to separation of church and state, religion has played a major role in Indian politics; politicians cater to their religiously diverse constituents and religious violence is not uncommon (in fact, Gandhi was assassinated by Hindu nationalists for “betraying” Hindutava by defending secularism). Congress finally was defeated in the 1998 national elections by the BJP, a Hindu nationalist party. In addition to ending 51 years of nearly uninterrupted dominance by Congress, this changing of the guards brought issues of religious toleration and secularism even further into the Indian political spotlight.

The New York Times published an article in February of 1998, just before the national elections, outlining some of the religious issues surrounding the vote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E4DE103FF933A15751C0A96E958260&st=cse&sq=BJP+wins+Indian+elections&scp=2

Indian Muslims, the world’s largest minority group, feared that their rights would be threatened, if not completely violated, by a BJP-led government. Muslim clerics across the country urged their congregations to vote for Congress and to protect themselves from the potential religious tyranny of the BJP. As we discussed in class today, the Muslim civic groups, united by common interest — in this case, religion and tolerance– actively participated in the political system and attempted to use the democratic process to protect their rights. In this case, associationalism could have possibly increased voter turnout (though I don’t have the exact figures). Although Congress anti-BJP propaganda likely exaggerates the party’s religious extremism, the concerns of Indian Muslims were likely warranted. The BJP’s website makes a number of religious and nationalist references, and the party’s platform includes a number of related issues. For example, the party wants to eliminate special laws governing Muslim marriages, divorces, and property rights, as well as build a Hindu temple on the site of a historic mosque.

http://bjp.org/

Nevertheless, the BJP has tried to shake its extremist reputation, and portray themselves as a more centrist, tolerant party to help spread its popularity, nationally.

Although Congress regained control of the national parliament in 2004, after 6 turbulent years of BJP rule, the Hindu-nationalist party still has influence (if not majorities) in some state legislatures. In December, Narendra Modi, a notoriously extreme member of the BJP, known for “his charismatic, often pugnacious, brand of Hindu supremacist politics”, was reelected as chief minister of Gujarat. Modi is infamous for his complacency towards, and possibly approval of, the religious riots which erupted in his state in 2002. During the violence, Hindu rioters killed over 1,000 Muslims. Critics, one of which called his reelection “the dark side of democracy”, fear that Muslims will be even further marginalized and oppressed by the Modi government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/23cnd-india.html?st=cse&sq=BJP+wins+Indian+elections&scp=1

These issues echo the current situation in Turkey that we discussed last week. Both India and Turkey were founded on secular ideals, however religion has continuously played an important role in politics in both countries. Although the BJP is a fully legitimate and legal political party, its policies and platforms seem to blur the divisions between church and state; as we have seen, secularists in Turkey have similar fears about the religiously-conservative ruling party there.