Related Articles:
Abstract
This article provides a comparative analysis of the political trajectories of India and Brazil, seeking to explain the remarkable stability of democracy in the former and the recurrent pattern of instability and military intervention in the latter. It examines a range of potential determinants, including political, economic, and military factors. The study analyzes the role of political institutions, the nature of the party system, and the strength of civil society in each country. The research also explores the impact of economic factors, such as levels of development, inequality, and the nature of state-economy relations. A central focus of the paper is a comparison of the role and nature of the military in the two countries, contrasting the apolitical, professional military in India with the historically interventionist military in Brazil. The paper argues that a combination of a strong institutional legacy, a deeply embedded democratic political culture, and a firmly subordinated military explains India's democratic success.
Full Text
Why have some large, developing countries successfully consolidated democracy while others have languished in a cycle of instability? This paper tackles this crucial question through a structured, comparative case study of India and Brazil. The first part of the study is a detailed examination of the determinants of democratic stability in India. It highlights the importance of the country's long experience with democratic practices during the colonial era and the role of the Indian National Congress as a broad-based, consensus-building political force in the post-independence years. The paper also provides an in-depth analysis of the institutional design of the Indian state, including its federal structure and independent judiciary. A critical factor identified is the successful establishment of a tradition of civilian supremacy over a professional and apolitical military. The second part of the paper provides a contrasting analysis of Brazil. It traces the country's history of political instability, culminating in the long military dictatorship from 1964 to 1985. The study identifies key factors of instability, including extreme economic inequality, a fragmented and weak party system, and, most importantly, the historical perception of the military as a legitimate political actor and a "moderating power" in times of crisis. By contrasting these two cases, the findings reveal that democratic stability is not simply a product of economic development, but is deeply rooted in the historical development of political institutions, the creation of a supportive political culture, and the successful subordination of the military to civilian control.