Abstract
In this article, I argue that democracy scholars cannot explain the political elite’s interest in democracy consolidation processes because they have yet to conceptualize the relation between the political elite and structure. This shortcoming can be rectified by using Bourdieu’s field theory insight that subjectivity and structure are constructed, reproduced, or altered due to contests among field actors over the symbolic capital of their field. I illustrate the significance of this solution by using it to explain the stability of Indian democracy during the early postcolonial period. Using data on the Indian political elite’s trajectories in institutional politics and observations on their everyday politics, I show that their differing interest in democracy during the early transition period was shaped by their unique political habitus, which was structured by their conflicts since the late colonial period to establish their respective political capital as the symbolic capital of the Indian political field. The general lesson to be learned from this study is that in order to comprehend democracy consolidation processes, it is important to shift attention from static, disjointed models of the political elite’s subjectivity and structure to the history of contests among the political elite over the symbolic capital of the political field, which couples the political elite’s subjectivity and structure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In 1975, Indian democracy was briefly interrupted by the Emergency period, which ended in 1977.
Nehru placed a strong emphasis on maintaining communal harmony; whenever possible, he criticized Hindu communal leaders for inciting riots. On the other hand, Patel publicly declared that Muslims had lost their right to remain in India since Pakistan had been created for them; he argued that the Hindus were simply defending themselves in the riots, while the Muslims were disturbing communal harmony. Nehru was so incensed by Patel’s speeches that he threatened to dismiss him from the council of ministers (Brecher 1959, p. 398).
References
Abente-Brun, D. (2009). Paraguay: the unraveling of one-party rule. Journal of Democracy, 20(1), 143–156.
Abdukadirov, S. (2009). The failure of presidentialism in Central Asia. Asian Journal of Political Science, 17(3), 285–298.
Adams, J. (1994). The familial state: elite family practices and state-making in the early modern Netherlands. Theory and Society, 23(4), 505–539.
Adney, K., & Wyatt, A. (2001). Explaining South Asia’s uneven democratic career. In J. Haynes (Ed.), Towards the sustainable democracy in the Third World. New York: Palgrave.
Adney, K., & Wyatt, A. (2004). Democracy in South Asia: getting beyond the structure agency dichotomy. Political Studies, 52, 1–18.
Ahlquist, J. S., & Levi, M. (2011). Leadership: what it means, what it does, and what we want to know about it. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 1–24.
Ahluwalia, B. K. (1974). Sardar Patel: a life. New Delhi: Sagar Publications.
Baker, C. (1976). The congress at the 1937 elections in Madras. Modern Asian Studies, 10(4), 557–589.
Bayly, C. A. (1975). The local roots of Indian politics: Allahabad 1880–1920. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bose, S., & Jalal, A. (1998). Modern South Asia: history, culture, political economy. New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986 [1983]). The forms of capitals. In J. Richardson’s (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press.
Brecher, M. (1959). Nehru: a political biography. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, J. M. (2003). Nehru: a political life. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cappocia, G., & Ziblatt, D. (2010). The historical turn in democratization studies. Comparative Political Studies, 43(8/9), 931–968.
Chiriyankandath, J. (2001). Democracy’ under the Raj: elections and separate representation in British India. In N. G. Jayal (Ed.), Democracy in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Craig, A. L., & Cornelius, W. A. (1995). Houses divided: Parties and political reform in Mexico. Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America, 249–297.
Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Depelteau, F. (2008). Relational thinking: a critique of co-deterministic theories of structure and agency. Sociological Theory, 26(1), 51–73.
Domhoff, G. W. (1967). Who rules America? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Domhoff, G. W., & Zweigenhaft, R. (1999). Diversity in the power elite. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Field, G. L., & Higley, J. (1973). Elites and non-elites: The possibilities and their side effects. Andover: Warner Modular Publications.
Field, G. L., & Higley, J. (1985). National elites and political stability. Research in Politics and Society, 1, 1–44.
Frankel, F. R. (1978). India’s political economy, 1947–77: the gradual revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fukuyama, F., Dressel, B., & Chang, B.-S. (2005). Facing the perils of presidentialism? Journal of Democracy, 16(2), 102–116.
Ganguly, S. (2007). Introduction. In S. Ganguly, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The state of India’s democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gopal, S. (1976). Jawaharlal Nehru: a biography. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Griffiths, P. J. (1952). The British impact on India. London: Macdonald.
Habib, I. (1995). Gandhi and the national movement. Social Scientist, 23, 3–15.
Higley, J. (2010). Elite theory and elites. In Handbook of Politics (pp. 161–176). New York: Springer.
Higley, J., & Burton, M. G. (2006). The elite foundations of liberal democracy. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Higley, J., Hoffmann-Lange, U., Kadushin, C., & Moore, G. (1991). Elite integration in stable democracies: a reconsideration. European Sociological Review, 7(1), 35–53.
Huber, E., & Stephens, J. D. (1999). The bourgeoisie and democracy: historical and contemporary perspectives. Social Research, 66, 759–788.
Jaffrelot, C. (2002). India and Pakistan: interpreting the divergence of two political trajectories. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 15(2), 251–267.
Jalal, A. (1995). Democracy and authoritarianism in South Asia: a comparative and historical perspective (p 9–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jeffrey, R. (1991). Jawaharlal Nehru and the smoking gun: who pulled the trigger on Kerala’s communist government in 1959? Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 29(1), 72–85.
Kohli, A. (2001). Introduction. In A. Kohli (Ed.), The success of Indian democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kochanek, S. A. (1968). The congress party of India: the dynamics of one-party democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Kogekar, S. V., & Park, R. L. (1956). Reports on the Indian General Elections, 1951–52. Bombay: Popular Book Depot.
Kulkarni, V. B. (1969). The Indian triumvirate: a political biography of Mahtama Gandhi, Sardar Patel and Pandit Nehru. Bombay: Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan.
Lachmann, R. (1990). Class formation without class struggle: an elite conflict theory of the transition to capitalism. American Sociological Review, 55, 398–414.
Lachmann, R. (2003). Elite self-interest and economic decline in early modern Europe. American Sociological Review, 68, 346–372.
Levy, D. C., & Bruhn, K. (1989). Mexico: Sustained civilian rule without democracy. Politics in developing countries: Comparing experiences with democracy. In L. Diamond, J. J. Linz, & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1990), 464–465.
Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy. Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.
Lipset, S. M. (1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited: 1993 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 59(1), 1–22.
Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in plural societies: a comparative exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1996). The puzzle of Indian democracy. A consociational interpretation. American Political Science Review, 90(2), 258–268.
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lizardo, O. (2010). “Beyond the antinomies of structure: Levi-Strauss, Giddens, Bourdieu, and Sewell.”. Theory & Society, 39(6), 651–688.
Low, D. A. (Ed.). (2006). Congress and the Raj: facets of the Indian struggle, 1917–47. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Luebbert, G. M. (1991). Liberalism, fascism or social democracy (Social classes and the political origins of regimes). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mahoney, J., & Snyder, R. (1999). Rethinking agency and structure in the study of regime change. Studies in Comparative International Development, 34(2), 3–32.
Mainwaring, S., & Scully, T. R. (1995). Building democratic institutions: party systems in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mainwaring, S., & Torcal, M. (2006). Party System Institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization. In R. S. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds.), Handbook of party politics. London: Sage Publications.
Mainwaring, S., & Perez-Linan, A. (2013). Democratic breakdown and survival: lessons from Latin America. Journal of Democracy, 24(2), 123–137.
Markoff, J. (2005). Transitions to democracy. In T. Janoski, R. R. Alford, A. M. Hicks, & M. A. Schwartz (Eds.), The handbook of political sociology: states, civil societies, and globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McLean, P. D. (2007). The art of the network: Strategic interaction and patronage in renaissance Florence. Durham: Duke University Press.
Michels, R. (1915). Political parties: a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York: Hearst’s International Library Company.
Mills, C. W. (2000). The power elite. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Misra, B. B. (1976). The Indian political parties: an historical analysis of political behaviour up to 1947. Bombay: Oxford University Press.
Møller, J., & Skaaning, S. E. (2013). Regime types and democratic sequencing. Journal of Democracy, 24(1), 142–155.
Moore, B. J. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon.
Mosca, G. (1960). The ruling class (1939). New York, London, 80–87.
Munck, G. L. (Ed.). (2007). Regimes and democracy in Latin America: theories and methods. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Nehru, J. (1967). Toward freedom: the autobiography of Jawaharlal Nehru. Boston: Beacon.
Nehru, J. (1938). The unity of India. Foreign Affairs, 16(2), 231–243.
Nyong’o, P. A. (1992). Africa: the failure of one-party rule. Journal of Democracy, 3(1), 90–96.
O’Donnell, G. A., & Schmitter, P. C. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Oldenburg, P. (2010). India, Pakistan, and democracy: solving the puzzle of divergent path. New York: Routledge.
Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust action and the rise of Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259–1319.
Pareto, V. (1935). The mind and society. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and development: political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Punjabi, K. L. (1962). The indomitable Sardar: a political biography of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
Reeves, P. (1971). A handbook to elections in Uttar Pradesh, 1920–1951. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Rueschemeyer, D., Huber, E., & Stephens, J. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rustow, A. D. (1970). Transitions to democracy: toward a dynamic model. Comparative Politics, 2(3), 337–363.
Samuels, D. J. (2000). The gubernatorial coattails effect: federalism and congressional elections in Brazil. The Journal of Politics, 62(01), 240–253.
Sarin, L. N. (1972). Sardar Patel. New Delhi: S Chand.
Sarkar, S. (2014). Modern India 1886–1947. India: Pearson Education India.
Schofield, N., & Sened, I. (2006). Multiparty democracy: elections and legislative politics. Cambridgde: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What democracy is…and is not. Journal of Democracy, 3(2), 75–88.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Socialism, capitalism and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Stephan, A., & Skach, C. (1993). Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation: parliamentarianism versus presidentialism. World Politics, 46(1), 1–22.
Strøm, K. (1997). Rules, reasons and routines: legislative roles in parliamentary democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(1), 155–174.
Sewell, W. H., Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.
Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Talbot, I. A. (1986). Muslim political mobilization in rural Punjab 1937–46. In P. Robb (Ed.), Rural India, land, power and society under British rule. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Tendulkar, D. G. (1951). Mahatma: a life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Bombay: Bombay Times of India Press.
Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B. R. (1976). The Indian National Congress and the Raj, 1929–1942: the penultimate phase. Canada: Mclean Hunter Press.
Varshney, A. (1998). Why democracy survives. Journal of Democracy, 9(3), 36–50.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. California: Univ of California Press.
Zolberg, A. R. (1966). Creating political order: The party-states of West Africa. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
None
Conflict of Interest
Author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Singh, S. Political Field Dynamics and the Elite’s Interest in Democracy: Insights from the Political Elite’s Role in Consolidating Indian Democracy. Int J Polit Cult Soc 29, 183–208 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-015-9211-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-015-9211-5