India is the world’s largest, and loudest democracy. But it could work better for its poorest citizens, argues Subhash Agrawal.

India is attracting global praise, foreign investment and strategic overtures like never before.While much of this attention focuses on India’s burgeoning middle class consumer market, a large element is based on new respect for the country’s steadfast democracy – a trait that carries increasing significance in the context of post-9/11 geopolitical turmoil. While many countries disappoint the international community with their cronyism, autocracy or internal conspiracies, India continues to win plaudits for having stayed largely true to the spirit of democracy.

The world’s largest and perhaps loudest democracy, this is a country that votes often, votes in large numbers and where poorer people usually vote the most passionately. India also has a habit of kicking out incumbent governments. For the outside world, these traits alone make the country a true success story.

In contrast, India’s five neighbours – Pakistan, Afghanistan, Burma, Bangladesh and Nepal – are all ranked as “most critical” in the index of failed states by Foreign Policy magazine. No wonder India trumpets its democracy as loudly as a Bollywood movie song.

But beneath the surface, Indian democracy conceals a raw mix of corruption, primitive patterns of loyalty, sycophancy and populism. First, almost all political parties are autocratic or dynastic, getting into power-sharing deals based on backroom deals among top leaders rather than on ideological agreement. A recent Transparency International survey ranked political parties in India as among the most corrupt in the world. Currently, over 10% of all elected legislators in the country hold a criminal record.

Second, India is perpetually in ‘election mode’, and a crowded political calendar has created an overheated form of democracy that allows little room for honest debate.There is instead widespread populism. For instance, financial subsidies introduced over the past 50 years – on food, petrol or fertilizer – now add up to more than a tenth of all official expenditure. More public money is spent on salaries or pensions of government employees than on public healthcare in India. According to some estimates, direct and indirect government employment accounts for almost 40% of all organisedsector employment in India – surely one of the highest in the world. Of course, this figure has been overtaken by the impressive growth of India’s private sector, but it still points to the huge size and scale of Indian bureaucracy.

These flaws explain why, despite its democracy, India has so far failed to provide better opportunities to millions of its citizens. Poverty may have declined from 46% of population in 1987 to 34% in 2004, but the economic growth of recent years is limited to urban-based industries, like Information Technology, while the vast hinterland of rural India remains disconnected from the economic mainstream.

The biggest success of Indian democracy lies in expanding political mobilisation of groups which were historically discriminated or ignored but who are now learning to compete for power through the ballot. Increasing political awareness among disadvantaged groups has forced successive governments to pay more attention to the creation of compensatory privileges. Indian democracy’s greatest relevance is perhaps just this, allowing deprived groups to fight for belated recognition and to negotiate greater commitments from the state.

On the other hand, its biggest failure is the inability to secure better governance, genuine and visible development, and a collectivist vision in society. Socioeconomic indices in India have indeed improved over the years, but far slower than what was actually possible. Society remains among the most fragmented, unequal and internally alienated anywhere in the world.

There is no question that India is far better off with its democracy than without, but it now needs to deepen this democracy through education, social investment and more open – and more local – methods of governance.