newdelhi_desouza

State of Democracy in South Asia

by Centre for the study of Developing Societies

Project supported by Ford Foundation, International IDEA, and EU-India Cross Cultural Program of the EU

Research Partners     

International IDEA Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda, Sri Lanka.

Professor Mohammed Waseem, Pakistan.

Dr. Krishna Hachhetu, Nepal.

Professor Imtiaz Ahmed, Bangladesh.

Objectives of the study ď Ź

To investigate what democracy has done to South Asia and what South Asia has done to democracy.

ď Ź

Discontent with existing discourses as being inattentive, hegemonic and ethnocentric.

Limitations of current thinking on governance    

‘Deficit’ based thinking: of information, administration, resources and political will.

‘System’ centric thinking: inputs, processes, outputs.

‘Politics’ is missing: of agents, interests, elites, ideologies, and institutions.

No sense of the dialectics between institutions and processes.

Our Research Grid Promise -what moral burden does democracy carry in South Asia -what futures does it advance

Design -Institutional structure: political, social, economic -Parties/ Civil Society Organizations

Working -Sociology, Economy and Anthropology of institutions -practices of political leaders, parties, organizations etc

Outcomes -democratization of state and society, elite rule.

Futures -likely trajectories.

Four Research Pathways of Democracy Assessment Cross-sectional survey – Qualitative Assessment – Dialogues – Case Studies –

Component 1: Survey – Some Questions     

How do ordinary South Asians view democracy How do perceptions vary according to country, class, gender and social divisions What/ Who do they identify as the main threats to their security What is their level of trust in the capacity of institutions to meet their needs How does the perception of the elite relate to that of the cross section of the population

Component 1: Different aspects of inquiry –

Questions that have been asked Globally, across South Asia, and specific to each country.

–

Qs on: Battery on: legitimacy, efficacy, trust, participation

–

Qs on: Identity, dignity, notion of self-hood.

–

Qs on: Security and freedom from fear.

–

Qs on: Material outcomes and freedom from want

–

Qs on: Satisfaction with democracy.

-

Methodology: Total elector, no of parliamentary constituencies, and proposed sample units.

Country

Voters( milli on)

Total no of PCs

No of sampled constit(15%)

No of sampled booths

Targeted interviews (per booth)

B’desh

56.7

300

45

45*6=270

4320 (16)

India

617.01

3912

298

298*2/3=622

9330 (15)

Nepal

13.52

205

39

31*6=186

4000 (22)

Pakistan

55.74

207

31

31*6=186

4092 (22)

S’Lanka

12.07

196

30

30*6=180

4500 (25)

Total

755.13

26,242

Component 1: Methodology: Preparation for Survey         

Draw upon questionnaires of CSDS and various barometers Dialogues with activists Country coordinators to discuss draft questionnaire Common questions and country specific questions Translation into local languages Pilot survey Canvassing by field teams in each country Data processed and computerized Analysis plan collectively prepared

Component 2: Qualitative Assessment Agreement over main thrust of IDEA framework     

Assessment of ‘old’ as well as ‘new ‘ democracies People of the country to undertake assessment Assessment to be broad-based and objective Assessment to be the anchor for democracy discourse Two-fold anchorage: theoretical and historicalsociological

Component 2: Expert led Assessment Some questions



What are the main components of the ‘promise’.?



What is the nature of the of the economic institutions and how does it relate to the political structure?



Is there a gap between the design and actual working?



Is the working characterized by limitation or closure in terms of participatory spaces, agendas and/or participants?



Has democracy been an instrument of social transformation?



What is the relationship between the procedural and substantive aspects of democracy?

Component 2: Methodology ď Ź

Country coordinator constitute a team of experts to prepare the background papers for the respective nodes.

ď Ź

These papers and the relevant findings from the case studies and survey would be presented to the activists and experts from that country.

ď Ź

On the basis of their comments the coordinator would prepare the final report of QA for the country.

Component 3 : Dialogues    

Series of dialogues to be conducted at regional, national and local levels Dialogues to involve activists, journalists, academics, politicians, etc.

Ownership of study broad based Conversation between different knowledge universes

Component 3: Types of dialogues 

General: State of Democracy in South Asia



Thematic: (i) Democracy: Majorities and Minorities, (ii) Democracy and Human Security



Both types to be held in all 5 South Asian countries in different locations to ensure diversity of perspectives

Component 3: Methodology 

Duration over two days for building trust among participants



Invitees from a cross section of interests, ideologies, social strata, and groups.



Special effort to have minority viewpoints attend.



Selection of Chair important.



Dialogue loosely structured.



Entire dialogue recorded, digitized and finally uploaded on website.



Separate report of dialogue prepared where the views of speakers are presented sequentially.

Component 4 : Case Studies 

Based on the recognition that the survey, qualitative assessment and dialogues would still miss important aspects of democracy in practice.



Deliberate selection of aspects of practice that can be constructed as “puzzles” of democracy.



Goal to problematize the discourse on democracy by presenting “inconvenient facts”.



These “inconvenient facts” although located in South Asia have more general implications.



Evaluation of the case not straightforward e.g., families in politics, extension of women’s rights under dictatorship, life of file.

Component 4: Methodology 

Selection of cases after listening to dialogues



Use different methodologies to illustrate the issue e.g ethnographic approach to study working of a law court



Case study not “illustration” of a feature of democratic practice but elaboration of an “inconvenient fact”.



Commission of studies to be completed over 8 months.

Output    

Dissemination of first ever South Asia wide survey on citizens attitudes through media Publication of a Citizen’s report on Democracy in South Asia Report available in more than one South Asian Language Data archive open for public access

Outcomes    

Promote public discourse with political parties, people’s movements, and civil society organizations South Asian Survey to join the ranks of other Barometers Contribute to the development of a Human Security Index Transform the global discourse on democracy and governance.



Our website: WWW.LOKNITI.ORG