The curious case of Indian autocracy and what it tells us about 'thinking and working politically'

25th June 2015

Today marks the fortieth anniversary of Indira Gandhi’s declaration of a national emergency in India, which led to an 18-month period of autocracy. Civil rights were suspended, political opponents and journalists were arrested without the right to trial, censorship was imposed, elections were cancelled, non-Congress state governments were dismissed, the constitution changed.

Those who care to recall that it ever happened describe The Emergency, as it came to be known, as “the darkest period of independent India”. This is certainly how it is presented in Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children and Rohinton Mistry’s A Fine Balance. Yet it has received surprisingly little attention in the political science and development literature. In fact, much of the existing literature incorrectly assumes that India has experienced uninterrupted democracy since 1947.

'... one person, or a very small group of people, can both wipe away an institutional structure and, in a moment, restore it again.'

But if we care to look a little closer, I think India’s Emergency can tell us something very important about how change happens. In a new DLP paper out next month, I look at this period of autocracy, and the need to consider the relationship between structure and agency to understand the institutional change that took place.

The generally accepted version of events is that democracy triumphed; unable to resist the opposition of various groups who had been empowered by a quarter of a century of post-Independence democracy, Gandhi abandoned her ambitions of dictatorship within two years.

Democratic structure overcame Gandhi’s agency. That’s the line that fits most neatly into the dominant institutional analyses. Even political approaches tend to prefer it this way, and the widespread assumption is that people’s actions are the result of the political structures they inhabit.

I’m not convinced. I argue that we ignore the interplay between structure and agency, between actors and the environment they find themselves in, at our peril. India’s shift to autocracy and its return to democracy can tell us much about the fragility of political institutions and democracy, and – crucially – how change happens. How one person, or a very small group of people, can both wipe away an institutional structure and, in a moment, restore it again. The importance of agency.

Several factors contributed to Prime Minister Gandhi’s decision to declare a national emergency in June 1975. A student-based protest movement, stirred by worsening economic problems, had organised a series of debilitating strikes in the country. Gandhi was found guilty of a minor electoral malpractice offense (she had hired a government official to work on her previous election campaign team – trivial, but still illegal). When the Supreme Court upheld the guilty verdict, her government imprisoned political opponents and imposed a media blackout.

Over the next 18 months, to concentrate power into the hands of the executive, appointments were made purely on the basis of personal loyalty. Perhaps the most notorious government excesses were the slum clearances and family control programs. Poor Indians were forcibly removed from their homes and many were made to undergo sterilisation.

Then, as suddenly as the Emergency had begun, it ended. In January 1977, Gandhi announced an election. In March she was comprehensively defeated in the polls and democracy was restored.

A structuralist approach cannot reconcile the authoritarian Indira Gandhi with her unexpected decision to hold elections and return to democracy. To explain this, it is necessary to consider people’s capacity to feel ambivalent about their own actions, to reflect on decisions they have made, and to change their minds.

A closer examination of the evidence shows that the public was only able to vote Indira Gandhi out of office because she decided to hold elections. She was under little pressure from inside India itself to hold elections and her announcement took most observers completely by surprise.

'... all the evidence suggests that she could have carried on'

She had for some years exploited the structural weaknesses of India’s less-than-robust democracy and so was confident that she would face little opposition when she imposed autocratic rule – and she was right. Many actively supported her, and all the evidence suggests that she could have carried on. It seems the only reason she didn’t was because she decided not to. She had a genuine desire to see the country return to democracy, inspired at least partly by criticism of her actions by some of her close friends.

So while some dismiss agency as “an academic affectation that does not help development in practice”, I’d say we need to take a much closer look at the relationship between structure and agency. We need to look at how it shapes people’s behaviour as well as political outcomes. This argument has been made by David Hudson and DLP’s late founding director Adrian Leftwich in their influential paper on political analysis

They suggest that donors’ engagement with the politics of development is based on a narrow conceptualisation of agency, and this is certainly my experience of the various political economy analysis meetings I’ve been involved in. It is common to hear development researchers and practitioners talk in simplistic terms about identifying elites and their incentives. The prevailing view seems to be that everyone works to further their own fixed narrow self-interest – except for development practitioners themselves, of course, who work selflessly in the interests of humanity.

I think the first lesson of India’s Emergency is that we cannot interpret an individual’s incentives only with reference to their position in a political system. In other words, if an individual is a member of the local political elite, we should not assume that their only incentive is keeping hold of or extending their power. This may be true, but we might also consider the possibility that they have a deep commitment to improving the lives of their community. Careful political analysis should uncover this.

A second lesson is the possibility that someone with much political agency at their command might simply change their mind. This puts the tool of persuasion back into the toolkit of all who hope to bring about change by ‘thinking and working politically’. We should not assume that an individual’s position is fixed. The merits of the case might move them.

And part of the art of persuasion is putting conscious effort into to how we frame our message. We need to think about how we put our case, how we can change the narrative, and who we can bring into the argument. 

Current political thinking in development is still dominated by a rather narrow focus on incentives. India’s Emergency suggests that this is only scratching the surface of the many factors that contribute to change.

 

Image: Indira Gandhi in 1962. (Photo: U.S. Embassy New Delhi)

0 Comments

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.

Documents

Author

Niheer Dasandi

Niheer Dasandi

Niheer is a Research Fellow with the Developmental Leadership Program, based at the University of Birmingham. His research focuses on politics and development, particularly on the political economy of aid, links between inequality and poverty, the process of policy reform, and political-bureaucratic interactions.

Read more

Related items

Political settlements: people and the landscapes of power

The problem with politics is that it involves people, and people do strange things. When development actors engage with power they often prefer to iron out the unpredictability of real politics in favour of the much neater lines of trends and social groups. We revere drivers of change studies because we can cope with the long-term, identity-based analysis of `deep’ politics. 

Opinion by Alan Whaites24th July 2015

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

Innovation has become a popular word in international development. In Australia today, Bjorn Lomborg helped to formally open DFAT’s development innovation hub innovationXchange, which is designed to ‘identify, trial and scale up successful approaches’. Other donors, including the US and the UK, are also promoting innovation through initiatives like the Development Innovation Ventures programme.

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015

Our money, our projects: Demand-driven community development

Emerging lessons from the Central Land Council’s community development program to strengthen Aboriginal people’s participation in mainstream Australia.

Opinion by David Ross15th April 2016

Medellin - more than a miracle

Bad news sells. And for news editors looking for horror stories to recycle, Colombia's second largest city used to be a reliable source.

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say about whether giving aid to a high-achieving authoritarian regime makes good developmental sense? 

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Shifting the focus of development intervention from form to the actual practice and distribution of power. (Guest post for the World Bank Governance for Development blog)

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's resource management transparency process has joined government, business and civil society actors in collective action for the first time.  

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

Creative expression and women's empowerment in the Pacific

Art and creative expression have become an activist tool and alternative form of advocacy for young women in Fiji.

Through photography, theatre, dance and song, young women are finding new avenues for public expression. These innovative avenues for making their voices heard have great power in a context where women’s mobility and visibility is often constrained by socio-cultural norms.

Opinion by Tait Brimacombe19th March 2015

Bringing Political Economy Analysis in from the cold

Once seen as a 'transformative' tool to change donor thinking, does much PEA now do little to help staff think and work politically?

Opinion by Jonathan Fisher6th May 2014

How does politically informed programming shape development outcomes?

Many well-intentioned development programmes founder in the face of resistance from entrenched elites who feel threatened by a potential loss of power and resources. Resources intended for the poor and disadvantaged benefit the rich and powerful. In response, development practitioners and academics have become keenly interested in the political factors that shape development outcomes over the past ten years.

Opinion by Mark Robinson29th January 2016

Beyond the limits: can we Think and Work Politically to achieve the SDGs?

How international development agencies need to change to confound the sceptics. (Guest post for the OECD's Institutions and Stability blog)

Opinion by Heather Marquette4th February 2016

Don't give up on government

Can the World Bank's flagship World Development Report inspire a good governance revolution that delivers development gains?

Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

Development cooperation and fighting corruption: thinking differently

Everyone associates Brazil with football and the World Cup. Brazilians pouring out onto the street last summer to protest the competition being hosted in their country was last thing many of us expected to see.

Opinion by Heather Marquette24th June 2015

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

The Developmental Leadership Program will host its 2016 Annual Conference at La Trobe University in Melbourne on 8 February. Its theme is ‘Power, Politics and Positive Deviance’.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

The practicalities of change: Positive deviance and land reform in Vanuatu

Anna Naupa's 2016 Adrian Leftwich Memorial Lecture discussed where most transformation happens - in drafting the rules, or in putting them into action.

Opinion by Anna Naupa13th April 2016

Gender - the power relationship that Political Economy Analysis forgot?

While most development research is well on the way to embedding gender analysis, PEA - many donors' key analytical tool - largely ignores it.

 

Opinion by Evie Browne13th February 2014

Resources and reflections on gender and thinking and working politically

Next week's meeting of the Thinking and Working Politically Community of Practice will focus on gender at an opportune time. It follows a spate of interesting papers, blog posts and talks about the relationship between 'thinking and working politically' and gender issues. 

Opinion by Chris Roche12th June 2015

Anthropology and elites: 'Studying up', politically

The parallels between - and ethical dilemmas of - anthropology's focus on context and international development's ‘thinking and working politically’ concept. 

Opinion by Paul Robert Gilbert10th March 2016

Time for a grown-up conversation about corruption

To combat corruption, we need to understand the deeper political realities, power dynamics and social structures that perpetuate it.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal9th December 2014

'Sticky’ change: What international development can learn from adaptive management

Promoting and sustaining individual behavioural change is as important as building flexibility into development programming.

Opinion by Greg Power2nd December 2016

Gender and power: six links and one big opportunity

Donors have recently made great efforts to understand power in partner countries. Yet they have largely ignored one of the most pervasive power relations – gender.

Opinion by Diana Koester21st May 2015

Gender analysis, and thinking and working politically – bridging the gap

Guest post on Devpolicy  introducing panels at this week's Australasian Aid Conference

Opinion by Chris Roche14th February 2017

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The political settlements framework can seem a distraction to some practitioners, many of whom have been thinking and working politically about development for a number of years. They find the term difficult to define with any precision and, in any case, quite unnecessary. In the real world, progress towards better understanding of and engagement with the political conditions which help and hinder development has been ticking along nicely, independently of the academic debates.

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

The need for parliamentary strengthening has never been more urgent, since parliaments - and the political parties that populate them - are the institutions people trust least. (Guest post for ODI's Shaping Policy for Development blog)

 

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

DRCongo: where a decade of failed democracy has exposed the electoral fallacy

It takes more than a fairly-won election to guarantee that the elected will put their citizens first, rather than themselves. (Guest post for Africa at LSE)

Opinion by Suda Perera19th December 2016

DLP political settlements workshop: reflections

Serendipity, perhaps. I joined the Political Settlements Research Programme at the beginning of June; my first formal engagement was on June 17, at the Political Settlements Workshop organised by the Developmental Leadership Program. It was quite an induction day.

Opinion by Astrid Jamar22nd July 2015

Fixing aid: we can't turn off the tap at the first sign of corruption

Much 'petty' corruption is about the poor using what little power they have to stave off destitution. (Guest post for The Conversation)

Opinion by Heather Marquette10th November 2014

Breaking new ground in parliamentary strengthening

The importance of tailoring parliamentary support programmes to their context. (Guest post for openDemocracy)

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal29th March 2016

Fragmentation of the Thinking and Working Politically agenda: Should we worry?

Many different paths, but all leading to similar destinations - and adding useful nuance to development thinking and practice.  

Opinion by Thomas Parks29th August 2016

Politics, risk and development: three takeaways

Reflections from last week's Australasian Aid Conference and DLP’s 2016 Annual Conference, both hosted at Australian universities. 

Opinion by Chris Roche19th February 2016

Cancer and the links between medicine and development

Guest post for From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2015

From functional governance to sustainable peace: Making the space to reflect, learn and adapt

Learning how to balance the technically possible and politically feasible in volatile, conflict-affected contexts.

Opinion by Aditi Haté 22nd February 2017

#Feminism: Digital technologies and feminist activism in Fiji

Guest post on Devpolicy on DLP work with research partners at University of the South Pacific.

Opinion by Tait Brimacombe14th March 2017

The curious case of Indian autocracy and what it tells us about 'thinking and working politically'

Today marks the fortieth anniversary of Indira Gandhi’s declaration of a national emergency in India, which led to an 18-month period of autocracy. Civil rights were suspended, political opponents and journalists were arrested without the right to trial, censorship was imposed, elections were cancelled, non-Congress state governments were dismissed, the constitution changed.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi25th June 2015

How can a high-growth autocracy become a democracy without derailing growth?

Understanding how to make democratic transitions as economically painless as possible.

 

Opinion by Tim Kelsall28th September 2016

The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

Bringing to the fore some of the unique problems faced by the Pacific region.

Opinion by Julien Barbara8th July 2016

Transparency and Accountability: learning through collaboration

How can the impact of transparency and accountability work be deepened? 

Opinion by Brendan Halloran10th June 2014

Thinking about women and girls makes development work better for everyone

A look at what happens when gender analysis is placed more squarely at the heart of governance work. (Guest post in The Conversation)

Opinion by Orlanda Ward7th March 2017

Using aid to strengthen Parliaments: fix the car, or worry about the driver?

Parliaments have always been treated as the poor cousins of democracy assistance efforts. (Guest post for From Poverty to Power)

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

Shuffling the decks: quick fixes versus long-term stability

(First published as a guest post for the ODI's Development Progress blog)

Opinion by Suda Perera22nd January 2015

International donors - aiding or abetting?

In September 2012, lawyers representing an Ethiopian farmer announced that they planned to sue the UK government for its role in human rights violations in Ethiopia. The farmer, named in court papers as “Mr O”, alleged that the Ethiopian government’s “villagisation” programme had involved the forced resettlement of thousands of families including his own.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014

Uncounted: has the post-2015 data revolution failed already?

Counting matters. As the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report puts it: What we measure affects what we do; and if our measurements are flawed, decisions may be distorted…. [I]f metrics of performance are flawed, so too may be inferences we draw.

Opinion by Alex Cobham12th May 2015

Do donors have realistic expectations of their staff when it comes to 'thinking and working politically'?

Is learning to ‘think politically’ like learning a new language? 

Opinion by Heather Marquette9th June 2014

Adding gender and power to the TWP agenda

Thinking and Working Politically presents development to us as an endeavour embedded within power structures. This is so important.

It helps us see clearly that we need to understand domestic politics to deliver development outcomes. Who are the players? Who makes decisions? Who will stand to lose from a proposal and how can they block progress?

Opinion by Sally Moyle6th August 2015

Perceptions of women in politics in Fiji: how to accelerate change?

Women are widely seen as entirely capable of taking on political leadership in Fiji; however, when asked to think about 'leaders', the public imagination automatically sees a man in the role.

Opinion by Rachel Fairhurst20th January 2015

Climate change and adaptation in the Pacific Islands: watering down women's security?

Beyond 'adaptability'? In this guest post, Nicole George highlights the work of women leaders who are challenging a narrow adaptation agenda.

Opinion by Nicole George7th March 2014