CHARACTERIZATION OF SOUTH ASIA
NOTE: THIS IS A VERY LIBERAL APPROACH, WHICH NEGLECT A SERIES OF REVEALING ASPECTS IN ORDER TO FORGE A SENSE OF CONTINUITY. I DID FOR A LIBERAL COURSE I TOOK BUT I ABSULUTELY DISAGREE WITH MOST THINGS.
Members: Bangldesh; India; Pakistan; Nepal; Sri Lanka; Maldives (but Dushyantha Mendis does not consider it)
Patterns of Analysis: Historical Background; Social Pluralism; Control of Resources; Psychological Security;
Bangladesh, India and Pakistan share a similar historical background with antecedence in the Moghul and British empire.
Moghul political and social system was 'agrarean bureaucracy' on top of heterogeneous collection of native chieftains differing widely in resources and power.
Native chieftains with substantial independence, with moderate incorporation in the Moghul bureaucratic system.
Small economic surpluss left with native populations worked to avoid internal dissentions.
British rule made few modifications only, but despite the monolitic fashion of unity there was much decentralization (more than 500 petty rulers).
Zamindari feudal and exploitative system.
By the end of the 19th Century a local industrial class at odds with the British concurrence succeed on managing the rural masses (with great help of Gandhi) to achieve independence.
Gandhi's swadeshi (buy local) was basically favorable to the domestic industries
BANGLADESH
Was the State of Esst Bengal during colonial times, than become East Pakistan after partition and just with the independence, in 1971, become Bangladesh.
After partition most Hindus fled away, what alleviated the feudal land control, but also impoverished the industrial capacity.
The Ayub (of Hindu majority) regime was substituted after partition by the Awami League, which kept landownership ceiling and other measures protecting the amorphous petty bourgeoisie with large doses of patronage.
1972 expansion of the public sector (nationalization).
86% of the industries belonged to the state.
Inpetitude, famine, authoritarian tendencies and Mujib's attempt to set up a one-party socialist state led to the military coup of 1975.
Regime change did not make a difference in the locus of power.
Economic liberalization that followed didn't led to any democratization trend.
Privatized over 600 public enterprises in the last 15 years (more than Chile under Pinochet).
Around 60% of those enterprises were closed.
INDIA
The independence and post-independence period is characterized as a political oligarchy, also known as 'Nehruvian Order'.
Different groups playing different roles in the different political levels.
Elites enlarged their dominance through controlling the state led development.
Until the liberalization, in the 1990's, India owed 60% of the productive capital in the industrial sector; Run 8 of the top 10 industries; employed 2/3 of the regulated workers; owed more than 25 % of capital stocks and regulated patterns of private investment.
Traditional elites encompassed industrial capitalists, rich farmers and professional bureaucrats.
Secondary beneficiary are parasitic large burgeoisie and middle classes, like the Jana Sangh, threatened from above by the state intervention and from bellow by the backard classe mobilization.
BJP expanded its bases to the urban middle world (1980's and 1990's), latter extending to upper cast discontents with Mandal Comission.
OBC's, Dalits and Scheduled Casts, after a long history in South India and Maharashtra, come to increase the participation of the poor in the electoral process.
In 1972 only 38% of the poor voted, but in 1996, 51% of the poor voted.
42% of the lower castes in 1972 felt their vote made any difference, while this increased to 60% in 1996.
Rates of party membership of Scheduled Castes increased from 13% in 1971 to 19% in 1996, and the upper casts declined from 36% to 28% during the same period.
The increasing role of regional identities and the reestructuring of Indian politics also come as a central leadership attempt to undercut the power of local elites (e.g. Indira Gnadhi Congress Party 'seizure').
Decline of national parties and trend to even larger coalition governments being formed between the national and regional parties.
India's 2 largest national parties (Congress and BJP) only had 52% of votes in 1992.
Mendis sees a positive tendency in this, which would reflect the diversity of the country and make India more federal.
Liberalization started by Narashima Rao in 1991 was impelled by a balance of payment crisis, but continued not only in the central level but also driven by the federative units themselves.
Mendis sees the current scenario as the end of Nehruvian Order and points to the growing role of the Election Comission and Supreme Court as democratic achievements.
Points Ujjwal Kumar Singh's view that the Supreme Court helped to empower the Election Commission, which accordingly would be a model to the whole South Asia.
PAKISTAN
Military has always played a determinant role in Pakistani history, backed by civil bureaucracy and also as outcome of external factors like India.
Muslim League, civil bureaucracy and military in Pakistan were a shadow of their counterparts in India.
Infrastructural inadequacies aligned with the Kashmir War strengthened the power of militarily.
Main Constitutional impasses were: Islamic or secular state; the question of national language; koint or separate electorates (regarding religious minorities); the issue of representation and the Bengali majority.
It's no wonder that it took two Constituent Assemblies until 1956 to draft a Constitution, or that this Constitution could never be made operational because the military seized direct control in 1958.
Until them there was only a facade of civilian control with real military influence.
Elections were scheduled to 1959.
Muslim League – architects of independence – were based in India, but the ruling class after independence were the Mohajirs (migratory minority industrial class).
Coming from Bombay and Calcutta the Mohajirs, along with the Punjabi Chiniotis, assumed the entrepreneurial leadership since the Pakistani Muslim bourgeoisie didn't do it.
In 1970 the populist Pakistan People's Party won the elections (Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto) and promoted some nationalizations
Split of Bangladesh.
Industrial elites smashed up by but re-emerged through the Green Revolution and as shop keepers and small scale industrialists.
In any case, the Military has never weakened its control over power in Pakistan.
Military occupied a large fraction of the civil positions in that country.
Even the political parties are not insulated from the army.
Nepal Historical Background
Politically unified in 1978 by upper caste Hindus fleeing from Muslim dominated India.
Even before the Ranas they were good on absorving local power also.
In mid 19th Century the Ranas started controlling the king and imposed a hereditary prime-ministership until 1950.
Indian Nationalism fostered Nepali nationalism and in 1950 the Nepali Congress (B.P. Koirala and D.R. Regmi) overthrew the Rana rule.
Main players in the 1950 political struggle:
Monarchy, which was freed from the Rana control in 1950 and kept an assertive role until the 2005-6 upheaval.
The traditional elites, mostly based in Kathmandu, which kept organized under the pre-1951 chakari patron client family system, however with less cohesiveness and sense of identity than during the Rana rule, but still exerting a key role while dominating the main parties independently of their ideology.
Political parties, which Mendis points to be self-fulfilling-aimed and dependent on the Monarchy and on the traditional elites.
The Rana hereditary Prime-Ministership was substituted by a non-hereditary Parliamentary Monarchy in which the Ranas would influence only the King (Tribhuvan 1911 – 1955 and Mahendra 1955 – 1972).
In 1959, however, King Mahendra imposes Panchayat system according to which Parliament could not be disputed by candidates with parties.
It started working effectively in 1962.
The Constitution for that would be written in 1960.
In 1989 the People's Movement would force the King Birendra (son of Mahendra) to accept constitutional reforms returning to the multipartidary Parliamentary Monarchy.
The new Constitution would be finished in 1991.
In 1996 the Maoist start a Civil War against the King and in favour of a secular socialist people's democracy folding the tribal and minority claims also.
In 2001 the Prince Dipendra killed the King, the Queen and other 5 cousins, and, as he committed suicide, his brother, Gyanendra, took the crown.
In 2005 Gyanendra dissolved the Parliament under the claim of centralization to resist the Maoists.
In 2006 Gyanendra was weak and agreed on transfering sovereignty to the people, bringing back the Parliament which was unanimous in ending his Royal powers, abolishing monarchy and instituting a secular state.
In 2007, the formal modifications to vanish monarchism went on the Parliament to reform the Constitution.
In 2008 those arrangements were made as the Constitutional Assembly was called to write a new Constitution.
In this same year the Maoist leader Prachandra was elected Prime Minister but couldn't keep the coalition, loosing power in 2009 without concluding the Constitutional writing, which still today is unfinished for nobody could keep enough stability as Prime Minister.
Sri Lanka Historical Background
After the great hydraulic civilization (13th Century) Sri Lanka was ruled by a bureaucratic monarchy until the Europian conqueering in the 16th and 17th Centuries.
Portuguese and Dutch conquer of the litoral and British conquer of the central hills (1815 Kandyan aristocracy overthrew the ruling king and invited the British).
Kandyan – British rule (1815 - 1832) based on aristocratic families, agricultural based, caste-system, centralized administration, corruption and unrestricted power.
1832 Legislative and Executive Council
Elitist and clientelist nationalism slowly emerged and in 1933 the British grant universal adult franchise against Sri Lankan political elite.
Independence (1948) was lead by a petit bourgeoisie – Intermediate Regimes (Michael Kalecki).
Represented by S.W.E.D. Bandaranaike election as Prime-Minister in 1956.
Hight degree of state control over the economy
Creation of a large public sector to the petit bourgeoisie
Protection to the domestic entrepreneurial class.
Any of this means the poor were taken care.
This intermediate regime harmonized the 2 biggest countries until 1977, but than economic stagnation made the claim for changes.
Since 1971 there was an armed revolt of the 'declasses'
In 1877 J.R. Jayewardene resorted to open economy.
This has been the consensus among the 2 biggest parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment