Paper short abstract:

Taking Arend Lijphart's binary typology of democracies this paper deals with the question if India follows the Westminster or consensus model of democracy. The answer to this question does not depend solely on the institutional set-up, but also on the prevailing political constellation.

Paper long abstract:

Due to the many colonial legacies India inherited from the British her

political system is generally considered as belonging to the Westminster

(majoritarian) model of democracy, i.e. the British form of responsive

parliamentary government showing all the essential features of majority rule

with a dominant cabinet dependent on the confidence of Parliament.

This view is challenged by Arend Lijphart who characterises the Indian

system as a perfect example of what he calls the consociational (or

consensual/consensus) model of democracy. While the essence of the

Westminster model is majority rule the consensus model of government

follows the principle of "as many people as possible" and is perfectly

suited to deeply divided society like India. Generally speaking the

Westminster system of government is best suited for homogeneous societies

while consensus democracy is an appropriate form of government in

heterogeneous societies.

One parliamentary democracy, but two opposite interpretations. Is India an

"interesting anomaly" of the Westminster model, or "an impressive confirming

case" for consociational interpretation of the Indian democracy showing all

its essential features like grand coalition government, cultural autonomy,

proportional representation and monority veto?

The answer to this question does not depend solely on the ways and means in

which the two models have institutionalised their decision-making

procedures, but also, and often predominantly, on the prevailing political

constellation and the behaviour of the dominant political actors within the

given polity.