22 Post-Colonial State

Sanjay Kumar

Introduction

A State is a geographical entity which possesses a population, fixed territory, an administrative and legal order, i.e. the government which works according to a Constitution in which rules are determined for each public office. The State has legitimate authority and coercive power in the form of the military, the police and the judiciary to resolve disputes as well as to interpret the rules. The State claims authority over its citizens but also renders many facilities to its population. A State is composed of various groups and associations that are subservient to the State but also keeps a check on the activities of the State while competing withthe latter for the loyalty of the citizens. The State commands the people but it also takes care to keep their interests in mind. The State is a dynamic institution for it continuously endeavours to maintain control internally and also tries to expand its influence at the international level. Sovereignty is the most essential element of the State for a territory can call itself a State only when it is free externally as well as internally. Sovereignty is the identity card of any State for a State qualifies to become an actor in the international arena only when it possesses sovereignty. ‘The sovereign authority of a state is distinguished from these other cases both because its authority is supreme (such that an employee cannot legitimately command an employee to break the laws of the state) and because it has a wider scope (in the sense that the authority of a schoolteacher extends only as far as the school gate, while that of the state goes much further.’1 The State is a territorial entity and its decisions are binding on its members. The modern state developed in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe. The State, till then, was under the dual control of the Church and the King. Gradually, because of war, internal strife, growth of bureaucracy and weakening of feudalism, the influence of papal authority decreased and the modern day State emerged. ‘The State is a political association that exercises political power through a set of stable institutions within defined territorial boundaries. The institutions of the state are recognizably distinct from the rest of society and are responsible for the organization of communal life. They may include governmental institutions, as well as courts, social security systems, prisons, bureaucracies and nationalized industries and they are funded through public taxation. The authority of the state applies to all within its boundaries and is supported by a formal monopoly of force’.2 The American Constitution drafted in 1787, the French Revolution of 1789 joined the concepts of State and democracy forever. The two World Wars – Ist World War (1914-18) and the IInd World War (1939-45) ‘were total wars, fought between entire nations, rather than just between specialized armed forces’.3 But slowly ‘throughout Western Europe, the warfare state gave way to the welfare state; with rulers accepting directresponsibility for protecting their citizens from the scourges of illness, unemployment and old age”.4

                                       https://www.google.com/search

What are colonial states?

The post-colonial states are those states that were once a colony, under some foreign domination, and have gradually emerged as states. The journey of these newly-emerged states that have been under the foreign yolk for many decades has been a long and arduous one . As discussed earlier, the idea of states took place in Europe and it was exported to the other continents. Spain, Britain and France explored the world, made colonies and introduced their version of ‘state’, ‘legal institutions’, ‘constitution’, freedoms’ etc. to these colonies. The empires of these imperial states extended far and from these empires emerged the modern day states in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The colonial powers entered a virgin, foreign territory and gradually usurped it. Then the process started of suppressing and supplanting the native population by introducing and imposing their customs, traditions and habits on the inhabitants of these colonies. The colonial powers tampered with the culture of the indigenous population calling it, ‘backward’ and gradually tried to erase it. Initially, a few natives played on with the western powers, ridiculing what was theirs and blindly aping their colonial masters. But gradually, a few from the indigenous population rose to protect their culture and heritage. The blatant discrimination practiced by the colonial masters with the local population only helped tocement the fact among the latter that they were being exploited in their own land. Then the struggle for independence by the people started and the process of decolonization occurred in waves. The Spanish and Portuguese territories of Latin America were decolonized in the early nineteenth century. The war in Latin American countries was to replace monarchical rule with republican form of government. But the revolutions were a mixed bag. The instability in the post-colonial States led to the rise of authorization regimes. In these countries the indigenous population had not been eliminated by the early settlers. ‘New constitutions were produced but they were neither democratic nor even fully implemented. Economic exploitation of native populations, the poor and descendents of slaves continued into the post-colonial era’.5 Latin America was inherited by the indigenous people like the Maya, Inca and Aztec. The local people were forced to convert into Christianity. Spain colonized the central and southern parts of Latin America while the Portuguese colonized Brazil. This distribution was decided by the Treaty of Tordesillas. The native population suffered because of wars and diseases which came along with the conquerors. Small pox took many lives. These germs were fatal because they had come with the settlers from across the ocean and the native population had either not developed immunity, neither was there any cure. The Latin wars of Independence which was inspired by the America and French Revolutions led to the formation of many new independent states. Haiti, fought for its independence and attained it in 1804. Brazil followed by overthrowing the Portuguese rule in 1823. The strife in Brazil continued and it became a republic in 1889 after rejecting monarchy. Uruguay declared its independence in 1825. Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, Peru and Bolivia, all declared their independence soon after.

                                                   https://www.google.com/search

In the post-colonial states there is total disregard for the native societies. There is denial of dignity to the indigenous population. The culture of the people is suppressed. Thus, there is a clash of culture in colonies. The clash leads to emergence of many problems which usually become problems of post-colonial states. The colonial master forces its values on the natives. The colonial power consistently talks about the superiority of their culture, while degrading the civilization of the indigenous population. The values of the colonial masters were so deeply ingrained in the natives that it was difficult for such values to be erased from the minds of the masters for a long time. The culture of the colony was replaced by a culture that was foreign in nature. This led to a continuous struggle within the colony, even once it got its independence for there was, then, a conflict to find one’s identity. It also led to problems that would continue to haunt the post-colonial state even when it got the status of an independent country. The cleavages in the society which the colonial masters introduced in the colonies continue to trouble the post-colonial state for many years. The divisions, the rift on the basis of caste, class, region, religion, colour etc. instilled in the minds of the indigenous population continued to have long-term repercussions. It often led to such deep divisions that tore apart the social fabric of a society. The institutions introduced and imposed were mixtures which needed to be revamped and adjusted to the new circumstances in the post-colonial states. And this was no easy task, rather a herculean task.

https://www.google.com/search

The vacuum created by the exit of the colonial powers in Latin America led to the stepping in of France, America and Great Britain which were industrialized nations. A majority of these newly independent countries became dependent on these industrialized nations. In post-colonial Latin America, domestic conflicts rocked the continent. The civil wars between the populations led to the setting up of authoritarian regimes which were backed by the military. In these post-colonial states, elites usurped all the powers. They did not want power and wealth to filter down to the masses. This led to political instability in the country and concentration of powers in the hands of a few. The enthusiasm with which the people had pushed away their suppressors soon died because exploitation still continued, though at the hands of their own countrymen. There was no respite from exploitation, poverty and diseases that plagued the common people. The leaders who had fought for Independence had to face opposition from the traditional institutions as well as from the elites. The leaders were inexperienced and though they had a vision, they did not know how to make it a reality. They had to face hostile gangs of local elites who wanted to rule by dictate and not by reason or consent. The native whites had not been included by the colonial masters in the governance of the country. They wanted to have a greater say. The concentration of resources with a few upset those who did not have access to these. The little progress in the country was because of export of raw materials. Lack of industrialization and land with the rich who were a minority led to the emergence of a new class. The society was, thus, divided and the men who had fought the Independence, refused to give up arms. They grouped themselves into gangs, called ‘ Caudillos,’ and roamed the countryside, at times looting, plundering, taking the law into their hands and handing out justice in their quest for adventure, power and profit. Violence rocked the countries which led to the weakening of the government and rise of localism. Racial discrimination was another problem. The immigrants who had made Latin America their home had no protection once their colonial masters left. The natives did not accept them. The blacks \were in majority, for example, in Brazil, but again were not accepted.

The Church had amassed great wealth and had a say in running the affairs of the State. The command of the Church over the culture and minds of the people made it an active partner to gain power, through various proxy means. This also led to political instability and authoritarian leaders stepping in with the help of the military. The latter also wanted a bigger say in the affairs of the State. Waiting in the wings, the army commandos soon called the shots in many countries. Political turmoil was the feature of a majority of the Latin American countries in the post-colonial era. All these countries were caught in economic imperialism. The big powers like U.S.A, France etc took advantage of weak governments and political instability in the Latin America states and obtained rich concessions, access to markets and cheap raw materials. Greedy dictators sold concessions to multi-national corporations for personal gains.

In Brazil, emperor Pedro I (1822-1831) promulgated a Constitution in 1824 and his successor, Pedro II in 1840 gave political liberties to the people in his region. He abolished slavery in 1888 and the sugar plantation owners rose against him because they needed cheap manpower for the labour intensive identity. Hit economically, they were joined by the army generals and a few republicans. The emperor abdicated the throne in 1889. For the next ten years, Brazil was rocked by civil war and military coups. The army gained the upper hand finally and peace returned to Brazil by1899. But labour was repressed. Inflation was high and there were pockets of prosperous regions while the other areas remain underdeveloped and marginalized. People in these countries were not familiar with the concepts of representative governmnet, democracy or popular sovereignty. It was difficult to point out one system which would be acceptable to all.

https://www.google.com/search

Bolivia, named after its liberator, Simon Bolivar went through many revolutions. Marginalization, corruption and poverty were the characteristics of the country. After the initial experiments of framing new Constitutions, bestowing natural rights to the citizens failed, the leaders, went about setting governments, with strong governments at the centre. This led to political turmoil.

Great Colombia dissolved into Colombia, Venezuela and Equator by1830. All these countries were plagued by civil wars and political instability. In Argentina, a caudillo, Juan Manuel de Rosas ruled brutally from 1829 to 1852. He ruled with an iron hand. Some tried to follow the norms and recommendations of a Napoleonic state, for example, Bolivar recommended a powerful president-for-life and a life-senate but they were not followed. Governments changed hands quickly and use of force became common. The struggles were power-centric.

Chile was controlled by an oligarchy which was conservative and kept a tight control on the masses. The rule proved to be advantageous for the big industrialists and wealthy landlords. The Army commanders and the army had a field day in these countries. Augusto Pinchot is one leader who benefitted from a military coup and ruled for many years, violating human rights as well as curbing dissent.

It was difficult for these leaders to establish the legitimacy of their governments which were new and without any history. The battling of various factions with each other and a weak executive led to the failure of many governments. The countries were not prepared for democracy. They had chosen a few ideals but they remained far-fetched. The fight for power did not include the masses but only the elites who were divided into the conservatives, who were interested in maintaining the old Order and the liberals who were influenced by the thoughts of the western thinkers. The Conservatives followed the old institutions and had a special fondness for the Roman Catholic Church with whose interests their interests were tied. The caudillos or armed gangs captured power. They, sometimes, worked closely with the civilian politicians to capture power. The people were too lost in poverty etc. and were ignorant as well as passive to the political happenings. The high expenses on the bureaucracy and the military led to financial constraints on the new, fragile governments. They had to take debts which further added to the mire. The internal strife led to destruction of the productive areas, the fields. Mining suffered and labour problems arose. The elites who had spearheaded the revolutions in most of the countries did not want to part with their status and wealth.

‘The second wave of post-colonial states emerged in Europe and the Middle-East around the end of World War I, with the final collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires. The Austro-Hangman Empire, for instance, dissolved into five separate countries: Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia’.6 In Europe the growth of communism and fashion added a new dimension to the concept of State. In the third wave countries in Asia like India, Philippines got their independence. Many countries in Africa also got their independence. ‘Between 1944 and 1984, over 90 independent states, almost half the world’s current stock, were created; truly a rush to statehood’.7

Post- Colonial Africa

Meanwhile in Africa the colonizers had played havoc with the social fabric of the society that had existed since centuries. They tried to erase the African culture and introduce institutions and a way of life that was alien to the Africans who were divided into well- organized tribes. The colonizers used the ‘divide and rule’ policy pitying clans and tribes against each other and taking their fertile land. They took advantage of the enmity between tribes and subdued them by turn. The alien system was imposed on the people leaving them confused. People were introduced to Christianity and consciousness led to new and strange infighting among people of the same tribes for each tribe had its own religious beliefs. It did not take long, in these circumstances of political and social instability for authoritarian leaders to grab power. The military was another beneficiary which got a chance to come out of barracks onto the streets. President Kenyatta of Kenya became the prime minister and later President in 1964 after Kenya got its independence in December 1963. Kenya had two political parties at the time of its independence, Kenya Africa National Union (KANU) and Kenya Africa Democratic Union (KADU). KANU was pro-capitalist while KADU was socialistic and favored the poor. KADU dissolved itself in 1964 and merged it with KANU. Kenyatta started his brutal role once Kenya became a defacto one party state and he suppressed all those who opposed him. He encouraged the Kiambu Matia from his district along with encouraging the small Kikuyu elite.

Robert Mugabe helped liberate his country, Zimbabwe from Britain but he became a dictator, rigging polls crushing opposition and throwing people/farmers from their land. His party ZANU-PF was in power and crushed opposition for 33 years. Military coups have upset the apple cart in these newly independent states. Paul Kigame rose to power, through his guerilla movement and became the President of his Country in 2000. He has been accused of gross human right abuses. Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was appointed the Prime Minister of Tunisia but he became the President of Tunisia after a bloodless coup in 1987. He remained the President till 2011. He had to step down after 24 years when protests arose against him. He was blamed for embezzlement and suppressing political opponents. Hastings Kamuzu Banda led his country’s Malawi to independence in 1961 but once in power he killed and tortured thousands of people. Gaafar Nimiery came to power through a coup in Sudan in 1969 because the civilian rule was corrupt. Borrowing indiscriminately he led the Sudan economy to ruins. He died In 1985. Sekon Toure was elected as the first President in 1958 of Guinea and remained President till his death in 1984. For a liberator of his countrymen, he became a ruthless dictator. Idi Amin Dada in Uganda, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Sani Abacha in Nigeria, Gnassingbe Eyadema in Togo are all examples of dictators who came to power through military coup citing the corrupt civilian rule as an excuse. Unity seems to elude the Africans because of the borders drawn thoughtlessly by the colonial masters. Low income level, inflation, lack of infrastructure, continuing poverty are the challenges that these states face. Lack of clean running water, low literacy, lack of industry and lack of professional, qualitative workforce as well as lack of medical facilities are other challenges. The entry of multi-national corporations which invest for profit and not welfare is another case for worry. The famines, lack of food and medical facilities are the other challenges. The hoarding of wealth by the elite and politicians is another cause for concern. As the rich get richer, frustration of the majority increases which has led instability in the region and rise of the military regime

The fathers of the nation, the leaders who led their countries to independence, sometimes, faltered on the way. They personalized power and set about amassing wealth. The people were happy to see the colonizers depart from their land, not knowing that their place would be taken by the elites of their own country. The rulers in the post-colonial era have not been transparent. Corruption, nepotism and suppressing the right voices have been the norm. The colonizers did not train the natives in governance which led to the local government falling short of the required standards. Education was given to the Africans but not to the extent of running the legal institutions efficiently. The patron-client relationship, disbursing faovour to say in power have corrupted the nation and is proving to be an obstacle to development. Concentration of land and resources in the hands of the elite is another problem faced by the post-colonial states of Africa. Conflicts were resolved by the elders of the tribes. This system was uprooted and replaced by a strange sort of undefined violence introduced by the colonizers. Those traditional institutions of conflict resolution and management were lost forever. Africa is a story of a multi-ethnic society but divisions were made, borders were drawn in such a way that lead to increase in tensions over land between tribes.

Because the colonizers encouraged/forced the former to produce cash crops or primary products, what was produced was not what was needed most. This led to hunger, starvation and famine in Africa. This was the legacy that the post-colonial governments inherited. The colonial masters had practiced Apartheid-discrimination on the basis of colour. It had struck at the dignity of the indigenous population. The tribal people lost out on their heritage because a few among them sold land rights etc. to the settlers. The governments had to avoid falling into the trap of neo-colonialism because the industrialized nations were planning entering the resource-rich Africa by some of the other pretext. The weak economies, which were not mature or stable needed some help and the capitalist countries were ready to do, but at a price.

The wrong policies of the colonial masters left the newly-independent states with many problems. Malnutrition, infant mortality, diseases, poverty, just referred to go away. There was lack of finance and a majority of the leaders did not have the courage to make bold and innovative programmes that would help the nation to develop. The question was whether continued interaction with the ex-ruling settlers would entrap the country into new-colonialism. The interaction proved useful to the small elite, the middle class and the politicians, but the benefits did not touch the majority. This led to tensions between the majority and the ruling classes. These countries got their independence when the Cold War in full force. So, they had to decide whether to join the bloc led by the United States i.e. the capitalist forces or the U.S.S.R., the Communist bloc. Achieving national unity was another herculean task because it was difficult to dismantle the structure imposed by the colonial regimes. The colonial masters had encouraged ethnic and regional-based competition. The challenges before these states is to have free and face elections and to stop human rights violations. The task before the governments of these states is to put their countries on the path to progress.

Post- Asian Societies

In the Asian countries, after the end of the colonial rule, the national unity that had emerged soon gave way to divisive forces. A certain small section of the social elites who had led the movement experienced the pangs of independence when people among them started talking of power, pelf and offices. ‘In most cases, however, the common bond that had been crafted during the course of the independence movement was subsequently challenged by divisive tendencies – some new, some historically entrenched – after national independence had been achieved. This, in turn, made the erstwhile unifying bond of nationalism difficult to sustain’.8 The post-colonial states were left to face many problems, some that were there and others that were created by the colonial masters. These newly independent states were left with a divided society on the basis of caste, region and religion. The continuous neglect of the agriculture sector left the farmers in debt and the fields barren to they had been forced to grow those crops that provided instant profits to the colonizers, for example, indigo cultivation in India. India was fortunate to inherit a set of formal institutions and the country also had trained educated leaders to run these structures. But these structures were weak and had to be strengthened. India had to face the brunt of Partition, when the country was divided into two-India and Pakistan on the basis of religion. The division that happened then continues to tear apart the country even today. ‘ It ( Partition) showed how millions of common, innocent persons, far removed from politics, became mere pawns in the hands of apparently larger-than- life Indian politicians and the British who were in authority, in their games of one- up- manship.’9 Rather, religion and its negative consequences gave disrupted influence on the whole region even in the 21st century. The British left India, divided and fragmented, both internally as well as externally. The population of India was illiterate, ignored and hopelessly divided on the basis of caste. Religion was added to the boiling cauldron by the colonial power. The infra-structure had to be prepared but finance was in paucity. The easy solution was to join either of the two blocs but that would mean being under the foreign yolk again, though indirectly. Women, children and the rural sector were totally neglected. People’s participation was in the negligible and they had to be included in the decision-making process. The bureaucracy controlled all the divisions. ‘The elites in India have finetuned the culture of evasion and repressions.’10 Agriculture has to be upgraded as a majority of the population is still sustained by farming. Environment continues to be a victim in all these countries. Indiscriminate felling of trees for building infra- structure as also by the mafia is playing havoc with the ecological balance of the region. T he industrialization process is good for development process is causing pollution which leads to health problems. Like the other post-colonial states in Africa and Latin America, the clash of values between the culture of the natives and the colonial masters gave rise to many problems. The colonial relics are still present which have left the indigenous population. This led to problems and conflicts of identity and culture. The Congress Party, for example, in India had to learn to share power with other competing political parties. ‘The Congress thus succeeded in maintaining political stability by inhibiting processes of growth of the capitalist economy and, at the same time not promoting a full-fledged socialist economy. In brief, over the years, the Congress system perfected a bureaucratic model of development which was neither socialistic nor capitalistic. If one most describe such a model in such terms, it may be said to be capitalist by default and socialist by fraud’.11

Dynasty rule in India is one big challenge. We have three generations of politicians who have made politics their profession. They refuse to step down and allow the common man to participate a sheer. Regional politics have further undermined the power of the centre. The states want a larger share while the Constitution of India has clearly defined as a ‘Unitary state’. The fissiparous elements in India keep raising their head which leads to the Indian government coming heavily on them. This is sometimes, translated by the critics as, ‘gross violation of human rights’. Riots on the basis of religion lead to damage of public property and also to loss of lives. Remote areas still report stories of hardships faced by the people because of lack of facilities. On the other hand, the government tries to fulfill its various promises citing the huge participation as an obstacle. In Pakistan, the challenge is to keep the army away from power. Gen. Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Pervez Musharaf are names that a democracy cannot be proud of. General Ayub Khan’s coup in 1958, which was the first one in a series was bloodless. It was also preplanned. After him, the army generals have tasted power and yearn for a share. ‘All subsequent coups were smooth and bloodless. The path was paved for other generals to capture power on the pretext of failure of democracy and restoration of true democracy and restoration of true democracy. This suited the bureaucracy too as they remained unaccountable to any authority other than the army leadership and did not mind sharing unequal power with the army.’12 The country is also rocked by ethnic conflicts. Under-development, poverty, unemployment and regional conflicts continue to disturb the development process in Pakistan. The country did not inherit its political institutions as India did so; they had to form/create these institutions. The structures created are weak and army continues to wield power. Interference of U.S.A. and other powers in South Asia complicates matters. Nepal is also dealing with poverty, slow development etc. The King had to step down from power and Parliamentary form of government has been accepted by the people. Yet, the civil war, the internal conflict has taken its toll. But way back in 1967, King Mahendra started the ‘Back to the Village Campaign.’ The idea was to spread Panchayat regime to the villages. The goal was, ‘ that the Panchayat system should be a radical and modernizing one, in line with the Land Reforms carried out in 1963 and 1964 and the abolition of the legal recognition of caste with the new law code in 1963. In practice, the campaign turned into a method of surveillance and control by the palace.’13

Sri Lanka was rocked by the rift which took an extreme form between the Tamil speaking and the Sinhalese population. The Tamilians in Sri Lanka felt discriminated in the social, political and economic spheres and they took up arms. The Liberation of Tamil Tiger’s Elam (LTTE) fought for the rights of the Tamilians for many decades. The Sri Lankan government has managed to wipe away LTTE and peace prevails in the island country. Yet, the civil war, the internal conflict has taken its toll. ‘It is widely recognised that corruption is a major social issue in Sri Lankan society. Many people who are in positions that allow them to engage in rent-seeking behavior have continued to do so’.14 Myanmar continues to be ruled by a military junta which has, after a prolonged struggle by Nobel Laureate Aung Syu Kyi have agreed to share power. Bangladesh, like Pakistan, continues to feel the heat from the military. Gen. Ershaad hijacked the democratic process for many years.The privileged, native elites succeeded the colonial masters. ‘However, such institutions did not get firmly established everyone due to the continuing significance of traditional elites and emerging authoritarian tendencies’.15

In these newly independent states, there is lack of conflict-moderating institutions both for external as well as internal matters. The comparison between Pakistan and India is stark and proves a point that each country has its weaknesses which it has not managed to overpower. ‘The erosion of the sovereignty of Pakistan has been all too evident over time. Firstly, it suffered under a series of military dictatorship, then it became almost a satellite state of the US, funded to fight the latter’s war against communism in Afghanistan, and now it is torn by sectarian strife between Islamic extremists and the state. The roots of both the authoritarianism and loss of Swaraj,if Gandhi is to be believed, go way back to the very genesis of that nation. India, on the other hand, has gone towards a different kind of communal polities, where vote banks and identity politics hold the nation to ransom. That much of this politics is cynical, exploitative and divisive is all too evident.16 The beneficiaries of any system have exploited the opportunities and become richer. Each has tried and has been successful in grabbing more than was his share. Responsibility, accountability have not been the strong point of the leaders in these countries.

Conclusion

‘Overall then, the contrasts between West European parent states and their post-colonial progeny are deep-rooted. Post-colonial states rarely possess the strength and autonomy which their European predecessor acquired during their development. Sovereignty remains important as a title, securing international recognition and access to aid. But the label’s significance is sometimes symbolic, with little to present the movement of people, soldiers, goods and terrorists across boundaries. In extreme but still exceptional cases, the outcome is a fragile – or even failed state which is unable to execute its core task of securing order’.17

No doubt there were a few leaders like Kwama Nkrumah of Ghana who endeavoured to foster African unity. He was also blamed for strengthening the socialistic order. The first president of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, also advocated moving away from the European model and developing African socialism. Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of Congo tried to move away from the legacy of the colonial rule but he was assassinated because the United States felt he was moving towards the Soviet bloc while planning to nationalise industries and land.

In Africa, the post-colonial state has suffered because of poor leadership and absence of rule of law. The post-colonial states of Africa have to deal with leader who once elected to power like Hastings Banda of Malawi, President Kenyatta of Kenya and Francisco Ngueme of Equatorial Guinea become dictators. With weak economies and unstable governments, the post-colonial states are vulnerable and early fall into trap. Caught in a trap , they stagnate for development is slow and the frustration of the people rises leading to further complications and further instability. The elites in the post-colonial states have created their own polyarchial regimes which works on the principles of patronage, negotiation and accommodation.

The post-colonial states have tried to improve their record by trying to foster national unity. States in Asia have tried to modernize their political structures and have adopted universal adult suffrage. Political parties have been allowed to function, elections have been held and results accepted by the people and the idea of ‘welfare state’ as the goal. The effort of the elites is to retain power and to channel the loyalties towards themselves so that power is not demanded by the impoverished population. The efforts are to eradicate poverty and spread education to the remotest corner. India, through its, ‘Sarv Shiksha Abhyan’ free mid-day-meal schemes etc. is trying to achieve this. Yet the problems are stalled because of lack of will and corruption.

‘But the democratization of politics that followed the introduction of universal suffrage in many countries in the region also led to the political mobilization of the underprivileged strata, enabling some members of these strata to reach high positions of power through the electoral process. As it turned out later, many of these upwardly mobile politicians of a humble background tended to convert their positions of power and influence into positions of wealth and privilege.’18 Greed and petty self-interests are the bane of these countries. The benefits of development should be equally disturbed. The development administration has to be more responsible and transparent. ‘It is a known fact that unequal societies cannot achieve their full potential or even sustain a high level of growth indefinitely.’19 What these countries need is leaders with a moral commitment. These post-colonial states need sustained growth alongwith sustainable development.

Jockeying and bargaining has to stop. The elites have to give up the patriarchal and patrimonial control over means of production. Everybody in position has gained. ‘None can cast a stone at the other, for all have participated in this game of sharing spoils and black-marketing and profiteering.20 Only when the minorities, the poor, the marginalized are well looked after alongwith equitable distribution of wealth and resources can these countries develop.

Suggested Readings

• Bertsche, Gary K., Clark, Robert P., Wood David, M., Comparing Political Systems: Power and Policy in Three Wolds, 1978, John Wiley and Sons.
• Bhadur, Kalini, and Uma Singh (eds.), Pakistan’s Transition to Democracy, Joint Study of Indian and Pakistani Schools, 1989, South Asia Books, New Delhi.
• Brass, Paul. The New Cambridge History of India, Vol. (rev.). The Politics of India since Independence, 1994, Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Brown, Louis T., The Challenge to Democracy in Nepal: A Political History, 1996, Routledge, London.
• Caramani, David, Comparative Politics, 2011, Oxford University Press.
• Chadda, Maya, Building Democracy in South Asia India, Nepal, Pakistan, 2000, Vistaar, New Delhi.
• Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics, An Introduction, 2015, Palgrave Macmillan, Replika, New Delhi.
• Jayal, Niraja Gopal, Mehta, Pratap Basu, The Oxford Comparison to Politics in India, 2015, Oxford University Press.
• Palmer, Norman D., Perkins, Howard C., International Relations, The Word Community in Transition, 1997, A.I.T.B.S., New Delhi.
• Weiner, Myron, The Indian Paradox, 1989, New York.