This review synthesizes sociological research to explain why India’s large, formally democratic system has been vulnerable to a shift toward more authoritarian governance. The core claim is structural: sustaining democracy amid deep inequality requires the state to continually balance competing demands—extending welfare and rights to disadvantaged groups while preserving elite influence. Over time, this “juggling” can backfire by amplifying dissatisfaction on both sides: elites perceive erosion of privilege, while nonelites experience persistent deprivation and exclusion. The article also highlights a countervailing force—social movements rooted in democratic participation—that may still constrain authoritarian drift and shape more equitable trajectories.
Why it might matter to you:
It offers a framework for analyzing how economic inequality and elite bargaining can weaken rule-of-law institutions even without a clean regime break. That lens can help you anticipate where state-led redistribution, industrial policy, or geopolitical pressure might harden into coercive governance—an issue that often surfaces in comparisons of competing political-economic models.
As we continue to impprove, your feedback means a lot to us.
Stay curious. Stay informed — with
Science Briefing.