TO CONSOCIATE OR NOT TO CONSOCIATE: UNDERSTANDING THE PARADOX OF ELITE DOMINANCE AND CONSTITUTIONALISM.

Abstract

Almost five decades since the inception of the political theory of consociationalism in understanding a divided society, the rise of populism has led to contrasting academic views on its effectiveness. Initially propounded by Arend Lijphart to mitigate ethnic disparities, the present contribution delves into the complex reality of the theory in the Indian context. India, in her post-independence era, was increasingly adopting the consociationalist polity that focused on balancing the interests of diverse groups in the country. However, the empowerment of the elite within the majority groups due to such polity arrangements resulted in a puzzlingly destabilised political structure. Beginning with an exploration of this theory and its intended aspirations, the paper navigates its complex application in the Indian scenario. With this backdrop, the paper posits the contemporary application of the theory that C the correlation between the theory and elite dominance, with the subsequent oppression of minority groups. It underscores a notable surge in ethnic violence during the post-Nehru consociational period in India, driven by the propensity of the backward classes to advocate for separate ethnic group recognition, each deserving of its own set of fundamental rights. The paper concludes by providing alternate policy structures that nullify such dominance by promoting social harmony. Thus, it is essential to understand the paradoxical nature of this theory to alleviate minorities’ democratic representation and to ensure their constitutional rights and safeguards.