• Uncategorized

Exploring the Weaknesses of Modern World Democracy and Caste system Problems — Why is It Difficult to Get rid of Caste System in Democratic Countries such as India? Abstract

Exploringthe Weaknesses of Modern World Democracy and Caste systemProblems—Why is It Difficult to Get rid of Caste System inDemocratic Countries such as India?


Thisresearch paper sought to inquire why it is still difficult to get ridof caste system in democratic republics such as India. The researchwas motivated by the observation that, despite the outright nature ofsuch a leadership framework, democracy has failed to deliver theinterests if the majority in several notable cases such as failing toeliminate the caste systems. While the literature relevant to thesubject existed, it did not adequately answer the subject question.Thus, the study became interested in finding any information thatcommunicates and advances the discourse of mentality or politicalelitism. A look at the findings created the allowance to infer twopoints. First is the existence of elite forces that overly influencethe outcome of elections. Second is that although elite forces arepowerful, the limited mentality of the voters is also as a force thatcomplement the elite force. Therefore, it is concluded that it isstill difficult to get rid of caste system in democratic republicssuch as India because of existence of elite politics and limitedmentality of the voters. In light of this findings, tworecommendations can be put forth to support the efforts of achievingan elaborate democratic process for countries such as India. Firstly,such countries will need to rethink ways of checking the overlypowerful position of the upper caste groups. Secondly, therevolutionaries will need to think of ways of sensitizing the votersagainst the limited mentality that only certain castes (such as theBrahmins) are good leaders.

Tableof Contents

1. Introduction 4

2. Literature review 5

2.1. The Overview of democracy and the Problem 5

2.2. The Case of Indian politics 7

2.3. The causes of problems 8

3. Theory 9

3.1. The Elite Theory 9

3.2. The Limited Mentality Theory 11

4. Research design and methodology 12

4.1. Philosophy 12

4.2. Research Approach 12

4.3. Research Strategy 13

4.4. Time Horizons 13

4.5. Data Collection 13

4.6. Data Analysis 14

4.7. Limitations and Delimitations of the Research 15

4.8. Hypotheses 15

5. Finding 16

6. Discussion 18

7. Conclusion and Implications for practice 20

References 23

  1. &nbspIntroduction

Therole of governance in the contemporary society is indispensable. Itis perhaps the most critical factor for realization of sustainabledevelopment. Indeed, Birch (2013) has discussed that the absence ofdesirable governance is most likely to be accompanied by variousforms of social and economic problems such as corruption, tyranny,political discord, constrained international relationships, violenceand impunity, which have adverse consequences of the capacity of acountry to pursue or realize its sustainability goals.

Democracyis widely lauded as the most popular style of governance. Theproponents avow that, since it is borne on participatory leadership,democratic governance has a high tendency to tolerate and eveninclude diverse views in the decision-making processes, therebyensuring that the actions taken reflect the will of the people(Castiglione, 2012). This perspective has often served as thestrongest of all points advocating the countries across the globe toembrace democracy and eliminate caste system politics. Many countrieshave seemed to heed to the call, an observation manifested byelectoral practices that allow subjects to participate in governanceprocess.

Despitethe outright nature of its leadership model, democracy has failed todeliver the interests of the majority in several notable cases. AsCopp, Hampton and Roemer (2013) assert, many elections —howevertransparent —have often served to fortify and serve the interestsof a few, powerful classes of people [such as the Brahmins in India],at the expense of the majority [other less dominants castes]. As anexample, the author mentions how the rich and elite groups areoverrepresented in powerful political positions, a phenomenonobservable for even the countries with favorable democracy index(Caputo, 2015).

Thecase of India serves as one of the vivid examples of conceptualizingthe challenge of caste systems. While the caste system has beenwidely rebuked and discouraged in the face of advocacies for humanequality, and although the subjects are empowered to vote for change,the many are perceived to suffer in the hands of a few elite groups[Brahmins] who occupy the powerful political positions and makedecisions for their selfish gains (Farquharson, 2013). In light ofthis scenario, this paper inquires why it is still difficult to getrid of caste system in democratic republics such as India.

  1. Literature review

Whilethe literature relevant to the subject exists, it does not adequatelyanswer the subject question. Nevertheless, it brings into lightvarious themes that are crucial in extending the discussions andconceptualizing the challenge of caste systems. In the end, as itwill be seen, literature presents some significant theoretical andempirical discussions that happen to be critical in unearthing thegap in knowledge and providing a foundation to approach the subject.The relevant literature notably touches on pivotal areas such as thenature democracy and its challenges, the nature of the scenario inIndia, and the attempts of accounts for the caste system challenge.For convenience, the review of literature is organized in thefollowing sub-sections.

    1. The Overview of democracy and the caste system problem

Theliterature particularly defines and glorifies democracy as the mostappropriate approach to governance. It goes further to pride on themilestone the society has made in embracing democracy, yet it alsoacknowledges the challenge of caste systems.

First,democracy is defined as a process of government by which subjects ofa country are entitled the freedom to elect leaders of their choice,and participate in the governance processes (Dahl, 2012 Dahl,Shapiro &amp Cheibub, 2013 Dahl, 2013). In contrast with theoligarchy, caste system and monarchy systems that allow a few people[such as the Brahmins] to wield the absolute powers, the democraticgovernment is lead by the majority, and exists to serve the commongood (Davenport, 2012).

Inlight of this feature, several authors have gone ahead and discussedvarious merits of a democratic government over traditions castesystem politics (e.g. Dahl, 2012 Dahl, Shapiro &amp Cheibub, 2013Dahl, 2013). One of the benefits is it gives the subjects the freedomto vote. The subjects can choose through the election process theleaders they deem fit to represent them. Besides, they can alwaysmake important political decisions through voting, as typically thecase of referendums (Dahl, 2012). Secondly, democracy allows subjectsto support political reforms through voting transitions. Ideally, itis difficult for elected officials to stay in power for long becausethe leadership tenure is bound to constitution. The democraticgovernments have constitutions that set out the term limits thatpeople should hold political positions, after which an election isheld to choose new leaders (Dahl, Shapiro &amp Cheibub, 2013). Dahl(2013), in support of this view, mentions the example of the UnitedStates, in which a president must be elected, and can only serve fortwo terms, each with four years. As a result, no president can be inpower for as long as he wants, implying that people can expect changeafter at least after four years, if not eight years. If a leader didnot offer exemplary performance when holding office, the people canalways elect other new leaders (Dahl, Shapiro &amp Cheibub, 2013).Thirdly, democracy functions to represent people. Elections createthe allowance for people from diverse communities to choose a personto represent them at higher levels of government. The few electedpeople will serve as the voice of people they are representing. Thisrepresentation enables the rest of the people to feel they areparticipating in making decisions at a higher level (Willard, 2012).Lastly, democracy fosters equality and inclusivity, as opposed toCaste system politics that would represent the interests of theBrahmins. According to Whitehead (2012), a democratic governmentenables every legible citizen to participate in selecting leaders ofchoice, which accords them a sense of self-worth and belonging to thesociety. The voters feel they are relevant and influential to thegovernance process, and that they can always make a difference indetermining the destiny of their country. The aspect of equality isbest manifested when anyone legible citizen can vote or vie to beelected, regardless of social status (Dahl, Shapiro &amp Cheibub,2013).

Nevertheless,Halperin, Siegel and Weinstein (2015) acknowledge that, despite thevarious associated benefits, the democracy has never been able tomeet its potential, inparticular, addressing the caste systemproblems. The authors highlights that many people happen to bediscontented with the government. Elections are usually held andsubjects are allowed to participate in the electoral processes, butthe desirable reforms are always never realized (Burnham,2011).Corrado (2004) also supports this view, noting that electoralprocesses tend to be a vicious cycle of legitimating the Brahmins tocome to power and pursue their selfish gains. Therefore, thisdiscussion invites one intriguing question: if indeed democracy isthe best form of government, why is the caste systems still a problemfor India?

    1. The Case of Indian politics

Literatureon Indian politics is documented and shows that although the countryhas made political reforms of moving away from the caste system,there is still huge caste system problem.

Forinstance, Shively (2011), in reviewing the country’s history,discusses that the political journey the country made over the lastfive decades has been revolutionary. The author notes that dramaticdevelopments, however, started showing up in 1990s when the countrystarted fighting the caste political system. The one party casteregime held by the Congress Party ended, orchestrated by the economicliberalization and the emergence of caste-based political parties atregional and village levels to champion for equality in presentation.These parties played a crucial role in sensitizing people against theupper caste system governance, which had traditionally controlled andsubjugated the lower caste societies. Their manifestos to offeralternative government to assure equal representation for all thepeople were well received by lower castes. The reform champions wereeventually elected (Mitra &amp Singh, 2013 Guha,2013).Yetthe country continues to be adversely mentioned in elaboration of thecaste system problem —the rich and elite groups are overrepresentedin powerful political positions, and the disparities between the richand poor are growing (Tawa, 2009: Whitehead, 2012). In tandem withthis view, Basuand Chandra (2016) note that India is a large nation, which despite political reforms ofthe 1990s, has a very high poverty rate over 30 percent, literacyrates of over 25 percent and unprecedented levels of socialinequalities. Therefore, in the face of such dramatic politicalreforms, it becomes interesting to question why India would still besuffering from the old problem.

    1. The causes of problems

Literatureon the causes of the problem is scanty and may not be accuratelygeneralized across contexts. Yet, to certain significant extent, theaccounts tend to be more theoretical than practical.

Dahl,Shapiro and Cheibub (2013) has discussed that caste system is still achallenge because of lagging institutions. The author conceives that,in many cases, democracy as an idea often comes first beforeinstitutions can espouse to it. For instance, while it is embraced indifferent countries, its potential benefits are curtailed massivepolitical corruption and election malpractice that make it difficultto have leaders of choice. Dahl (2013), however, offers a relativelydifferent perspective to the problem — the mentality. In line withthis position, the author discusses that, however transparent andfair elections can be, people hold different mentalities on whoshould be their leaders. They inherently elect the Brahmins leadersbecause of their standpoints. In light of these competing accounts,it is will be particularly interesting to question which accountmight accurately suit the situations of democracies such as India.

  1. Theory

Thequestion of why it is still difficult to get rid of caste system indemocratic republics such as India is mediated by two competingtheories: the elite theory, and the mentality-focused accounts (whichthe present discussions coins as ‘The limited mentality theory’).Altogether, these two theories will help hypothesize the case ofIndia.

    1. The Elite Theory

Theelite theory posits that a small group of individuals, comprising ofthe wealthy elites and some political think tank networks, wieldsignificant power that influences the outcomes of election, howevertransparent and open such processes can be.

Asdocumented by Hunter(2011),members of the elite groups (comprising of Brahmins) often exertpressure on the policymakers and vying agents by taking advantage ofthe positions they hold in large corporations, the influence thatthey have over the policy-making networks, and they financialstrength they command through funding political processes andmachinations. Even under the circumstances the entire elite group isremoved for the traditional networks of government power circles,such as based on religion, gender, and race, some groups of elites,referred to as the counter elites, must emerge from such excludedgroups. Therefore, the negotiations between those in power and themarginalized groups should always be conceived as negotiationsbetween the elites and the counter-elites, implying that theinterests such negotiations would still benefit the few powerful,rather than the entire marginalized group. In essence, the elitetheory happens to reject the pluralism perspectives, which posit thatthat all individuals or multitudes of people tend to have equal powerand capability to determine the outcomes of elections. Instead, thetheory either asserts that democracy or complete elimination of casesystem is utopia (a merely idealized thinking that can only berealized in dreams) or cannot coexist with capitalism (Hunter,2011).Bottomore(2012) expoundsthat Elite Theory is particularly relevant because of two premises.First is that those who are economically superior reserve power —they can fund the campaigns for presidency and do anything todetermine the outcomes of elections because they are capable. Secondis that since they have many resources, they lose much if thegovernment failed. Therefore, they contrast with the ‘ordinary’people who do not have resources to determine the outcomes of theelections, and who will neither lose much if the government failedbecause they do not have a stake in the government (Bottomore,2012).

Varioustheorists back up this view. For instance, Schattschneider (1960)observed that the outcomes of the election processes always go in theways of those who are educated or have high income. The influence ofpowerful minority who advocate for the self-vested interests is farmuch greater than what the voters have. Mills (1956), in his critiqueof the nature of political and power relations in the United States,observed the existence of certain power groups, including thepoliticians, the businessmen and the military personnel, whichinfluenced the outcomes of political processes. Neumann (2009) arguesthat the force of the elite groups transcends all forms ofgovernment, be it democratic or authoritarian. The author expoundshis view by providing an account on how the Nazism assumed power inthe face of an elaborate German democracy, asserting that it allhappened because a few powerful minority were successful in‘shortchanging’ the republic. Dye (2001) asserts that even thepublic policies of countries with high democracy governance such asthe United States seldom results from the will of the people —instead, it results from concessions of the of the elites in theWashington, the special interest groups, law firms, large business and the political think tanks.

    1. The Limited Mentality Theory

Thementality-focused accounts, which the present paper coins as the ‘Thelimited mentality theory’, thrives on multiculturalism thesis. Thetheory asserts that all individuals, or multitudes of people, tend tohave equal power and capability to determine the outcomes ofelections. The only problem, however, is that they have a limitedmentality and tend to make wrong and costly political decisions(Mueller, 2011). This limited mentality is manifested in differentways. In one of the typical examples, people decide to vote for acertain individual not because of the leadership merits, but becauseof other background dispositions such as race or tribe or caste. Inanother typical example, voters may opt to support a certainpolitician because they do not trust the other party, regardless ofthe better alternative offered. (Putnam, 2012).

  1. Research design and methodology

Themethodology of the present study is guided by the onion researchframework, which is summarized in the chart below.

    1. Philosophy

Thepresent study shall use the realist philosophy. As Silva,Grande, Martimbianco,Rieraand Carvalho (2012)discuss, the realist philosophy presupposes phenomena have causes,which can be attributed to entities, processes and social structures.In this regard, it is always appropriate for researchers to drawtheories to explain these phenomena and strive to conduct inquires tosubstantiate and validate them. Realism is essentially anintermediate betweenpositivismand interpretivism and, therefore, creates the allowance to exploitthe opportunities associated with either research study philosophiesby integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods (Silva,Grande, Martimbianco, Riera and Carvalho, 2012).

    1. Research Approach

Thepresent study embraces the deductive methodology. The deductiveapproach is suitable because builds on available theories to inquireabout the nature of phenomena. Exploring the why it is stilldifficult to get rid of caste system in democratic republics such asIndiaallowsthe research to identify theories and develop hypothesis, andvalidate them by way of research. This way, the methodology of thepresent study is important because it strives to reconcile the gapsbetween theories and practice.

    1. Research Strategy

Thepresent study utilizes the case study technique. The main attributeof the case study technique is allowance of for researchers toinvestigate a phenomenon by narrowing on only a certain predeterminedsample and then generalizing the results to the entire population.Indeed, in focusing on the case of India, the present study is poisedto generate results that can be generalized to other democracy andcaste-dominant settings in the world

    1. Time Horizons

Thepresent study utilizes the cross-sectional study as most appropriatedesign approach.One of the outstanding characteristics of the cross-sectionaltechnique is that allows the researcher to study the nature of thephenomena at an instant. In contrast to the longitudinal approachthat seeks to study the phenomena at different times to ascertain howit changes with time, the cross-sectional study is convenient becauseit saves time and resources because it is conducted and concluded atan instance, and produces results that would benefit practice at thatinstance.

    1. Data Collection

Thepresent research hopes to use secondary sources to collectinformation. First, it is assumed that for certain elite groups toinfluence electoral outcomes, or for voters to make political choicesbased on mentality, then there must be some evidence of discoursesreflected in secondary sources such as television news, newspapers,magazines and social media and other forms of mass media. The presentstudy shall be interested in finding any information thatcommunicates and advances the discourse of mentality or politicalelitism. Several questions prove to be crucial in guiding theresearch process, and these are presented as follows.

  1. What is the social and economic status of the president elect and other officials that won the political seats?

  2. Do the endorsing parties exist? If they exist, what their social and economic status?

  3. Is there evidence of funding of campaigns? What are the sources, if campaigns are always funded?

  4. What are the behaviors of activist groups and other non-governmental organizations, if they exist? Do they favor certain castes?

  5. What is the behavior of the media? Does it happen to be impartial or tend to favor certain candidate from certain castes? How is this behavior accounted?

  6. What does the articles discourse say about mentality influencing the voting trend?

Therefore,it is hoped that by striving to answer all these questions, theresearch will be able to identify the factors responsible for theunpopular political outcomes of the democracies such as India.

    1. Data Analysis

Thedata analysis process would essentially be quantitative andqualitative. The choice of using both qualitative and quantitativeapproaches is because, if used separately, the methods have theirinherent weaknesses that could compromise the reliability of thestudy. Therefore, combing them allows one approach to complement theweaknesses of the other one. For instance, qualitative approach islimited because it fails accommodate statistical manipulation of datafor inferences (Quantitative data). On the other hand, quantitativeapproach is limited because it fails to accommodate findings thatcannot be ascertained quantitatively (qualitative data). Therefore,the use of qualitative and quantitative approaches allows theresearcher to study quantitative and qualitative and identifiesvarious themes. The process of data analysis begins by classifyingthe themes and subjecting them to quantitative and qualitativetreatments.

    1. Limitations and Delimitations of the Research

Oneof the outstanding limitations of the present study is how addressthe authors biases such as desirability bias. However, thislimitation is successful overcome by relying on multiple secondarymaterials and vetting any inherent inconsistencies. Therefore, theresearcher will use necessary measures to vet the information beforeusing them.

    1. Hypotheses

Inline of the two competing theories, a set of two hypotheses can begenerated. The first hypothesis states ‘It is still difficult toget rid of caste system in democratic republics such as India becauseof the influence of elite’. The second hypothesis reads ‘It isstill difficult to get rid of caste system in democratic republicssuch as India because of the limited mentality of the voters’. Thepremises of these hypotheses are briefly expounded in thecorresponding section as follows.

Hypothesis1: Itis still difficult to get rid of caste system in democratic republicssuch as India because of the limited mentality of the voters

Thishypothesis hopes to qualify the thesis of the Elite Theory. It willbe interested in validating the existence of the powerfulindividuals, comprising of the wealth businesspersons and ‘smart’Brahmins, who influence the Indian elections. Therefore, ofparticular interests would be identify some of the powerful forcesIndia’s governance.

Hypothesis1: Itis still difficult to get rid of caste system in democratic republicssuch as India because of the limited mentality of the voters.

Thishypothesis hopes to qualify thesis of the coined ‘limited mentalitytheory.’ This hypothesis will be interested in disqualifying theexistence of the powerful Brahmins who influence the outcomes ofelections, while qualifying that voters are to blame all the problemsthat follow. It will be of particular interest to identify thementalities that impede the political reforms within the Indiandemocracy.

  1. Finding

Asurvey of information regarding several elements of interests revealsvarious interesting insights regarding the question of why it isstill difficult to get rid of caste system in democratic republicssuch as India.

Oneof the questions of interest was the social and economic status ofthe president elect and other officials that won the political seats.It is established that that the group of successful politicians comefrom a powerful class. For instance, the current president of India,Shri Pranab Mukherjeewas born to a family of Brahmins. His father had been servedhistorical politics — he had served as a member of the WestBengal Legislative Council between 1952 and 1964, representing theIndian National Congress (Chhibber,2013),which happened to be one caste system party of the time. Shri PranabMukherjeealso has a powerful education background, which undoubtedly enabledhim to fit into the mainstream political ‘think tank’ group.

Thesecond question of interest was whether he was endorsed by any groupduring his election, and what could have been economic status of theendorsers. It is established that a group of powerful people, mostlyfrom the Brahmin class, endorsed Shri Pranab Mukherjee.They perceived that he was learned and part of their own class, hewould do well in representing their interests (Prakash&amp Prem, 2014).Such an observation does not come by any surprise. The fact thatmembers from his own class endorsed the president essentially bringsthe power of elites in advocating for election of a person of theirown, whom they entrust in serving their interests.

Therole of elite force also happens to come out clearly in campaignfunding. While President ShriPranab Mukherjee is described as having an affluent background, hestill received a lot of funding for his campaigns from differentgroups of people, including the businessmen, corporation owners andother Brahmins, who considered him as ‘their own son’ (Bucombe,2014).

Concerningquestion of whether activist groups or nongovernmental organizationsexisted during the elections time, and the role they played, it isestablished that the election time beamed with euphoria thatattracted interest from different activist groups, including thehuman rights activists, women rights movements, and children rights,which advocated for change and endorsed Shri Pranab Mukherjee(Cockcrft, 2014). Once again, the existence of such powerful groupscreates the allowance to infer the presence of powerful forces ofelite groups that come into effect through activism.

Thebehavior of the mass media was also notable. The media is noted tohave been partial in favoring certain candidates (Mallet,2016).In essence, they can be seen to have been part of the equation of thefew powerful people who stood the way of elections and influenced theelection outcomes.

Theissue of mentality was also investigated. It is established thatmentality also played a crucial role in influencing the outcomes.Although there were other candidates from other castes, majoritystill went ahead to vote Shri Pranab Mukherjee believing he was thebest. The most outstanding mentality is that Brahmins were betterleaders than those form other castes (Indian Express News, 2014).

  1. Discussion

Alook at the findings creates the allowance to infer two points. Firstis the existence of elite forces that overly influence the outcome ofelections. Second is that although elite forces are powerful, thelimited mentality of the voters is also as a force that complementthe elite force. Therefore, the findings validate the relevance ofeither hypothesis, although it can be argued that Elite theory playsout strongly.

Theelite forces are manifested by the fact that only the members fromthe powerful groups, Brahmins, or think-tank are overrepresented inthe high political positions. As has been evidence for the case ofIndia, the president comes from the Brahmin family and has strongpolitical background that enables him fit in the think-tankcategories. The elite group, in this case, has a large stake in thegovernment and would lose much if they the government failed.Therefore, it must strive to safeguard its interests by influencingthe election outcomes. It also happens that this powerful group isendowed with resources, which it uses to advance its interests,contrasting with the ‘ordinary’ people who are limited because oflack of resources and cannot force the outcomes of elections to gotheir way. The upper caste capability is evidenced in different ways,including buying the mass media to campaign for the favoritecandidate, funding campaigns, and bribing voters (Ajoy, 2014).

Severalauthors have supported this finding. For instance, Domhoff(2011) suggeststhat the Indian elections are always never fair. They are marred withincidences of political corruption involving the bribery of voters bycapable people from Brhamins class to support certain powerfulcandidates. The author notes that during the election time, thepowerful politicians would recruit a few individuals to bribe votersto lure them to support them. The operations are always networkedoperations that involve the use of the police officers.

Schwartz(2011)has also observed that the elite groups successfully achieve theirpolitical goals by muting the opponents. Ideally, this group ofpeople owns the media and it is able to gate-keep, and censor thevoices of the opponents so that the audience does not hear them. Indoing so, they are able to use the same media to their advantage bypopularizing their ambitions to the public.

Jain(2014) notes that the manifestos the parties provide rarelyrepresents the will of the people — instead, it results fromconcessions of the of the elite groups in India and beyond theborders, the special interest groups, law firms, large business andthe political think tanks. However, even the strongest of all pointsis that while Brahmin, despite the fact that they are a small size,hold as significant as over 50 percent of the country’s resource.Therefore, by virtue of this position, they are able to influence thedevelopments in governance by using their resource and influence.

Theaccount of limited mentality is borne on lack of awareness onpolitical participation. It also happens that the powerful employeedifferent tactics to whitewash the voters to support them inprotecting their vested interested. The powerful elite groups whohave access to resources are able to manipulate the media and spreadnegative propaganda against certain, less powerful politicians,rendering them less popular. The most notable propaganda that theIndian elites have been using, as Putnam (2012) observes, is that theBrahmins can serve as better leaders than the politicians from otherclasses.

  1. Conclusion and Implications for practice

Inconclusion, this research paper sought to inquire why it is stilldifficult to get rid of caste system in democratic republics such asIndia. The research was motivated by the observation that, despitethe outright nature of such a leadership framework, democracy hasfailed to deliver the interests if the majority in several notablecases such as failing to eliminate the caste systems. Many elections,however transparent, have often served to fortify and serve theinterests of a few, powerful classes of people [the Brahmins] — atthe expense of the majority

Whilethe literature relevant to the subject existed, it did not adequatelyanswer the subject question. Nevertheless, it brought into lightvarious themes that are crucial in extending the discussions andhelping conceptualize the challenge of caste systems. The relevantliterature notably touched on the areas such as the nature democracyand its caste system challenges, and the accounts of the challenge.In the end, literature presented some significant theoretical andempirical discussions that happen to be critical in unearthing thegap in knowledge and providing a foundation to approach the subject.

Inline of the two competing theories, a set of two hypotheses can begenerated. The first hypothesis states ‘It is still difficult toget rid of caste system in democratic republics such as India becauseof the influence of elite’. The second hypothesis reads ‘It isstill difficult to get rid of caste system in democratic republicssuch as India because of the limited mentality of the voters’.

Methodologyassumed that for certain elite groups to influence electoraloutcomes, or for voters to make political choices based on mentality,then there must be some traces of evidence reflected in secondarysources such as television news, newspapers, magazines and socialmedia and other forms of mass media. Thus, the study becameinterested in finding any information that communicates and advancesthe discourse of mentality or political elitism. Several questionsprove to be crucial in guiding the research process, touching onsocial and economic status of the president elect and other officialsthat won the political seats, the endorsing parties, campaignfunding, presence of activist groups, the behavior of the media andthe mentality influencing the voting trend.

Alook at the findings created the allowance to infer two points. Firstis the existence of elite forces that overly influence the outcome ofelections. Second is that although elite forces are powerful, thelimited mentality of the voters is also as a force that complementthe elite force. Therefore, it is concluded that it is stilldifficult to get rid of caste system in democratic republics such asIndia because of existence of elite politics and limited mentality ofthe voters.

Inlight of this findings, two recommendations can be put forth tosupport the efforts of achieving an elaborate democratic process forcountries such as India. Firstly, such countries will need to rethinkways of checking the overly powerful position of the upper castegroups. Secondly, the revolutionaries will need to think of ways ofsensitizing the voters against the limited mentality that onlycertain castes (such as the Brahmins) are good leaders.


Ajoy,A. (2014). SixCharts That Show the BJP’s Goal of a ‘Congress-Free India’ is aDistant Dream.http://thewire.in/38707/six-charts-that-show-that-the-bjps-goal-of-a-congress-free-india-is-a-distant-dream/

Basu,A., &amp Chandra, K. (2016). DemocraticDynasties: State, Party and Family in Contemporary Indian Politics(1 ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Birch,A. (2013). TheConcepts and Theories of Modern Democracy.London: Routledge.

Bottomore,T. (2012) Elitesand Society(2nd Edition). London: Routledge.

Bucombe,A. (2014). Indian election 2014: Corruption and infrastructure on theagenda during biggest poll so far. IndependentThursday 10 April 2014.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indian-election-2014-corruption-and-infrastructure-on-the-agenda-during-biggest-poll-so-far-9250769.html

Burnham,J. (2011). TheManagerial Revolution.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Caputo,N. (2015). America`sBible of Democracy: Returning to the Constitution.Sterling House Publisher, Inc.

Castiglione,D. (2012). &quotRepublicanism and its Legacy. EuropeanJournal of Political Theory.pp 453–65.

Chhibber, P. (2013). &quotDynastic parties Organization, finance and impact&quot.PartyPolitics by Sage Journals.19(2): 277–295.

Cockcrft,L. (2014). Despitethe Election, India Still Isn’t Confronting Corruption, Democracylab.http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/05/02/despite-the-election-india-still-isnt-confronting-corruption/

Copp,D., Hampton, J. &amp Roemer. J. (2013). TheIdea of Democracy.Cambridge University Press.

Corrado,M. (2004). USelections and war on terrorism – Interview with professor MassimoTeodoriAnalisi Difesa, n. 50

Dahl,A. (2012). OnDemocracy.Yale University Press.

Dahl,A. (2013). Democracyand its Critics.Yale University Press.

Dahl,R. (2013). APreface to Democratic Theory.University of Chicago Press.

Dahl,R., Shapiro, I. &amp Cheibub, J. (2013). TheDemocracy Sourcebook.MIT Press.

Davenport,C. (2012). StateRepression and the Domestic Democratic Peace.Cambridge University Press.

Domhoff,G. (2011). WhoRules America?.McGraw-Hill.

Dye,T. (2001).TopDown Policymaking.CQ Press

Farquharson,R. (2013). ATheory of Voting.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gonzalez,G. (2001). CorporatePower and the Environment: The Political Economy of U.S.Environmental Policy. Rowman&amp Littlefield Publishers

Guha,R. (2013). Indiaafter Gandhi&nbsp: the history of the world`s largest democracy.India: Picador.

Halperin,M. H., Siegle, J. T. &amp Weinstein, M. M. (2015). TheDemocracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace.Routledge.

Hunter,F. (2011) CommunityPower Structure: A Study of Decision Makers.Indiana University Press

IndianExpress News (2014). Expresspoll: Corruption is the biggest issue in elections&nbsp2014.http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/tweet-poll-corruption-is-the-biggest-issue-in-elections-2014/

Jain,S. (2014). Elections have become the biggest source of corruption: SYQureshi. November 14, 2011.http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/elections-have-become-the-biggest-source-of-corruption-sy-qureshi-468841

Mallet,V. (2016). India election: corruption and the limits of logistics.Beyondbrics.http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/03/28/india-election-corruption-and-the-limits-of-logistics/

Mills,C. (1956). ThePower Elite.Oxford University Press

Mitra,S. &amp Singh, V.B (2013). Democracyand Social Change in India: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of theNational Electorate.New Delhi: Sage Publications

Mueller,D. (2011). ConstitutionalDemocracy.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Neumann,F. (2009). Behemoth:The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933–1944.ook Club Edition edition

PrakashC., &amp, Prem A. (2014). &quotNature of Party System in India&quot.ComparativePolitics &amp International Relations.Cosmos Bookhive. pp.&nbsp129–134.

Putnam,R. D. (2012) TheComparative Study of Political Elites.New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Schattschneider,E. (1960) TheSemisovereign People: A Realist`s View of Democracy in America.Cengage Learning

Schwartz,M. (2011). The Structure of Power in America: The Corporate Elite asa Ruling Class. New York: Holmes &amp Meier.

Shively,W. (2011). Powerand Choice: An Introduction to Political Science—Chapter 14Example: Parliamentary Government in India.McGraw Hill Higher Education.

SilvaV, Grande AJ, Martimbianco AL, Riera R, Carvalho AP (2012).&quotOverviewof Systematic Reviews – a New Type of Study, Why and For Whom?” SaoPaulo Med J. 130 (6): 398–412

TawaLama-Rewal, S. (2009). &quotStudyingElections in India: Scientific and Political Debates&quot.SouthAsia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal,3: 23-28

Whitehead,L. (2012). EmergingMarket Democracies: East Asia and Latin America.JHU Press.

Willard, A. (2012). Liberalismand the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy.University of Chicago Press.