Despite being among the most successful democracies in the Global South, India, Brazil and South Africa have all recently experienced democratic crises. I argue that these democratic crises result from the formation of social coalitions that have been willing to subvert democratic institutions and practices in order to preserve or restore their social and economic privileges. In structural terms, these reactions are tied to the unresolved problem of the incorporation of popular classes. This problem has in turn been mediated by the balance between political and civil society. In India and South Africa that balance has favoured the dominance of mass-based nationalist parties that have thwarted democratic deepening. In Brazil, a more balanced relationship between civil society and political society has favoured the partial incorporation of the popular classes.
AdhikariA. (forthcoming). Claims, complaints and democratization of the local state in India (PhD dissertation). Department of Sociology, Brown University.
2.
AhujaA. (2019). Mobilizing the marginalized: Ethnic parties without ethnic movements. Oxford University Press.
3.
AiyarY. (2022, 8May). Decoding the BJP’s model of welfarism. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/decoding-the-bjp-s-model-of-welfarism-101649940189084.html
4.
AtkinsonD. (2007). Taking to the streets: Has developmental local government failed in South Africa? (pp. 53–77). In BuhlunguS., DanielJ., SouthallR. & LutchmanJ. (Eds), State of the nation: South Africa 2007. HSRC Press.
5.
BaiocchiG., HellerP., & SilvaM. K. (2008). Making space for civil society: Institutional reforms and local democracy in Brazil. Social Forces, 863. 10.1353/sof.0.0015
6.
BallardR., HabibA., & ValodiaI. (Eds). (2006). Voices of protest: Social movements in post-apartheid South Africa. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.
7.
BardhanP. (1983). The political economy of development in India. Oxford University Press.
8.
BehlN. (2022). India’s farmers’ protest: An inclusive vision of Indian democracy. American Political Science Review, 116(3), 1141–1146.
9.
BradlowB. H. (2021). Embeddedness and cohesion: Regimes of urban public goods distribution. Theory and Society, 2021, 1–28.
10.
BurawoyM. (2003). For a sociological Marxism: The complementary convergence of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi. Politics & Society, 31(2), 193–261. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032329203252270
11.
ChatterjeeP. (2020). I am the people: Reflections on popular sovereignty today. Columbia University Press.
12.
CorbridgeS., & HarrissJ. (2000). Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu Nationalism and popular democracy. Polity Press.
13.
DagninoE. (2007). Citizenship: A perverse confluence’. Development and Practice, 17(4/5), 549–556. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25548252#metadata_info_tab_contents.
14.
FergusonJ. (2015). Give a man a fish: Reflections on the new politics of distribution. Duke University Press.
15.
FrankelF. R., & RaoM. S. A. (1989). Dominance and state power in modern India. Oxford University Press.
16.
GethinA., & MorganM. (2018). Brazil divided: Hindsights on the growing politicisation of inequality [World Inequality Lab Issue Brief 2018/3]. https://wid.world/document/divided-brazil-hindsights-on-the-growing-politicization-of-inequality-wid-world-issue-brief-2018-3/
17.
GibsonC. L. (2018). Movement-driven development: The politics of health and democracy in Brazil. Stanford University Press.
18.
HartG. (2014). Rethinking the South African crisis: Nationalism, populism, hegemony. University of Georgia Press.
19.
HellerP. (1999). The Labor of Development: Workers and the Transformation of Capitalism in Kerala, India. Cornell University Press.
20.
HellerP. & SwaminanthanS. & VarshneyA. (forthcoming). The rich have peers, the poor have patrons: Engaging the state in a South Indian city. American Journal of Sociology.
21.
HellerP. (2019). Divergent trajectories of democratic deepening: Comparing Brazil, India, and South Africa. Theory and Society, 48, (3), 351–382. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-019-09351-7
22.
HellerP. (2020). The age of reaction: Retrenchment populism in India and Brazil. International Sociology, 35(6), 590–609.
23.
HochstetlerK. (2004). Civil society in Lula’s Brazil [Working Paper CBS-57-04]. Centre for Brazilian Studies, University of Oxford. https://www.lac.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/lac/documents/media/kathryn20hochstedler2057.pdf
24.
JayalN. G. (2011). The transformation of citizenship in India in the 1990s and beyond (pp. 141–156). In RupareliaS., ReddyS., HarrissJ. & CorbridgeS. (Eds), Understanding India’s new political economy: A great transformation?Routledge.
25.
JenkinsR., & ManorJ. (2017). Politics and the right to work: India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Oxford University Press.
26.
KadivarM. A. (2018). Mass mobilization and the durability of new democracies. American Sociological Review, 83(2), 390–417.
27.
KadivarM. A., UsmaniA., & BradlowB. H. (2020). The long march: Deep democracy in cross-national perspective. Social Forces, 98(3), 1311–1338.
28.
KalaiyarasanA., & VijayabaskarM. (2021). The Dravidian model: Interpreting the political economy of Tamil Nadu. Cambridge University Press,.
29.
KerstenetzkyC. L. (2014). The Brazilian social developmental state: A progressive agenda in a (still) conservative political society (pp. 172–198). In WilliamsM. (Ed.), The end of the developmental state?Routledge.
30.
KowarickL., & BondukiN. (1994). Urban space and political space: From populism to redemocratization (121–147). Social struggles and the city: The case of São Paulo. Monthly Review Press. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=urban+space+and+political+space%3A+from+populism+to+redemocratization&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C40&as_sdtp=#0
31.
LiebermanE. S. (2003). Race and regionalism in the politics of taxation in Brazil and South Africa. Cambridge studies in comparative politics. Cambridge University Press. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/cam031/2002041246.html%20http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/cam031/2002041246.html.
32.
MaraisH. (1998). South Africa, limits to change: The political economy of transformation. University of Cape Town Press.
33.
MarquesE. (Ed.). (2022). The politics of incremental progressivism. John Wiley & Sons.
34.
MarxA. (1998). Making race and nation: A comparison of the United States, South Africa and Brazil. Columbia University Press.
35.
MosoetsaS. (2005). Compromised communities and re-emerging civic engagement in Mpumalanga Township, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal. Journal of Southern African Studies, 31(4), 857–873. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03057070500370779
36.
O’DonnellG. (1979). Tensions in the bureaucratic-authoritarian state and the question of democracy (pp. 285–318). In CollierD. (Ed.), The new authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton University Press.
37.
OlverC. (2017). How to steal a city: The battle for Nelson Mandela bay. Jonathan Ball.
38.
PaschelT. S. (2016). Becoming Black political subjects: Movements and ethno-racial rights in Colombia and Brazil. Princeton University Press.
39.
PillayD. (2013). Between social movements and political unionism: COSATU and democratic politics in South Africa. Rethinking Development and Inequality, 2, 10–27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304999996_Between_Social_Movement_and_Political_Unionism_COSATU_and_Democratic_Politics_in_South_Africa
40.
Public Affairs Research Institute (PARI). (2017). Betrayal of the promise: How South Africa is being stolen. State Capacity Research Project Report, Public Affairs Research Institute, Johannesburg. https://pari.org.za/betrayal-promise-report/
41.
Public Affairs Research Institute (PARI). (2022, September). The Zondo Commission: A bite-sized summary. https://pari.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/PARI-Summary-The-Zondo-Commission-A-bite-sized-summary-v360.pdf
42.
RichJ. A. J. (2019). Making national participatory institutions work: Bureaucrats, activists, and AIDS policy in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 61(2), 45–67.
43.
RileyD. J., & DesaiM. (2007). The passive revolutionary route to the modern world: Italy and India in comparative perspective. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 49(4), 815–847.
44.
RobertsK. M. (1998). Deepening democracy? The modern left and social movements in Chile and Peru. Stanford University Press.
45.
RueschemeyerD., StephensE. H., & StephensJ. D. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. University of Chicago Press.
46.
SeekingsJ., & NattrassN. (2005). Class, race, and inequality in South Africa. Yale University Press.
47.
SeidmanG. (2010). Brazil’s ‘Pro-Poor’ strategies: What South Africa could learn. Transformation, 72, 86–103. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241901399_Brazil’s_’pro-poor’_strategies_what_South_Africa_could_learn
48.
SharanM. R. (2021). Last among equals. Context.
49.
SingerA. (2012). Os Sentidos Do Lulismo: Reforma Gradual E Pacto Conservador. Editora Companhia das Letras.
50.
SkidmoreT. E. (2007). Politics in Brazil, 1930-1964: An experiment in democracy. Oxford University Press Oxford.
51.
StepanA. C. (1988). Rethinking military politics: Brazil and the Southern cone. Princeton University Press.
52.
VarshneyA. (2022) How India’s ruling party erodes democracy. Journal of Democracy, 33(4), 104–118.
53.
VeeraraghavanR. (2021). Patching development: Information politics and social change in India. Oxford University Press.
54.
Von HoldtK., & NaidooP. (2019). Mapping movement landscapes in South Africa. Globalizations, 16(2), 170–185. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14747731.2018.1479019.
55.
WamplerB. (2015). Activating democracy in Brazil: Popular participation, social justice, and interlocking institutions. University of Notre Dame Press.
56.
WolpeH. (1972). Capitalism and cheap labour-power in South Africa: From segregation to apartheid 1. Economy and Society, 1(4), 425–456.
57.
YadavY. (2000). Understanding the second democratic upsurge. In HasanZ., FrankelF., BhargavaR. & AroraB. (Eds), Transforming India (pp. 120–145). Oxford.
