Since Partition (1947), legislative assemblies in India and Pakistan have been called upon to prioritize regime legitimacy over institutional legitimacy, while simultaneously responding to the demands of de-colonization, social upheavals and religious divisions that dominated the evolution of nation-building after independence.

In India Partition adversely impacted the national government’s capacity to rein in corrupt practices; the Lok Sabha (the House of the People), the lower house of parliament, was unable to demand adequate accountability from public officials. Moreover, public and official discourse were divided. Some protagonists advocated parliamentary accountability, while others argued that personal charisma and trust – assignable to both lawmakers and leaders – should be the ascendent virtues. A third group of voices sought to weaponize public opinion to curb corruption.

The First Constituent Assembly of Pakistan (1947-1954) was unable to fulfill the task of writing a constitutional instrument. Several factors were responsible for this failure. A powerful executive – exhibiting a marked preference for authoritarianism in shaping institutions – inhibited the work of the assembly, while the polarization of political parties also played a major negative role. Finally, the rising influence of the army and oversight by courts doomed the First Constituent Assembly to failure. It was left to the Second Constituent Assembly to complete Pakistan’s Constitution (1956).

A review of contemporary national politics in India draws attention to the manner in which the government headed by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is blurring the lines between history and myth in order to push a particular ethnonationalist Hindutva agenda. To this end, the Bharatiya Janata Party has deployed the powers of the government, re-writing both regional and national histories, deliberately omitting other narratives and advocating a radical Hindu view of specific events in the Indian past. A parallel can be made with the government of the National Socialists in Germany (beginning in 1933) who propagated a specific view of German history based on Aryanism. Like the National Socialists, the BJP aims this history at its electoral base in order to secure a firm grip over the minds and votes of Indians.

In Pakistan the Senate was organized by allocating membership (100 members) to Provinces (federating units). A survey of the biographic details of Senators reveals that it has not yet fulfilled the demands made on lawmakers to place national interest above more parochial or personal interests. Careerism (self-promotion) or status-projection (elites maintaining their privileges) are exposed as dominant factors that explain success in seeking election to the Pakistan Senate. Inherited social status and financial wealth are more significant in party selection for senatorial office than political popularity or experience.

The session raises several questions. Can democracies overcome the challenges posed by profound ethnic, racial and political turmoil that new nation-states face? Are post-colonial democracies especially susceptible to the demands of executive leaders that nation-building proceed within authoritarian channels and pathways? Finally, are definitions of ‘democracy’ changing in response to new nations emerging on the global stage in these troubled circumstances?