Dilemma between Realism and Liberalism in domestic politics — India and US cases

The UK has its upper House of Lords in the Parliament, where the membership is either hereditary, by appointment or official function. In the US, the Senate in the Congress represents states. The Senate representatives were originally nominated by the states, but subsequently this was changed to directly elected. There are two representatives per state irrespective of the size of the state. The objective behind this was and has been that smaller states join and remain within the union. The number of senators per state has not changed. However, because of the variation in population shifts in small and large states, the proportion of voting power of smaller states in comparison to larger states has been increasing over the years. According to the Brookings blog, the population of the median state in the union has declined from 19% of the total population in 1900 to close to 11.5% in 1019, underscoring this trend. Today, the power parity between less populated and more populated states in the US is at the extreme 3 to 1. That is, in the least populated state, a citizen vote is 3 times that of the vote of a citizen in the most populated state in the Senate. The trend is also expected to continue further.

India’s upper House of Parliament, Rajyasabha, on the other hand has members elected by the corresponding state assemblies. Their proportion in RajyaSabha is also biased towards smaller states similar to the US. Moreover, over the years, the proportion of voting power for low growth population states has further increased just like in the US.

However, according to the Carnegie Endowment blog, in India, the variation in population growth rates between southern and northern states is the result of higher educational level and relatively higher prosperity in the southern states. In comparison, states with higher prosperity in the US are in general experiencing higher population growth.

The comparison between India and the US is also worth making for the lower legislative body and the executive branch. In the US, the electoral voting system also applies to the election of the US President, giving higher and higher weight to smaller states over the years. In the lower house of Indian Parliament (Loksabha), the Indian constitution allows for adjustments in the Parliament seats to reflect the population shifts. However, in order to avoid ever enlarging Loksabha seats with the population growth, the number of seats are now capped, in turn favoring the low population growth states. As the Indian Prime and other portfolio Ministers are from the majority party in the Parliament, higher proportion of voting for the Southern low population growth states also indirectly implies higher voting share in the executive branch.

Increasingly higher voting share for smaller states in the US is certainly a cause for concern as the Brookings blog suggests. On the other hand, adjustments to offset a similar trend in India would imply punitive measures for states that have reduced their unsustainable population growth rate through prudent measures like increasing education levels and are now economically more advanced, according to the Carnegie Endowment blog.

Political thinkers talk of the dilemma between political realism and liberalism in the context of international politics. Realism in this case is anchored on self preservation in the face of anarchy at the international political level while liberalism is based on moral standard and rectitude in the same circumstances.

I wonder however if the same dilemma between realism and liberalism also manifests itself in these domestic political cases even though the underlying circumstances are not exactly anarchical!