Unfortunately, many scholars of democracy theory and proponents of democratic culture have approached the Weimar Republic already holding the assumption that a democratic culture is necessary for a functioning democracy. With this assumption in place, they then debate whether Weimar Germany really possessed a "democratic culture." A democratic culture is often taken to entail Toqueville's "associationism," a vibrant public sphere, formal outlets for political dissent, and informed political debate. Such inquiries have provided little insight into the nature of healthy democracies because they are based on a faulty assumption, that culture is a condition or even a determinant in the formation of a society's political structure.

As Berman observed, passionate civic engagement among a nation's citizens, without an adequate institutional foundation to channel such passion, can actually be averse to functional democracy. Berman suggests, then, that a "democratic culture" may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a functioning democracy. In fact, Berhman suggests that structural factors such as political institutionalization are far more crucial to a healthy democracy than cultural factors.

Although Berman's examination of the Weimar Republic's political culture and its effect on the Republic's eventual political fate is refreshing for the field of democracy theory, he still falls into the trap that other scholars of democracy theory have. Berman's conclusion that a democratic culture is necessary, but not sufficient and sometimes even averse in certain circumstances, is off-the-mark because it assumes that culture must be a condition or factor of consequence in the formation of a functional democracy. Like other theorists, Berman insists on treating culture...

India, in the modern age, has never been perceived as a bastion of reason, individual rights, or progressive social values. It has never been perceived as possessing a democratic culture, and certainly not one strong enough to sustain a democracy 1.2 billion strong. Rather, it has been viewed, at best. As a pallid shell of a formerly great and ancient civilization. At worst, it is viewed as the pinnacle of third-world poverty, backwardness, and apathy.
Even those who recognize the considerable merits and achievements of Indian civilization qualify their praise by noting that India's greatest achievements have been in the spiritual realm, not the political realm. Indeed, when contrasted with the other major non-Western civilization, that of China, India has struggled with political organization. The sub-continent of India had never been united by native Indians and the closest approximations were the ancient Maurya and medieval Gupta dynasties, which never fully controlled Southern India.

Despite their traditional political weakness, India has been able to construct a vibrant, healthy democracy.

Counterargument: Some scholars argue that the occupation of the British instilled a democratic culture in India because of the installation of a British legal system founded on due process and respect for individual liberty.

Conclusion

The effect of culture on a society's political structure is dependent on the nature of that society. That is, culture and structure do not interact in the same way in every society, as many political science theorists would like to imagine.