In modern "democracies" capital gets a bigger vote than the electorate. In developing countries this is most obviously the case. For example, during the last election in Brazil there was a major campaign to warn Brazilians that the markets would crash if Lula was elected. The prospect of a capital strike ensured that Lula pledged not to rock the boat. Since being elected to "power" he has kept his pledge to capital and, like any government, betrayed its promises to the people.
Similar developments have occurred In India. The Congress Party can only form the government with the support of the Left parties, none of which are particularly radical or socialist. Faced with a left of centre party, the Indian stock markets crashed. The primary index initially fell by about 6%. It fell again by another 11% after it became known that the Left parties would not join the ruling coalition, seeking to get greater leverage by supporting the Congress Party from the floor of Parliament.
Needless to say, this puts a real damper on the policies of any government. In India, the head of the Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi, has refused to become Prime Minister. The stock markets, which had fallen so dramatically at the surprise electoral defeat of the pro-market BJP party, rallied strongly when this became known. Gandhi has suggested that Manmohan Singh for the post. Needless to say, it is doubtful that she would implement different policies than Singh but what counts is that throughout India Manmohan Singh is the person most closely associated with "neoliberalism." Proving this, he quickly announced that as far as economic policy is concerned nothing would be altered. This in spite of the obvious fact that his party benefited from a vote against the last six years of economic "reform".
So India's new prime minister has been determined by the actions of the financial markets. The politicians are selecting a government which will keep the markets happy rather than what the people voted for. What a striking example of the role of stock markets as a way for the very rich as a class to own an economy's productive capital stock as a whole and, consequently, to bring a potentially rebel government to heel. Isn't democracy grand?