Skip to main content

Democratic rule? In India, ruling party is trying to cease the existence of opposition

By Harasankar Adhikari 

The term "democracy" is derived from two Greek words: "demos ‘(or people) and ‘kratos’ (rule). So, in simple terms, democracy is the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. ‘It is a system of governance where power and civic responsibility are, ideally, exercised directly by all citizens.' But unfortunately, the practice tells a different story because the "people" typically exercise their power indirectly through elected representatives. There, modern democracy "is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of the elected representatives." The key characteristic of democracy is ‘the responsiveness of government to the preferences of its citizens," (who are, in theory, "political equals" of the rulers). In this responsiveness, ‘citizens have opportunities to formulate their preferences, articulate them, and have them considered in the conduct of the business of government.’ According to the democratic theory, ‘political parties are voluntary organizations that are supposed to promote democracy. Whereas the judiciary, the legislature, and the judiciary promote horizontal accountability, vertical accountability is promoted by the political parties, which link the people and the government. Parties organize campaigns, recruit candidates, and mobilize the political community to participate in the selection of office bearers. The goal of party activism is to 'create institutions and shape public policies, laws, and policies that affect the rights and welfare of the political community.'
In multi-party politics like India, ‘the party that is elected to form government seeks to enact into law a number of policies and programs (oftentimes consistent with their election manifesto). Opposition parties are free to criticize the ruling party’s policies, ideas, and programs and offer alternatives.’
The opposition is a central pillar to any democracy. ‘It means that, regardless of their differences, all sides in the political debate share the fundamental democratic values of free speech, the rule of law, and equal protection under the law; parties that lose elections become the opposition. The opposition, then, is essentially a "government-in-waiting." For a culture of democracy to take hold, opposition parties need to have confidence that the political system will guarantee their right to organize, speak, dissent, and/or criticize the party in power. Opposition parties also need to be assured that, in due course, they will have a chance to campaign and re-seek the people's mandate in and through regular, free, and fair elections.’
Therefore, opposition parties obviously perform the following important functions:
  • Political parties in democracies are ‘important organs for aggregating the interests of the political community. Interest aggregation often culminates in the articulation or projection of certain preferences, values, and ideologies into the policy and lawmaking processes (e.g., in Parliament) and in the budgeting process.’
  • It promotes "national conversation" and creates an environment of democratic discussion at a higher level of political development and maturity.
  • Maintaining a liaison with the voter-citizen and demonstrating the relevance of politics to ordinary people, that is, the oppressed, the marginalized, and the disenfranchised.
  • "Opposition parties hold the government to account for its commissions or omissions."
  • Opposition parties present ‘a viable alternative to the incumbent government by designing alternative ideas, principles, and policies for governing society. Should the party in power let the voters down, the "government-in-waiting" takes over the reigns of power through free and fair elections.’
  • ‘Parties strengthen the culture of democracy within the party and the political community in general (by, for example, promoting open debate during delegates’ conferences, promoting intra-party democratic elections, and ensuring accountable use of party finances).’
  • Parties work with the Electoral Commission, the mass media, and civil society organizations to monitor and improve the quality of voter registration, civic education, and electoral transparency.
  • Parties serve as breeding grounds for future leaders. Shadow cabinet ministers, for example, typically conduct serious party business in their designated portfolios.
  • Finally, opposition parties are the unpaid but dedicated principal researchers for the government in power.
But in India, the ruling party is trying to cease the existence of the opposition, and its target is to make opposition zero. That means the ruling government does not prefer the important pillar of democracy (opposition). It is a cultural orientation of political anarchism toward political monarchism. It has been observed that the opposition does not get priority in playing the role of the opponent. Opposition is almost always ignored. Specially, the government does not listen to the criticism of the opposition relating to different policies, programs, or even the budget. Further, polls at different hierarchies remind us of this culture.
We find that in India, free and fair elections are a daydream. But fear during the election is the most common feature. The scientific rigging, booth jams, violence and threats, and hooliganism are fear centric events of the election. The dominant majority varied according to the particular dominant groups of the particular geographical territory, which controls all these election events deliberately.
From the lower house to the upper house, the opponents are ignored because the majority thinks, they are doing dirty politics. There is, in fact, a culture of favoritism. No one likes to leave the field. The common mass of elected opponents is deprived of development activities. For instance, at Panchayat level, the majority (ruling the Panchayat) does not allot funds for the development of the villages of the elected opponents.
So, how would democracy work if there was no opposition? Who would monitor the functions of the government, and who would rectify these functions? What would be the fate of common electorates in this type of democracy? Therefore, the democracy would be renamed "Zero Democracy'. Indian democracy would turn into a political monarchy.

Comments

TRENDING

Will official Modi invitation to Pope include itinerary of meeting Manipur Christians, too?

  By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*  Few will not remember Judas Iscariot and the role he played in the betrayal of Jesus! For those who don’t know or don’t remember, these passages from Sacred Scripture will help put things in perspective: "And while they were eating, he said, 'Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.' They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, 'Surely you don’t mean me, Lord?' Jesus replied, 'The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray from Sacred Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.' Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, 'Surely you don’t mean me, Rabbi?' Jesus answered, 'You have said so.'  (Mt. 26: 21-25)

RSS supremo Deoras 'supported' Emergency, but Indira, Sanjay Gandhi 'didn't respond'

Indira Gandhi, Balasaheb Deoras By Shamsul Islam* National Emergency was imposed on the country by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on June 25-26, 1975, and it lasted for 19 months. This period is considered as ''dark times' for Indian democratic polity. Indira Gandhi claimed that due to Jaiprakash Narayan's call to the armed forces to disobey the 'illegal' orders of Congress rulers had created a situation of anarchy and there was danger to the existence of Indian Republic so there was no alternative but to impose Emergency under article 352 of the Constitution.

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

Amidst climate of hate, none cares to remember VP Singh, not even his family

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat*   It was former Prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh's birthday on June 25. He would have turned 93 on this day. A man of great idealism and conviction, VP changed the politics of power in India that became more inclusive in terms of participation and representation of the marginalised in our highest decision making bodies. 

Manipur's Meira Paibis: Inter-sectional activism, regional bias, media misconstruction

By Biswanath Sinha*  The women led movement in India is a diverse and multifaceted phenomenon that reflects the country's vast cultural, social, and political landscape. One of the most distinctive and influential women's organizations in this tapestry is the Meira Paibi of Manipur. Known as the "torchbearers," Meira (lights/torch) Paibi (holder/bearer) carved out a unique space in the annals of women's activism in India.

Architects, planners, designers discuss impact of climate change on infrastructure

By Dr Mansee Bal Bhargava*  The School of Architecture and Planning at the Woxsen University, Telengana, organized a conference on Architecture & Design of Built Environment (ADoBE) on 6-7th June 2024 at the Indian Institute of Technology, IIT-Hyderabad. The larger theme of the ADoBE’24 pivoted on ‘Cities Embracing Inclusivity’. 

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.