The parliamentary democracy of India is currently at a difficult juncture. Without alternative voices gaining much momentum among the populace, the ruling party's continued strength in terms of electoral support and the overall narrative guiding the nation signifies a worrisome pattern in India's democratic past. The Indian political system has seen a systematic erosion of opposition over the past ten years. Not only have the opposition parties been unable to influence voters during elections, but their ad hoc and reactive actions have amply demonstrated the absence of a national vision or strategy.
As many alternative "opinions met with obstruction" and "criticism brought conflict," the ruling party's deliberate stifling of "other voices" has made the problem worse. India's decline on measures like press freedom, human rights, and the frequent application of repressive legislation like UAPA and sedition to suppress dissent have virtually become daily news.
The grand old party of India, the Congress, has failed miserably to reinvent itself and adapt to the shifting political landscape over the past few years as it went from being the largest party to the largest opposition party in Parliament.
Currently, it only has 53 seats in the House of Representatives, compared to the NDA's 300+ seats (National Democratic Alliance). After suffering repeated losses in numerous State elections, the party has been losing ground steadily, but it hasn't showed much interest in reforming itself or addressing the organizational issues that have been obvious for a while. In addition, it is believed that the regional parties have too much "concerted influence" in the Indian political system to be considered a "national" danger to the existing regime. The main causes of the confused state of the Indian opposition may be boiled down to the following: dynastic leadership, a lack of a coherent mission, story, and vision, myopic and self-interest driven actions, and the adoption of a divisive rather than constructive agenda.
The idea of democracy is based on the concept of proper checks and balances, where the "party in power" is held responsible for its policies and constantly kept alert for its deeds. The crucial role of Only through appropriate deliberation, discussion, and debate in a parliament and routine scrutiny of government actions can the opposition ensure the constitutional mandate of reining in the government's unrestricted powers and holding them accountable when they fall short of achieving the goals of the common good. Therefore, it is impossible to overestimate the significance of a robust opposition in a democratic system. A weak opposition in combination with an authoritarian government can effectively spell doom for the future of the country as the policy-vision is decided without the active consensus of different sections of society.
The political history of India, however, attests to the fact that whenever the party system has been unable to offer a forum for the expression of public grievances, it is the "people" of the nation who have organized active resistance movements against the whims and discriminatory actions of the state. Democracy is alive and well because of the fortitude of its people to oppose a government's autocratic tendencies. Recent instances in the recent past include the CAA-NRC and Farmers' protest, in which ordinary citizens took to the streets to fight for their rights and assert their "collective will" to defend the beloved democratic principles in the largest democracy in the world without any discernible leadership. So, while at the national level, Indian democracy currently awaits a strong opposition it is the people’s voice that is keeping the immortal ideals of a ‘responsible parliamentary democracy’ alive in India.
Comments