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

From plagiarism to proxy exams: Galgotias and systemic failure in education

By Sandeep Pandey*   Shock is being expressed at Galgotias University being found presenting a Chinese-made robotic dog and a South Korean-made soccer-playing drone as its own creations at the recently held India AI Impact Summit 2026, a global event in New Delhi. Earlier, a UGC-listed journal had published a paper from the university titled “Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis,” which became the subject of widespread ridicule. Following the robotic dog controversy coming to light, the university has withdrawn the paper. These incidents are symptoms of deeper problems afflicting the Indian education system in general. Galgotias merely bit off more than it could chew.

Covishield controversy: How India ignored a warning voice during the pandemic

Dr Amitav Banerjee, MD *  It is a matter of pride for us that a person of Indian origin, presently Director of National Institute of Health, USA, is poised to take over one of the most powerful roles in public health. Professor Jay Bhattacharya, an Indian origin physician and a health economist, from Stanford University, USA, will be assuming the appointment of acting head of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USA. Bhattacharya would be leading two apex institutions in the field of public health which not only shape American health policies but act as bellwether globally.

The 'glass cliff' at Galgotias: How a university’s AI crisis became a gendered blame game

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan*  “She was not aware of the technical origins of the product and in her enthusiasm of being on camera, gave factually incorrect information.” These were the words used in the official press release by Galgotias University following the controversy at the AI Impact Summit in Delhi. The statement came across as defensive, petty, and deeply insensitive.

Growth without justice: The politics of wealth and the economics of hunger

By Vikas Meshram*  In modern history, few periods have displayed such a grotesque and contradictory picture of wealth as the present. On one side, a handful of individuals accumulate in a single year more wealth than the annual income of entire nations. On the other, nearly every fourth person in the world goes to bed hungry or half-fed.

Thali, COVID and academic credibility: All about the 2020 'pseudoscientific' Galgotias paper

By Jag Jivan   The first page image of the paper "Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis" published in the Journal of Molecular Pharmaceuticals and Regulatory Affairs , Vol. 2, Issue 2 (2020), has gone viral on social media in the wake of the controversy surrounding a Chinese robot presented by the Galgotias University as its original product at the just-concluded AI summit in Delhi . The resurfacing of the 2020 publication, authored by  Dharmendra Kumar , Galgotias University, has reignited debate over academic standards and scientific credibility.

Conversion laws and national identity: A Jesuit response response to the Hindutva narrative

By Rajiv Shah  A recent book, " Luminous Footprints: The Christian Impact on India ", authored by two Jesuit scholars, Dr. Lancy Lobo and Dr. Denzil Fernandes , seeks to counter the current dominant narrative on Indian Christians , which equates evangelisation with conversion, and education, health and the social services provided by Christians as meant to lure -- even force -- vulnerable sections into Christianity.

'Serious violation of international law': US pressure on Mexico to stop oil shipments to Cuba

By Vijay Prashad   In January 2026, US President Donald Trump declared Cuba to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US security—a designation that allows the United States government to use sweeping economic restrictions traditionally reserved for national security adversaries. The US blockade against Cuba began in the 1960s, right after the Cuban Revolution of 1959 but has tightened over the years. Without any mandate from the United Nations Security Council—which permits sanctions under strict conditions—the United States has operated an illegal, unilateral blockade that tries to force countries from around the world to stop doing basic commerce with Cuba. The new restrictions focus on oil. The United States government has threatened tariffs and sanctions on any country that sells or transports oil to Cuba.

Development at what cost? The budget's blind spot for the environment

By Raj Kumar Sinha*  The historical ills in the relationship between capital and the environment have now manifested in areas commonly referred to as the "environmental crisis." This includes global warming, the destruction of the ozone layer, the devastation of tropical forests, mass mortality of fish, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, poison seeping into the atmosphere and food, desertification, shrinking water supplies, lack of clean water, and radioactive pollution. 

When a lake becomes real estate: The mismanagement of Hyderabad’s waterbodies

By Dr Mansee Bal Bhargava*  Misunderstood, misinterpreted and misguided governance and management of urban lakes in India —illustrated here through Hyderabad —demands urgent attention from Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), the political establishment, the judiciary, the builder–developer lobby, and most importantly, the citizens of Hyderabad. Fundamental misconceptions about urban lakes have shaped policies and practices that systematically misuse, abuse and ultimately erase them—often in the name of urban development.