Is India moving towards a system in which elections continue to exist, citizens continue to vote, and institutions continue to carry democratic names, while the substance of political competition, institutional independence and public confidence gradually weakens? It is an uncomfortable question, and perhaps an exaggerated one. But recent developments make it worth asking: could a democracy retain the appearance of electoral legitimacy while steadily losing the conditions that make elections genuinely meaningful?
In 2008, I was introduced to the idea of electoral reform. Since then, I have tried to understand and promote proportional representation and, in the process, encountered concepts such as the Democracy Index and the quality of democracy. India was always described, proudly and correctly, as the world's largest democracy. Yet discussions about the world's strongest, highest-quality or most competitive democracies often placed India somewhere outside the leading group. That distinction mattered. Democracy is not simply the act of holding elections; it is also about whether citizens have meaningful choices, whether governments can be peacefully replaced, whether institutions are independent, whether dissent is protected and whether the electoral process commands public confidence.
That led me, somewhat unexpectedly, to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, commonly known as North Korea. The name itself is striking. It calls itself a democratic republic. Yet the country is widely described by international observers as an authoritarian one-party state, with political power concentrated around the Workers' Party of Korea and the Kim family. Its electoral system demonstrates an important distinction: an election can take place without necessarily providing the political competition normally associated with democracy.
North Korea holds elections. Citizens aged 17 and above are entitled to vote, and official participation is extraordinarily high. In the March 2026 election to the 687-member Supreme People's Assembly, the Inter-Parliamentary Union records official turnout of 99.99 percent and 99.93 percent support for the candidates. Reuters reported that the Assembly formally legislates, but that political power ultimately rests with the ruling Workers' Party. The figures therefore illustrate the difference between an election as a procedure and an election as a mechanism through which competing political forces can genuinely seek power.
That distinction is important for India because nobody should confuse the existence of elections with the health of democracy. At the same time, the comparison has limits. India remains a constitutional republic with competitive elections, multiple political parties, an opposition in Parliament, independent courts, federal governments controlled by different parties and a constitutional Election Commission. The Election Commission itself describes its constitutional mandate as superintendence and control over the electoral process and says its members have equal say in decision-making.
The more relevant question, therefore, is not whether India has become North Korea. It plainly has not. The question is whether some of the institutional tendencies that make elections less meaningful elsewhere could emerge in India if they are not challenged.
That question has acquired new urgency following recent reporting about the Election Commission of India. On September 23, 2026, The Indian Express, in an investigation by Ritika Chopra and colleagues, reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of 10 months concerning issues including voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, access to electoral-roll data, appeals and aspects of the Special Intensive Revision process. Another report described objections concerning changes to Form 6, the application used for new voter registration. These are reports about internal disagreements within a constitutional institution; they are not, by themselves, proof that elections have been rigged.
The Election Commission's position and the Opposition's interpretation of these events are different. The Commission has maintained that its decisions were taken through the institution's established decision-making process and that differences within a multi-member body do not demonstrate institutional collapse. Opposition parties, meanwhile, have argued that the reported disagreements raise fundamental questions about transparency and independence. Those competing claims need to be examined through evidence rather than political allegiance.
Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has taken the controversy considerably further. In a September 24 press conference, he alleged that India's electoral system was fundamentally compromised, demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and argued that the disappearance of what he described as normal anti-incumbency required explanation. He explicitly invoked North Korea while making his argument. These are political allegations and interpretations, not established findings of fact.
Yet the underlying democratic question deserves consideration independently of Rahul Gandhi, the Congress, the BJP or any other political party. A healthy electoral system depends not only on whether votes are eventually counted but also on whether citizens believe that they can register, vote, contest, campaign, criticize those in power and replace governments through elections.
The controversy surrounding electoral rolls makes this particularly important. The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision exercise has generated a fierce debate over the inclusion and deletion of voters. The Indian Express has reported that the exercise has involved major changes to electoral rolls and has become a source of dispute over who should be included in the franchise. Whether individual deletions are justified, erroneous or ultimately corrected is a matter that can and should be tested through transparent procedures, published data and legal scrutiny rather than political assertion.
The same principle applies to the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners. Under that law, the selection committee consists of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister and the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha. Critics have argued that this structure gives the executive greater influence over appointments than an arrangement in which the government and opposition have a more balanced role. Supporters can argue that the law creates a defined statutory process involving both government and opposition. Whatever one's political position, the institutional design is a legitimate subject for democratic scrutiny.
The same caution is necessary when discussing allegations that elections are being manipulated. Claims about "vote chori", electronic systems, voter deletions or deliberate electoral interference should be investigated through verifiable evidence. A democracy cannot function on the assumption that every allegation is true; equally, it cannot remain healthy if every allegation is dismissed merely because it comes from the opposition.
Public confidence is itself a democratic resource. Once citizens begin to believe that electoral outcomes are predetermined, participation can become ritual rather than meaningful.
There is another danger. If an opposition party were ever to boycott elections, the resulting contest could still technically be called an election. Ballot papers could be printed, polling stations could open, candidates could stand and results could be declared. But the absence of meaningful competition would fundamentally alter what the election represents. The lesson from North Korea is precisely that universal suffrage, near-total turnout and formally conducted elections do not by themselves establish democratic government.
So perhaps the question is not whether India is becoming North Korea. The evidence does not support treating the two systems as equivalent. The more useful question is whether India is preserving the conditions that distinguish a genuinely competitive democracy from a system in which elections become increasingly procedural.
A democratic republic requires more than a voting day. It requires credible electoral rolls, transparent procedures, an institution trusted to administer elections impartially, meaningful political competition, an opposition capable of functioning, courts capable of reviewing governmental action, a media environment in which uncomfortable questions can be asked, and citizens who believe that their vote can make a difference.
North Korea demonstrates what happens when the form of democracy becomes detached from its substance. India's history demonstrates that democratic institutions can survive enormous pressures when citizens continue to defend them.
The question before Indians, therefore, is not whether the country has already become a "Democratic People's Republic of India." It is whether the country will ensure that the word "democratic" remains more than a description attached to an election, and that the people's vote remains an instrument through which power can genuinely be questioned, challenged and, when voters choose, changed.
---
*Contact: vivek.sakpal@gmail.com
Comments