Why India has Remained a Democracy

K N Hari Kumar, a former editor of Deccan Herald wrote 3 articles on how/why India has manged to stay a democracy. Take all our neighbours, he says – Nepal’s Gen Z triggered overthrow of the government, Bangladesh ousting Sheikh Hasina, Pakistan in eternal army rule mode, the meltdown of the Sri Lankan government, and Myanmar always under military rule – and you see why the question of the stability of Indian democracy arises.

 

He then turns to the US. The very man who refused to accept an electoral defeat, initiated riots, came back to become President again 4 years later. So much for a “centuries-old, stable democracy”. And everything the man is doing now disproves the idea that “the advanced Western nations were immune to the kind of instability and radical transformations”.

 

Sure, he acknowledges, there has been a lot of “democratic backsliding” in India in recent times – Ram Mandir, lynchings of Muslims, CAA act, the purge of “urban Naxals”, removing Article 370, the use of CBI against political opponents, the flaws in SIR, biased and confrontational governors etc.

 

But despite those (and more) points, we are still a democracy, nothing like our neighbours (or the US). Elections are held on time, and winners and losers accept the verdict (though they may indulge in horse-trading). All of which raises the question: How come?

 

First, he says, we need to understand the origins of Indian democracy. The freedom fighters had come through a process of participation in governance under British rule, so they were used to the ideas of representation and debate. They had converted the freedom struggle into a pan-India movement, inclusive of all regions, castes and religions.

“They had tremendous popular support and legitimacy. They realised their liberal social-democratic vision in the Constitution, its institutions and procedures, and the policies and actions of the governments they led. Their ideology formed the basis of public opinion and civil society.”

~~

 

In the second post on the series, Hari Kumar focusses on one of the anchors/bulwarks of democracy – the bureaucrats. The reliance and importance of bureaucrats started early:

“For a range of reasons, Nehru, as Prime Minister, was more inclined to depend on select individuals from the bureaucracy than on his party leaders in ministries at the Centre and in the states for governance.”

 

That practice has continued beyond Nehru to present day:

“(Indira Gandhi) relied on key bureaucrats to formulate and execute her political strategy, most importantly, P N Haksar… (Under Modi) An unprecedented number of retired bureaucrats have been appointed to key Cabinet positions in his government.”

And no, not just at the Center:

“The key role of the bureaucracy extends to the state governments.”

 

The bureaucrats, writes Hari Kumar:

“The enormous success of the bureaucracy in governance arises from its key role in advising and guiding politicians in power, always promoting their interests, remaining in the background, and not posing a threat to them politically. Their career-long experience in political administration, cohesion as a cadre, expertise and knowledge of public affairs, flexibility in bending but not breaking, enable them to control and restrict politicians and political parties, to provide continuity and overall stability in domestic and foreign policy, and to formulate and implement the agenda of the nation.”

It’s exactly like Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, he muses. I realized that the Humphreys and Bernards, while no saints themselves, protect us from the worst ideas of the Jim Hackers and his cabinet colleagues…

~~

 

The second pillar, he says is the judiciary. Fairly early after independence, they ruled that the “the basic structure of the Constitution could not be changed” thereby assigning to themselves the responsibility the “role as the guardian of the Constitution”.

 

But yes, they caved in meekly during the Emergency (just as the US Supreme Court has done now), he says. But right after that, they switched into “social activist” mode. They take up issues suo moto, they entertain PIL’s.

“This significantly enhanced its credibility and respect among the public. As corrupt and criminal politicians failed in their governing duties and lost legitimacy among the public, the prestige and authority of the courts grew… When civil society activists faced an issue or a crisis, they appealed to the courts… seen as independent, impartial and fair.”

 

But at times, the judiciary overreaches, argues Hari Kumar. It has issued too many administrative directives and decisions. It widened the interpretation of the Constitution to include new rights and powers (to citizens and the courts). This creates the dangerous situation where an unelected judiciary makes decisions in “closed chambers, through opaque processes, far away from public scrutiny and accountability” thereby “robbing citizens of their right… to govern themselves”.

“It tends to reduce citizens in civil society to mere petitioners rather than active participants in political decision-making, which is what democracy promises.”

~~

 

To sum it up:

“Unlike in the US, in India the guardrails of constitutional democracy have kept the disruptive forces within limits and even, to some extent, mainstreamed them.”

But beware, he says, as the US shows us, there is no guarantee against the bureaucracy and the judiciary turning into lap dogs of the man in power.

Lastly, there is the “Who will guard the guards?" risk:

“The risk that governance through the bureaucracy-judiciary could easily slip into a civilian dictatorship should not be ignored.  In other words, there is a possibility that under certain conditions it could lead to another Emergency in a different guise.”