Single Party Dominance #2: Dangers

What are the dangers if a single party dominates the political landscape for too long? Like the Congress did or the BJP is doing? Raghu S Jaitley analyzes.

 

One, he says, such extended dominance can change the “psychology of the electorate itself”! He elaborates:

“Consider a voter born in 1992. That person would have been too young (under 18) to vote in the 2009 general election, the last election won by the Congress-led UPA. By 2029, that voter will be 37 years old. For their entire adult political life, for anyone below the age of 37 in 2028, the BJP would have occupied the political mindspace with continued narrative dominance. To such voters, the opposition begins appearing abnormal rather than an alternative.”

It reminded me of the question as to how Rome, the Republic was transformed into an emperor-based system. The answer was that Julius Caeser’s successor, Augustus Caeser won the battle for succession fairly young and thus ruled for several decades. By the time Augustus died, few alive had any memory of what governance before/without an emperor was like! The same point applied to many whose entire “adult political life” was with the Congress in power a few decades back. Or now to those whose entire “adult political life” has only been with the BJP in power.

 

Two, when a party rules for very long, “campaign finance asymmetry, institutional takeover and administrative leverage” begin to happen. The Congress benefited from and abused much of that at its peak; as is the BJP now.

 

Three, the long ruling party’s ideology becomes “holy” to more and more people, consciously or unconsciously. Any criticism of that results in one being branded a bad guy. With the Congress, secularism had become that term. How can anyone not support secularism? What kind of person would oppose it? Today:

“Hindutva isn’t merely an ideological position any more; it has become part of the accepted operating system for large sections of Indian society.”

 

I feel Jaitley sums the dangers perfectly when he writes:

“Democracies do not get undermined simply because one party wins repeatedly. The greater danger emerges when permanence begins reshaping institutions, incentives and public imagination. Bureaucracies adapt to continuity. The judiciary seeks to please rather than challenge. Media ecosystems align themselves with power. Capital and business optimise around incumbency.”

 

He ends by saying:

“Of course, nothing is inevitable. History offers a final caution. Dominant systems often appear invincible until suddenly they are not. Congress once looked immovable.”