Fading opposition, fraying democracy

India's democratic framework, carefully crafted by the Constituent Assembly and enshrined in what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called the "cornerstone of the nation," is undergoing profound stress tests. As the world's largest democracy completes over seven decades of constitutional governance, concerning patterns have emerged that demand rigorous examination. The political landscape has witnessed a steady erosion of opposition space, creating what scholars term "competitive authoritarianism" - where democratic institutions exist formally but function increasingly asymmetrically.

This comprehensive analysis goes beyond surface-level electoral politics to examine the structural, institutional, and legal dimensions of opposition decline. We interrogate whether India is experiencing democratic backsliding through multiple vectors: the growing imbalance between ruling party and opposition resources, the weaponization of state institutions, and the systematic constriction of spaces for dissent. The implications extend far beyond partisan politics, touching upon fundamental questions about federalism, separation of powers, and the very nature of representative democracy.

• Electoral hegemony and its democratic consequences

The Bharatiya Janata Party's political dominance since 2014 represents more than routine electoral success - it marks a fundamental reconfiguration of India's party system. The BJP's expansion from 282 seats in 2014 to 303 in 2019, coupled with its penetration into previously impenetrable states like West Bengal and Odisha, demonstrates an unprecedented consolidation of power. While electoral victories are inherently democratic, their cumulative effect raises critical questions:

• Parliamentary scrutiny in decline:

The 17th Lok Sabha (2019-2024) functioned for just 34% of scheduled hours, the lowest in India's parliamentary history. Question Hour - the primary mechanism for holding government accountable - was frequently suspended. The opposition's voice diminished as their numbers shrank from 150 seats in 2014 to just 52 in 2019 (excluding allies).

With reduced opposition presence, legislative scrutiny has weakened. The passage of consequential bills like the abrogation of Article 370, the Citizenship Amendment Act, and farm laws with minimal debate exemplifies this trend. The lack of diverse perspectives risks creating policy blindspots, as seen in the farmer protests that forced repeal of the farm laws.

              Ø  Institutional pressures on opposition: the legal-investigative complex

A disturbing pattern has emerged where opposition leaders face disproportionate legal and investigative actions, often timed around elections. While some cases may have merit, their selective application raises due process concerns:

Arvind Kejriwal's Arrest (March 2024): The Delhi Chief Minister's arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the liquor policy case came weeks before general elections, despite no charges being framed. The timing followed a pattern - his deputy Manish Sisodia had been jailed for over a year in the same case.

Hemant Soren's Detention (January 2024): The Jharkhand Chief Minister's arrest in a land scam case occurred during crucial election preparations. His predecessor from the same party had also faced multiple cases after opposing central policies.

Rahul Gandhi's Disqualification (2023): The Congress leader's swift disqualification following a defamation conviction stood in contrast to BJP leaders retaining positions despite more serious charges. The Supreme Court's eventual stay highlighted procedural irregularities.

Data from the Association for Democratic Reforms reveals stark disparities:

- 95% of political money laundering cases since 2014 target opposition leaders

- 85% of raids by central agencies focus on opposition-ruled states

- Conviction rates remain below 20% for these high-profile cases

Ø  The defection epidemic: subverting electoral mandates

The phenomenon of political defections has taken a systemic and epidemic form, wherein elected representatives, often from opposition parties, switch allegiances after elections. This practice, far from being a matter of individual conscience, has become a strategic tool used to subvert electoral mandates. The net effect is a weakening of the democratic process, erosion of public trust, and a serious dent in the federal structure envisioned by the Constitution.

Madhya Pradesh (2020):
In a dramatic political shift, 22 Congress MLAs, many of whom were loyalists of Jyotiraditya Scindia, resigned and defected to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This mass defection led to the collapse of the democratically elected Kamal Nath-led Congress government. Significantly, several of these defectors were later rewarded with ministerial positions in the new BJP-led government, indicating a clear quid pro quo and incentivization of defections.

Maharashtra (2022):
The Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress coalition government was destabilized when over 40 MLAs from the Shiv Sena broke away under Eknath Shinde's leadership. These rebel legislators joined hands with the BJP, forming a new government. The act not only bypassed voter intent but also fractured the ideological core of the original coalition, reducing the electoral mandate to a numerical game.

Despite the presence of the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the law has increasingly failed to act as an effective deterrent. Its key shortcomings include:

Speaker's Delays in Decisions:
In several instances, Speakers have sat on disqualification petitions for extended periods, sometimes for years. These delays allow defectors to continue in office and even hold ministerial roles, nullifying any immediate consequences and making the law virtually toothless.

Judicial Timing and Fait Accompli:
Even when judicial intervention does take place, it often arrives after political realignments have been formalized. By the time courts adjudicate, the new governments have already consolidated power, making reversal politically and administratively infeasible—a classic case of a fait accompli.

Ø  the institutional erosion – pillars of democracy under stress

The architecture of Indian democracy rests on strong, impartial institutions. However, in recent years, several such institutions have shown signs of systematic erosion and politicization.

Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s Politicization:

• Explosion in cases since 2014:
  The number of cases registered by the ED has skyrocketed by over 600% compared to the previous decade. However, this exponential increase has not translated into convictions, which remain below 5%. This indicates that the ED’s actions are more about creating a perception of wrongdoing rather than achieving legal closure.
• Targeting of opposition leaders:
  Data shows that over 95% of high-profile ED investigations involve opposition politicians, raising serious concerns about selective targeting. The ED, which is supposed to investigate financial crimes without political bias, appears to function as a tool for political vendetta.
• Election-time raids:
  Just before the 2021 West Bengal elections, the ED conducted over 200 raids in the state within three months, almost all targeting opposition leaders. The timing of these actions suggests a pattern of intimidation and disruption during crucial electoral periods.

Income tax department’s selective scrutiny:

• Biased clearance of political donations:
  Electoral funding scrutiny reveals that nearly 90% of donations to the ruling BJP face no hindrance, while opposition parties are subjected to rigorous and often punitive scrutiny. This not only creates a financial imbalance but stifles the opposition’s ability to compete electorally.
• Freezing of opposition accounts:
  In an alarming development, opposition party accounts—such as the Congress Party's in the lead-up to the 2024 elections—were frozen by the Income Tax Department, crippling their campaign machinery and challenging the very premise of free and fair elections.

Ø  Election machinery: questioning impartiality

Appointment Processes:

In 2023, a controversial law was passed to change the method of appointing Election Commissioners. The Chief Justice of India was removed from the selection panel and replaced with a Cabinet Minister, giving the ruling party a majority in the appointment committee. This fundamentally undermines the independence of the Election Commission—an institution meant to be above partisan influence. Similar alterations have been made to the functioning of other oversight institutions, hollowing out their credibility.

Operational concerns:

• Delayed action on model code violations:
  Instances of ruling party members violating the Model Code of Conduct often result in either delayed or no action from the Election Commission, while opposition leaders face swift penalties, reflecting partiality.
• Voter roll manipulation:
  In various opposition strongholds, there have been reports of large-scale discrepancies in voter rolls. Missing names and unauthorized deletions raise concerns about electoral manipulation.
• EVM transparency issues:
  Demands for greater transparency in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), including voter-verifiable paper audit trails (VVPAT) and third-party audits, continue to be dismissed, despite growing mistrust among segments of the electorate.

Ø  Federalism under duress: targeting opposition states

Governor overreach:

Governors, constitutionally expected to act as neutral constitutional heads, are increasingly seen acting as political agents of the central government.

• Tamil Nadu (2023):
  The Governor withheld key bills passed by the state legislature without offering timely or clear explanations, stalling governance and undermining legislative autonomy.
• Kerala (2024):
  The Governor attempted to directly influence the appointment of university Vice-Chancellors, violating the state’s jurisdiction and sparking accusations of political interference.
• West Bengal (2021–2024):
  A period marked by near-constant confrontation between the Raj Bhavan and the state government, where the Governor publicly criticized policies and blocked several administrative decisions.

Ø  India at a democratic crossroads

India's democracy isn't collapsing overnight—it’s being chipped away, one institution, one law, and one norm at a time. What makes this moment so critical is that all of this is happening within the framework of the Constitution. The rules aren't being broken—they're being bent so far that they’re barely recognizable.

From orchestrated defections and a weakened anti-defection law to selective raids, partisan appointments, and financial pressure on opposition states—there's a pattern. It’s not about isolated incidents anymore. It’s about a consistent tilt in the system, creating an uneven battleground where real democratic competition becomes harder and harder.

But here’s the silver lining: the system is fighting back.

• The Supreme Court has shown flashes of resistance—from scrapping the opaque electoral bonds to granting bail in politically sensitive cases.
• Federalism still breathes through states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal that continue to assert their autonomy and push back through policy and the ballot.
• And even in a media landscape that often feels captured, digital journalism and civil society voices are keeping the democratic spirit alive—asking the tough questions, exposing uncomfortable truths, and refusing to be silenced.

The results of the 2024 general elections—where the ruling party failed to secure a majority on its own—proved something important: democracy may be down, but it’s not out. The Indian voter still holds the power to course-correct.

As historian Ramachandra Guha rightly said, “Indian democracy has shown remarkable resilience, but faces its most serious test since the Emergency.” The decade ahead will decide whether we renew the promise of our Constitution—or continue sliding into a future where elections exist, but true choice disappears.

• The writer can be contacted at ibtisaamchoudhary1000@gmail.com