On May 28, 2023, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the new Indian Parliament, a triangle-shaped edifice of concrete and stone, in a grand ceremony suffused with religious symbolism. The swarm of television cameras stayed transfixed on Modi as he performed a lengthy puja, a Hindu worship ritual, surrounded by a bevy of priests. Then, amid the chanting of Vedic mantras, Modi carried a gold-plated scepter, associated with an ancient Hindu kingdom, through the fufcorridors of Parliament, before installing it above the chair of the speaker.
Nearly the entire opposition boycotted the consecration of the new Lok Sabha, or House of the People, dubbing it Modi’s “coronation.”
It was a familiar made-for-television spectacle, emblematic both of Modi’s leadership style as well as the state of Indian democracy.
The opposition’s boycott was prompted not just by the nakedly partisan tenor of the event but also a range of proximate grievances. These included the disqualification of several opposition leaders from the Lok Sabha and the bulldozing of controversial laws without debate.
“When the soul of democracy has been sucked out from the parliament, we find no value in a new building,” the joint opposition statement read.
Over the last decade, Modi has persistently trimmed the autonomy of every institution of representative democracy in India, subordinating them to a direct form of representation embodied in his personalistic leadership. The Modi government has zealously followed a distinctly autocratic checklist: arresting political opponents, including sitting chief ministers; weaponizing investigative and tax agencies; curbing dissent through sedition and anti-terror laws; cracking down on independent media and civil society organizations; and demonizing minorities.
Not even his own political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has been spared from Modi’s scythe. Once known for its collegial leadership and well-defined organizational structure, the party has now been reduced to a corporate-style electoral machine yoked to the writ of its domineering leader. The inauguration of the new Parliament thus marked the ultimate distillation of Modi’s claim to embody popular sovereignty – a spectacle conveying the dissolution of a parliamentary system built on the notion of “we the people” in favor of a plebiscitary leader calling out “me the people.”
How to understand the fall of Indian democracy from a model case to a cautionary tale, within the span of a decade? What has made the country’s seasoned electorate and its longstanding democratic institutions so vulnerable to the designs of a determined autocrat?
A short answer would be the “crisis of representation” that had plagued India’s democracy for at least a decade preceding Modi’s rise to power. Yet, for an adequate diagnosis of this crisis, one needs to chart the longer arc of the country’s peculiar democratic evolution, in order to gauge the strengths and frailties embedded within the Indian democratic model.