India’s democratic experiment has been predicated on our constitutional architecture which distributes power in a manner that tempers tyranny of majority, protects minority voices and institutionalises dissent. Electoral process remains the primary instrument through which legitimacy is conferred and accountability secured. Yet, in recent years, an unsettling pattern has emerged — to question the outcomes of elections and suspect the credibility of democratic process.

Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi’s sustained narrative — interventions in Parliament, public rallies and international forums — has consistently projected India as a polity where democratic institutions are hollowing out under the weight of majoritarianism. Beyond partisan disagreement, it carries an implicit suggestion that the electoral mandate is compromised. This rhetoric bears intriguing parallels to populist strategies employed by Donald Trump in the US, albeit emerging from markedly different ideological traditions. Both leaders, in their own registers, have positioned themselves as insurgents against an allegedly compromised establishment. Such strategies, when normalised, recalibrate political discourse from policy and governance to a theatre of existential crisis with long-term implications on institutional resilience.

Gandhi’s critique of the government’s record on economic inequality, institutional autonomy or minority rights is legitimate and necessary. Yet, when these critiques are coupled with a narrative that elections themselves are a façade, it shifts the debate from “what the government is........

© hindustantimes