Political power, a vital yet oftentimes insidious force, corrupts even the most representative of political parties. However, democratic institutions are our greatest arsenal against this corruption, serving as weapons, safeguarding the trust of the people and upholding the true essence of democratic representation: consolidating the wills of the populace.

But what repercussions would emerge when even corruption policing stifles political representation? Can democracy endure such interventions? Examining India’s political landscape may illuminate these pressing inquiries.

The Dueling Ground

The essence of democratic representation lies in connecting citizens’ desires and the government’s actions. This connection is fostered through the ability of the people to express their interests through their elected representatives (Acemoglu and Robinson 2006) and the capacity of representatives to stabilize the political system as it forges compromises amongst diverse interests expressed within the political arena (Simmel 1955, 122-195). Political parties amalgamate the functions of these representatives.    

India, often remarked as the biggest democracy in the world, is a multiparty democracy with a parliamentary form of government. The party securing the most votes forms the government, entrusted with the duty of serving its constituents and upholding democracy’s redistributive function for equitable governance (Acemoglu and Robinson 2006, 37-38) 

Alas, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) attacks political competition and representation with its anti-corruption narrative.

BJP’s Anti-Corruption Crusade: Arrests, Allegations, and More

Under Modi’s leadership, the BJP has dominated Indian politics for a decade, fiercely opposing corruption. Utilizing government agencies, the BJP aimed to eradicate corruption entrenched within the system. Multiple laws were enacted for this cause, with notable efforts including scrutinizing politicians’ finances through investigations and arrests by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alongside the introduction of electoral bonds.

Beneath the defense of anti-corruption rhetoric, however, opposition parties have encountered threats to their credibility and members’ freedom, facing numerous corruption allegations from government-led investigative agencies, running the risk of losing votes or even disqualification from their seats. Since BJP’s rule in 2014 up to 2022, 121 prominent leaders were under ED’s investigation, 115 of which were opposition politicians who were either booked, raided, questioned or arrested. All of these amount to a whopping 95% of the court cases in ED, a staggering 4 times more than the former regime. This mountain of cases can be attributed to ED’s enforcement of the country’s Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), meaning that these cases against opposition leaders were due to corruption allegations.

The Congress Party, an opposition party, had their bank accounts frozen by the country’s income tax department due to a pending tax case way back in 2018, thus crippling the party’s campaigning might. 

Despite fervent denials, the government visibly wields institutions such as ED and the CBI as bludgeons: instruments of selective justice, targeting the opposition while turning a blind eye to corruption within their own ranks, as switching sides seems to be an effective laundering strategy. In fact, out of the 25 opposition politicians who defected to BJP, 23 saw their investigations conveniently stalled or erased. 

Secret Weapons Revealed

Another anti-corruption weapon by the Modi government was on the now-defunct electoral bond scheme. In essence, electoral bonds are tax free, time–limited bearer bonds that individuals or companies wishing to make donations to political parties can buy through the State Bank of India (SBI) that they could deposit into the registered bank accounts of political parties. Through the banking system, dubious actors cannot transact with banks and a paper trail will be made on who made donations to whom. 

The BJP advocated for electoral bonds as a means to curb black money (illegally obtained and non-taxable cash) and prevent undue influence from private firms on political decisions through its transparency measures. However, a critical drawback of the scheme is the lack of donor reporting and recipient disclosure requirements.

Despite promises to restrict black money and increase transparency, electoral bonds created an uneven playing field. Reports show a significant funding gap between certain parties, with only 19 parties of over 2,800 across India receiving electoral bonds while BJP takes the biggest bite, collecting 68% or Rs 4,216 crore of these funds (for context, 1 Indian crore is worth more than 100,000 USD).

Un-leveling the Arena

The barrage of corruption allegations, coupled with efforts to hamper campaigns by limiting access to party funds, reveals BJP’s strategy to suppress opposition parties. By leveraging anti-corruption institutions for their own gain, they create a political landscape where victory seems reserved only for them. It is apparent that BJP has engaged in stealth authoritarianism, using pre-existing legal mechanisms in democracies for anti-democratic purposes (Varol 2015). 

By playing under the “rule of law”, BJP masks its anti-democratic acts through pressuring the courts to deliver more lenient rulings for their members, evading accountability. Further, by suing opposing parties, they effectively censor their statements on the incumbent, hindering citizens from holding the incumbent accountable for anti-democratic actions.

Depriving political parties, which have the potential (and some indeed do) to advocate the rights of their constituents, of resources while simultaneously monopolizing the largest share undermines their capacity to represent effectively and equitably. Electoral bonds promised fairer funding, but only largely fueled BJP’s campaign machine, leaving opposition parties in the dust. 

Stealth authoritarianism cloaks the nation, projecting a false image of democratic integrity to the world while undermining it from within. Under BJP, citizens suffer as their democratic rights erode with weakened representatives.

The Struggle in Fighting for Others 

Political representation is a tenet of democracy. Without it, we dangerously revert to an administration that renders voters unable to “steer the course of government” (Dalton, Farrel, and McAllister 2011) and follows the desire only of the ruling elite, trampling the rights of its citizens, and prioritizing self-advancement over progress for all. Deaf to the needs of the underprivileged and the unheard, the system is tragically unresponsive to the citizenry. This is where political parties step in – vital vessels that crystallize and champion the diverse ideals of a society. But the institutions sworn to uphold democracy are now muzzling opposition parties, the citizens’ champions. 

Corruption must be unequivocally condemned: upholding laws that safeguard the appropriate use of public funds is essential for the vitality of democracy. Yet, when governments stifle citizens’ participatory rights by targeting opponents as “corrupt”  and suffocating its capacity to gather resources, democracy itself is gravely undermined.

Through the systematic victimization of opposition parties and the tolerance of corrupt politicians in their ranks, the ruling party obstructs the implementation of beneficial and impactful policies, impeding development and progress.

Attacking the means of how groups of people can compete for their wills to be heard and how they mobilize funds towards this purpose also wounds their power to affect meaningful change to their lives. The government exists for the wellness of ALL, not only the few.   

Shielding violators of crusades against corruption while fighting others involved in it not only is ironic, but also deprives the populace’s chances of having politicians who truly use their positions to give equitable access to the fruits of the democratic state.

References

Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2006. “Chapter 2.” In Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. N.p.: Cambridge University Press.

Dalton, Russel K., David M. Farrel, and Ian McAllister. 2011. “The dynamics of political representation.” In How Democracy Works: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies : Essays in Honour of Jacques Thomassen, edited by S. A. H. Denters, Martin Rosema, and Kees Aarts. N.p.: Amsterdam University Press.

Simmel, Georg. 1955. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. N.p.: Free Press.

Varol, Ozan. 2015. “Stealth Authoritarianism.” Iowa Law Review 100 (4): 1673-1742.