Democratic Erosion in the United States and India

Intro

From 2024-2025, India’s democratic erosion is deeper because of opaque party finance, and because pressures on civil society have made political competition less fair and accountability harder to enforce.  Although recent Supreme Court rulings in the country have mandated greater transparency in campaign finance, these reforms operate as partial corrections, inside a system where the broader incentives and constraints still favor the ruling party.

According to Nancy Bermeo, democratic backsliding is usually done legally and in an incremental manner (Bermeo, 2016). Where some countries have coups or violent revolutions, others have executive aggrandizement (weakening checks) and strategic manipulation of elections (Bermeo, 2016). Another idea when discussing democratic erosion is the idea of competitive authoritarianism, where elections continue but the playing field is no longer meaningfully fair (Levitsky & Way, 2002). To compare the U.S. and India from 2014–2025, this post will look at three areas: elections, civil liberties, and checks on executive power.

Elections

In India, electoral bonds made party finance obscure for years (Reuters, 2024a). Independent reporting has shown that the ruling party benefited greatly (Reuters, 2024a). The February 2024 ruling ended the scheme, and later court orders forced the State Bank of India (SBI) to release donor details, securing a win for transparency (Reuters, 2024a, 2024b). It is still fair to ask about elections already run on that uneven field and their runoff effects today.

In the U.S., elections are decentralized, donations are made public, and the federal cyber agency has stated that there is no credible evidence of widespread compromise (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency [CISA], 2024). That doesn’t solve polarization or misinformation, but it does matter for the integrity of the process (CISA, 2024).

Civil Liberties and Information

Freedom House (2024) rates India “Partly Free” with a 66/100 and the U.S. as “Free” with a score of 83/100 (Freedom House, 2024). The India report shows pressures on journalists, NGOs, and minorities (Freedom House, 2024). The U.S. report is more positive but still notes concerns about polarization and equal access (Freedom House, 2024). Reporters Without Borders adds detail on India, describing harassment, prosecutions, and a dangerous environment for journalists (Reporters Without Borders, 2025). These conditions can make watchdog reporting harder and, over time, can blunt electoral accountability (Reporters Without Borders, 2025). This shows India lagging behind the U.S. in regards to Civil liberties and information.

Checks on Executive Power

The U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision on presidential immunity shifts power toward the executive by limiting criminal accountability for official acts (Reuters, 2024c). Lower courts now have to sort official from unofficial acts, a time-consuming process vulnerable to gray zones (Reuters, 2024c). This appears to be the legal, step-by-step change Bermeo warned about (Bermeo, 2016). However, the U.S. still has adversarial institutions, state courts, Congress, and elections that keep fighting back.

In India, the electoral bonds ruling shows the judiciary can still deliver a check (Reuters, 2024a, 2024b), but it can be argued these are episodic corrections inside a system where everyday pressures on media and civil society continue (Freedom House, 2024; Reporters Without Borders, 2025).

Where Is the Erosion Deeper?

India’s erosion is more consolidated, with years of obscure campaign finance (Reuters, 2024a) and a tough environment for critical media (Freedom House, 2024; Reporters Without Borders, 2025), which has lowered transparency and raised costs for the opposition, even if courts can still deliver major interventions (Reuters, 2024a, 2024b). The United States shows serious yet contested erosion. The immunity ruling weakens accountability (Reuters, 2024c), but decentralized election administration and a lively civil society still anchor meaningful competition.

If you prioritize the trajectory of executive constraints, you might focus on the U.S. and the implications (Bermeo, 2016). The signals to watch for are clear: Will transparency change party finance (Reuters, 2024a, 2024b)? Will journalists face less harassment (Reporters Without Borders, 2025)? And in the U.S., how will courts apply the immunity framework (Reuters, 2024c), and will election security continue to outpace public distrust in elections (CISA, 2024)?