Within the past decade, political institutions have listed India’s democracy in a steady decline. The V-Dem Institute lists India as #100 out of 179 countries, classifying it as an “electoral autocracy,” citing the excessive pressures on media and challenges to civil liberties. The Freedom House has listed India as “partly free” due to its manipulation of elections, one of the largest shifts in democracy, with a decline of 15 percentage points within the last decade. A lot of these classifications have come since the election of Prime Minister Modi and the presence of the BJP (the Bharatiya Janata Party, a Hindu & conservative nationalist party). The BJP has been blamed for intimidation of journalists and activism groups, especially against Muslim groups. 

However, Juan J. Linz, in his paper The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, breaks down democratic backsliding in a different way. He explains the three main criteria: legitimacy, efficacy (or effectiveness), and the role of opposition. While this list of criteria is not dispositive, Linz explains how these factors are influential in the stability of a democratic government. While I believe that India certainly has factors of democratic backsliding, India does not meet the criteria that Linz’s framework lays out.

The first criteria is legitimacy, whether or not significant portions of the population and key elites still believe in the democratic institutions. Linz describes this as “both the majority of voting citizens and those in a position of authority” must adhere to the “rules of the game” and have trust that the government will uphold those rules. Dr. Gareth Price describes India’s government as “loosely” based on the British Westminster system with regular elections. According to the Pew Research Center, 54% of people are satisfied with the way their democracy is working, 33% are not satisfied, 13% don’t know. Notably, 64% of the population believe the politicians in India are corrupt no matter what political ideaology they have. In addition, there isn’t much evidence that political elites disregard the formal democratic institutions. Despite the fact that the Hindu nationalist party is in control, India’s formal democratic institution does not separate church and state. I believe that this does not meet Linz’s critera for legitimacy as one of the elements of democratic breakdown.

The second criteria is the efficacy of the government. In order to avoid democratic erosion, a government must be able to deliver policy outcomes, provide security, and respond competently to issues. During 2025, India passed vital legislation and multiple bills from taxation to India’s port laws. The final criteria is the role of opposition, whether they are loyal, semi-loyal, or disloyal to the rules of democracy and the democratic institution. Specifically, Linz emphasizes the semi-loyal opposition, as they work within the political institutions and yet undermine the democratic norms. This is a harder aspect to measure; there is no clear and definitive moment that a party in a democratic institution decides to undermine the democratic norms. However, there are alarming steps within the BJP. As mentioned prior, the majority party in India is India’s Hindu & conservative party. It has been in the majority since the election of Prime Minister Modi in 2014. The BJP has been known to suppress Muslim groups and intimidate/control the media in India. While none of these technically break the formal rules of the democratic institutions in India, they are certainly considered as methods of undermining the democratic systems for semi-loyal opposition.

Linz’s criteria for the breakdown of democratic regimes are neither determinate nor necessary for democratic erosion. However, this framework can help us better understand and categorize democratic backsliding. While India has been classified as facing democratic backsliding by multiple reports on democracy, it does not fulfill all the criteria for the effective breakdown of democratic regimes set by Linz.