In a Democracy, You Must Win the Mandate: Why Opposition to the BJP Must Ultimately Be Tested at the Ballot Box

There is a political argument I have generally avoided making publicly on my website and through my professional and media platforms. My profession as an advocate demands independence of thought, while my position as Editor-in-Chief of Ambat Media Group requires me to maintain a degree of institutional neutrality. The different platforms under the group have their own editorial purposes, and I do not want my personal political preferences to be confused with the editorial positions of Strategic Vanguard, Ambat Legal Insight or Indicatronum. But there are occasions when a political development raises a larger question that goes beyond one political party, one leader or one election. The question that concerns me today is a simple one: in a democracy, if you want to remove an elected government, should you not ultimately have to convince the people to replace it?

https://youtu.be/KMpbepiHnIw

Watch the complete analysis

Let me make my position clear at the outset. This is not an argument in favour of the BJP. It is not an argument against the legitimate existence of an Opposition. It is certainly not an argument against criticism of the government. In a democracy, criticism is indispensable. Protest is legitimate. Parliamentary confrontation is legitimate. Political campaigns against a government are legitimate. Citizens have every right to question, challenge and oppose those who govern them. An elected government does not receive a licence to govern without criticism merely because it has won an election. On the contrary, democratic accountability requires continuous scrutiny of those in power. My concern is with something different: the growing tendency in political rhetoric to treat the removal or destruction of a political opponent as an objective in itself, without sufficiently emphasizing the democratic process through which the people are ultimately entitled to decide who should govern them.

India has chosen representative democracy as its system of government. Governments derive their political legitimacy from elections, and political parties compete before the electorate by presenting candidates, policies, programmes and leadership. The BJP-led government is in office because it obtained an electoral mandate through the established democratic process. That does not make the government infallible. It does not mean that every policy is correct. It does not mean that every decision deserves public support. It certainly does not mean that the Opposition has to remain silent. But it does mean that there is a fundamental distinction between opposing a government and replacing a government. The first can happen every day in a functioning democracy. The second ultimately requires convincing enough citizens to give another political formation the authority to govern.

This distinction becomes particularly important when political leaders repeatedly speak about throwing out the BJP or eliminating the influence of the RSS. Strong political opposition is nothing new in India, and political parties are entirely entitled to campaign against each other. Recent political statements have once again demonstrated how intense this ideological confrontation has become, with Opposition leaders sharply attacking the BJP and RSS, while BJP leaders have responded with equally strong criticism. But political rhetoric should not make us forget the fundamental democratic mechanism. If a party believes that the BJP has failed India, then it has a responsibility to explain why it has failed, what it would do differently, how it would govern differently, and why the Indian people should trust it with power.

That, in my view, is the real test of political opposition.

It is relatively easy to say that a government must go. It is much harder to explain what should replace it. It is easy to identify shortcomings in the government of the day. It is considerably harder to construct a credible alternative programme covering the economy, national security, foreign policy, defence, employment, education, healthcare, infrastructure, internal security, federal relations, social welfare, taxation and the countless other responsibilities of a modern state. It is easy to organize demonstrations against something. It is much harder to persuade millions of citizens that your alternative is better. And that is precisely why elections matter. An election forces political movements to move beyond slogans and confront the ultimate question: what do you offer the people of India?

There is nothing inherently undemocratic about political agitation. Indeed, democratic history is full of movements that changed governments and policies through protest. Parliamentary opposition can also be forceful and uncompromising. But there is a difference between using protest to draw attention to an issue and using disruption as a substitute for political persuasion. The recent parliamentary confrontations surrounding student protests and alleged police action demonstrate how quickly political disagreement can turn into institutional deadlock. Reports from the Monsoon Session described prolonged confrontation between the government and Opposition, with legislative business affected by the impasse. There is a legitimate debate to be had about when parliamentary protest is necessary and when disruption becomes counterproductive. But whichever side one supports, the larger democratic principle remains unchanged: Parliament is ultimately an institution for debate, scrutiny, legislation and representation, not merely a stage upon which political parties demonstrate their hostility towards one another.

The same principle applies to the BJP.

If another political party believes that the BJP is governing badly, it should say so. If it believes that the BJP has failed economically, it should demonstrate that failure with evidence. If it believes that the BJP has mishandled national security, it should explain the alternative security doctrine it would adopt. If it believes that the BJP has damaged India's constitutional institutions, it should identify the institutional failures and explain how it would restore public confidence. If it believes that the BJP's relationship with the RSS is harmful to India's constitutional order, then it should make that case before the people and explain precisely what it proposes to do about it. If it believes that another model of governance is superior, then that model should be placed before the electorate. The people of India are perfectly capable of deciding.

And this principle must apply equally regardless of who occupies the Prime Minister's chair.

If the Congress were in power, I would apply exactly the same standard. If a Left coalition were in power, I would apply the same standard. If a regional alliance were in power, I would apply the same standard. If tomorrow the BJP were sitting in Opposition and another party were governing India, the BJP too would have to accept the same democratic reality. It would have the right to oppose, criticize, protest, campaign and mobilize. But if its objective were to replace the government, its ultimate responsibility would be to convince the electorate and win an election.

That is why I am uncomfortable with the idea that the principal political objective should simply be to "remove" a party from power without an equally compelling conversation about what comes next. Remove them and replace them with what? This is the question that deserves much greater attention. Who will govern India? What will their economic policy be? What will their defence policy be? What will their foreign policy be? What will their approach to internal security be? What will their vision for India's technological and industrial development be? What will they do about unemployment? How will they handle India's enormous fiscal requirements? What will their approach to federalism be? What institutional reforms will they introduce? What will they do differently from the government they want to replace?

These are not secondary questions. They are the central questions of governance.

A political party seeking power should therefore have the courage to put its entire governing philosophy before the people. It should say: this is what we believe; this is what we will do; this is how we will do it; these are the sacrifices or costs involved; and this is why you should trust us. Then the people can decide. They may accept the proposal. They may reject it. They may give the party an absolute majority. They may produce a coalition. They may deny it power altogether. But that decision belongs ultimately to the electorate.

This is where I believe India's political discourse needs to mature. We spend enormous amounts of energy discussing who should not govern India. We need to spend considerably more time discussing who should govern India, why they should govern India, and what they propose to do once they receive that responsibility.

There is another important point here. An electoral mandate is not permanent. A party that wins an election does not own the country. It does not own the electorate. It does not acquire immunity from criticism. The people who voted for it retain the right to change their minds. A government can lose public confidence during its term. Political circumstances can change dramatically. New issues can emerge. New leaders can arise. New political formations can challenge established parties. That is the beauty of democracy. Political power is temporary because the mandate belongs to the people, not to the political party.

But precisely because the mandate belongs to the people, political parties should respect the mechanism through which that mandate is renewed or withdrawn.

If the Opposition believes that the people have become dissatisfied with the BJP, then that should be a political opportunity, not a problem. Take the argument to the electorate. Build the organization. Select credible candidates. Present a coherent national programme. Explain how you intend to govern. Debate the BJP on its record. Challenge its policies. Expose its failures where failures exist. Present a superior alternative. Then go to the people and ask for their vote.

If the people agree, the BJP will lose power.

There is nothing more democratic than that.

And if the people disagree, the Opposition should have the institutional maturity to accept that verdict and continue the democratic struggle until the next opportunity arises.

The same applies to ideological organizations. Whether one supports or opposes the RSS is ultimately a matter for political and constitutional debate. But if a political party believes that an organization should be restricted, regulated or otherwise dealt with by the state, then that proposal too should be subjected to law, constitutional scrutiny and democratic accountability. Recent political debate over the RSS has included proposals for governmental action framed in terms of a legal framework, demonstrating precisely why these questions should be addressed through law and institutions rather than through political declarations alone. In a constitutional democracy, the question cannot simply be whether one likes or dislikes an organization. The questions must be: what does the law permit, what does the Constitution protect, what conduct justifies state intervention, and what process should be followed?

That is the standard I would like to see applied to everyone.

I am therefore not asking the Opposition to become quiet. Quite the opposite. I want a stronger Opposition — but a stronger Opposition does not necessarily mean a louder Opposition. It means an Opposition capable of presenting a credible alternative government. It means political parties that can explain their policies in detail. It means leaders who can answer difficult questions instead of merely attacking the government. It means parliamentary representatives who can scrutinize legislation without reducing Parliament to perpetual confrontation. It means political movements capable of converting public dissatisfaction into a constructive governing programme.

Most importantly, it means respecting the intelligence of the Indian voter.

The Indian voter does not need political parties to decide in advance who deserves to govern. The voter can listen, compare, question and decide. Sometimes the electorate gets it right. Sometimes it may get it wrong. But that decision belongs to the electorate. Political leaders who genuinely believe in democracy should have confidence in the people they seek to lead.

So my position is quite simple.

If you want to defeat the BJP, defeat the BJP at the ballot box.

If you believe the BJP has failed India, prove it.

If you believe the RSS is a threat to the constitutional order, make the case.

If you believe your political philosophy is superior, explain it.

If you believe you can govern India better, tell the people how.

Then go to the electorate.

Convince them.

Contest the election.

Win the mandate.

And govern.

That is not a shortcut. That is democracy.

And perhaps that is the political conversation India needs more than anything else right now: not merely "How do we remove them?", but "What do we offer the people instead?"

Because ultimately, in a democracy, governments are not removed simply because political opponents want them removed. Governments are replaced when the people decide that somebody else should govern.

That distinction is not a technicality.

It is the foundation of democratic legitimacy.