The Future of Democracy in India
Navigating Authoritarian Threats, Institutional Erosion, and Polarization
The future of democracy in India, the world’s largest democracy, is under significant threat due to the rise of authoritarian powers, erosion of institutions, and increasing polarization. In his interview, professor Amar KJR Nayak from the XIM University in Bhubaneshwar highlights that democratic decision-making thrives on participation, transparency, and inclusivity, but is often hindered by centralization, resource imbalances, and systemic inequalities. The specific Indian context with its different cultural, religious or economic backgrounds need to be taken into account when discussing the state of democracy in India.
What future does democracy have considering the rise of authoritarian powers?
India, the world’s largest democracy, has long prided itself on a strong electoral system, a vibrant civil society, and an independent judiciary. However, in recent years, there has been an increasing discourse on the erosion of democratic principles. The centralization of power, weakening of institutions, restrictions on civil liberties, and a shift towards majoritarian politics have raised concerns about the future of Indian democracy.
The context must always be carefully considered
These developments cannot be understood in isolation but must be examined within the historical contexts of colonial rule, caste divisions, and religious identities that have shaped the Indian polity. Additionally, the post-1991 economic reforms, the Mandal Commission’s impact on caste politics, and the rise of Hindutva ideology have significantly influenced India’s democratic trajectory. The challenges to democracy have been multifaceted.
The future of democracy in India depends on its ability to balance state power with civil liberties, uphold constitutional values, institutional integrity, and protect the rights of minorities and marginalized communities. While authoritarian tendencies have risen, the country’s historical resilience and democratic spirit offer hope for course correction.
Based on your experience, what promotes and what hinders democratic decision-making?
Democratic decision-making is vital for governance, relying on participation, transparency, and inclusivity. However, its effectiveness is shaped by factors like public engagement, decision-making approaches, governance structures, and constitutional constraints. In India, while the Constitution provides a strong foundation, challenges often hinder its full realization.
One example for frequent public engagement is the Farmers’ Protest (2020-2021), which shows the consequences of poor engagement, where the government's failure to consult stakeholders led to unrest. A constructivist approach, like the Right to Information (RTI) Act, encourages dialogue and inclusivity, unlike top-down, exclusionary approaches like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, which led to protests.
Centralized Governance vs. Bottom-Up approach
Another great example concerns the centralized systems: they limit participation, as seen with COVID-19 vaccine distribution, while Kerala’s decentralized response proved more effective. Policies based on local expertise align better with citizens’ needs, compared to policies shaped by external influences.
Unchecked governance, as in the abrogation of Article 370, risks democracy, while institutional checks like the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision on the NJAC Act safeguard it.
India’s Constitution ensures liberty, justice, equality, and fraternity, but challenges persist. Sedition laws and internet shutdowns restrict freedom of expression, while caste-based violence and gender inequality undermine equality. Political polarization and hate speech threaten social cohesion, as seen in the undermining of federalism and electoral bond controversies.
Are democratic decisions always truly good decisions?
Whether democratic decision making are good decision or not depends on the nature of Institutional Variables that drive the democratic decision-making.
Democratic decision-making is shaped by key institutional factors such as interaction intensity, institutional autonomy, justice principles, and norms. High interaction intensity fosters public engagement, ensuring inclusivity, while low interaction leads to disconnection and democratic deficits.
Key factors for fostering good democratic decisions
Internal autonomy protects institutions from external influences, promoting accountability, while external pressures can weaken governance. Objective justice ensures decisions are fair and equal, but selective justice erodes trust and weakens democratic values. Contextual norms allow institutions to adapt to societal needs, but imposing uniformity can disrupt democracy. Universal rules, like electoral regulations, ensure fairness, while contextual rules can sometimes limit freedoms and rights.
In short, democratic decision-making thrives when institutions encourage participation, maintain independence, and apply fairness. When these principles are compromised, democracy is weakened.
How does decision-making practice in business differ from that in politics? What can and should both sides learn from each other?
It may be presumed that decision-making need to be different in different contexts, like in the above question of different context of business and politics. It need not be so. The principles to good decision-making are the same in different contexts. It is matter of lens viz., time and space that apparently make us believe that the decision-making could be different. However, principles of decision-making that are good for the context of longer time periods and larger space (context of good politics) are also good and sustainable for context of shorter time span and limited space (context of business).
The current mainstream organizational design of businesses—characterized by hierarchical governance, large size, private ownership, low diversity, and a global market focus—has led to undemocratic, exploitative, and unsustainable business practices. By adopting alternative models that emphasize flat governance structures, smaller and more agile organizations, common ownership, diverse expertise, and local markets, businesses can create systems that not only ensure superior performance but also align with democratic values and long-term sustainability. Business and Politics with the same goal of a regenerative flourishing society will not have require different decision-making principles and processes.
Amar K.J.R. Nayak is Professor of Strategy and Chairperson at the Centre for All Interacting Evolving Systems Science (AIESS), XIM University Bhubaneswar, India. He has been part of the organizing task force of our international transdisciplinary biennial conference on Environmental Justice. Within his work, he uses his method AIESS to analyze, understand and act against the pressing challenges of climate change and ecological imbalance. Amar explains the points mentioned in great detail in his recently published work: Regenerative Ecosystems in the Anthropocene. There, you can find a deeper insight into the relationship between democracy and good decision-making. Feel free to reach out to him via amar@xim.edu.in
Interview: Theo Haas