18 November 2024 : Indian Express Editorial Analysis

1. Democracy by Force      

(Source: Indian Express; Section: The Editorial Page; Page: 08)

Topic: GS2 – Governance

Context:

The article criticizes the growing normalization of authoritarian governance in India, symbolized by “bulldozer justice,” and its detrimental impact on democratic principles and institutional integrity.

What is Bulldozer justice?

• Bulldozer justice refers to the practice of demolishing properties, often belonging to those accused of crimes, sometimes without following proper legal procedures.

The Crisis of Democratic Governance

• The recent Supreme Court (SC) ruling on “bulldozer justice” highlights a disturbing normalization of governance practices that undermine democratic norms.
• While the decision to curb the misuse of bulldozers is a necessary intervention, the mere need for judicial intervention in such matters reflects the erosion of administrative and political accountability.
• This crisis is not just about physical demolitions but the broader ideological and procedural decay in India’s democracy.

The Systemic Abuse of Power: Encounters and Bulldozer Governance

• Encounters, akin to bulldozers, symbolize governance through extrajudicial means, bypassing legal and ethical standards.
• Rarely are illegal encounters investigated or officials held accountable, fostering a culture of impunity.
• Politicians capitalize on such acts for electoral gains, as seen in Maharashtra, where an encounter was publicly celebrated. This normalizes state violence and signals the growing acceptance of governance that prioritizes spectacle over substance.

Bulldozers as a Symptom of Democratic Malaise

• While the SC ruling attempts to address the misuse of physical bulldozers, the deeper issue lies in the “conceptual and ideological bulldozer” that dominates democratic governance.
• This bulldozer is rooted in an ideology that elevates state interests above citizens’ rights, supported by a complicit executive, proactive legislature, and a judiciary that often fails to act as a check.
• The misuse of democratic rhetoric legitimizes these draconian tendencies, making them appear as democratic mandates rather than authoritarian impulses.

Three Ideological Bulldozers Undermining Democracy

Three key ideas distort the democratic ethos:

• Majoritarianism: While majority rule is foundational to democracy, overemphasis on numeric dominance erodes compromise and procedural norms, fostering a community-based majoritarianism.
• Cult of Strong Leaders: Frustration with perceived inefficiencies fuels a craving for “strong” leaders, who often centralize power and personalize governance, sidelining institutional checks.
• Misinterpretation of Mandate: Elections are misconstrued as granting unlimited power rather than temporary, conditional authority. This fosters an illusion of elected leaders as unchecked rulers, distorting the democratic contract.

These principles, isolated and exaggerated, become ideological tools to justify both literal and metaphorical bulldozing of democratic norms.

Democracy vs. Bulldozer Governance

• The interplay between public impatience with procedures and leaders’ eagerness to bypass them creates fertile ground for “bulldozer ideas.”
• Public support for encounters and direct, decisive actions reflects a broader disdain for democratic checks and balances.
• This impatience weakens constitutional safeguards, allowing leaders to exploit electoral victories as mandates for authoritarian practices.
• Empirical evidence, such as the Lokniti study, shows alarming public support for limiting institutional oversight over elected officials, underscoring the challenge of preserving democratic norms in the face of popular demand for expedience.

Legislative Bulldozers: A Greater Threat

• Legislation is increasingly wielded as a tool for ideological bulldozing. Governments exploit electoral majorities to introduce laws targeting specific communities or undermining foundational democratic principles.
• This weaponization of legislative power exacerbates societal divides and consolidates authoritarianism under the guise of democracy.
• By redefining democracy to prioritize majoritarian will and executive dominance, procedural safeguards are dismissed as elitist obstructions, further eroding the balance of democratic governance.

Conclusion: The Demolition of Democracy

• India’s current governance crisis is not just about physical demolitions but a systematic dismantling of democratic ideals.
• The extraordinary normalization of bulldozer governance reflects an ideological shift that undermines the delicate balance between procedural norms, popular will, and foundational principles.
• To preserve democracy, it is essential to resist the allure of quick fixes and reassert the primacy of constitutional safeguards, deliberative processes, and accountability over the theatrics of authoritarian governance.

Why is Bulldozer Justice  a Concern?

Rising Punitive Demolitions: A 2024 estimate by the Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN) found that authorities demolished 153,820 homes in 2022 and 2023, displacing over 738,438 people across rural and urban areas. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 17 of the ICCPR states that everyone has the right to own property individually or with others, and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their property. Collective Punishment: SC acknowledged that demolition drives not only target the alleged perpetrators of an offence but also impose a form of “collective punishment” on their families by destroying their place of dwelling. Instant Justice: Demolitions have been justified as actions against encroachment or unauthorised construction. Such state-sanctioned acts of punitive violence have been hailed as a form of “instant justice.”

Practice Question:  Discuss how the normalization of practices like ‘bulldozer justice’ and encounters reflects deeper systemic and ideological challenges to democratic governance in India. Suggest measures to uphold constitutional principles and safeguard democratic norms. (250 words/15 m)