By Nantoo Banerjee
Indian democracy is witnessing an interesting development under which the ruling party at the Centre is holding counter public rallies in states under the banner ‘Loktantra Bachao, Arajakta Hatao (Save Democracy, Remove Anarchy) following the opposition INDIA bloc’s massive demonstration at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan against the elected national government. A somewhat similar public uprising is also threatening elected governments in several parts of Europe giving an impression of demagogues threatening democracy by weaponizing popular sentiment, polarising societies, and challenging legitimate electoral mandates. In India, the gradual rise of assertive religious nationalism (Hindutva) under the 12-year-old BJP government at the Centre seems to be straining India’s historic pluralism. The opposition is agitated over the marginalization or targeting of minorities—particularly India’s large Muslim population of roughly 200 million—deepening social fractures.
International democracy watchdogs such as Freedom House and the V-Dem Institute have downgraded India’s status shifting it from a “free” or full democracy to labels like “partly free” or “electoral autocracy”. These assessments cite mounting pressures on press freedom, a more pliable judiciary, the targeting of political opponents, and the shrinking space for independent civil society and NGOs. Instead of campaigning on an explicit platform to dismantle democracy, populist demagogues typically win power promising economic turnaround and inclusive growth, only to centralise authority and weaken accountability mechanisms incrementally after taking office. Democracies in Europe are also facing an increasing threat of demagogues. Populist and nationalist movements pit “the pure people” against a corrupt or distant “elite” comprising mainstream politicians, European Union technocrats, academics, and mainstream media.
Managing mid-term public unrest has posed a big challenge for elected governments across the democratic world with tension building constantly between political stability and fiscal cum structural responsibility. While firm policy stance may maintain long-term economic or structural goals, signalling strength and predictability to investors, it can alienate voters, prolong protests and lead to a severe electoral backlash. Democratically elected governments typically navigate mid-term social uprisings through a combination of immediate de-escalation, structured dialogue and institutional and policy reforms. Handling mid-term social unrest requires a careful balance between maintaining public order, upholding democratic principles, and addressing the root causes of public dissatisfaction.
Elected governments often forget that public protests are a fundamental right and a vital component of a functioning democracy, allowing citizens to voice dissent, hold governments accountable, and drive policy reform. Research on European political shifts highlights how populist incumbents—ranging from historical or contemporary examples like Hungary under Viktor Orbán or other far-right/illiberal strains—strategically target core rights that enable democratic oversight. This includes restrictions or political pressure on freedom of the press, judicial independence, and the rights of association. European democracies have faced intense pressure from partisan media ecosystems, digital disinformation, and the weaponization of grievances around migration, economic uncertainty, and public health crises, which test the resilience of pluralistic norms.
The on-going anti-government protests by the opposition, social organisations and students in both India and Europe show that demagogues rely on similar mechanisms as the government treats opponents as enemies, framing political rivals not as legitimate alternatives, but as “enemies of the people” or national threats. Government tries to preserve the outer shell of democratic processes (such as regular elections) while gutting the independent agencies, courts, and watchdogs meant to check executive power. Recent opposition-led demonstrations in New Delhi and supported by various civil society groups highlighted ongoing public debates regarding institutional independence, the Election Commission, and governance. These movements reflect both deep public concern and active democratic resilience. Peaceful dissent acts as a crucial check on power, enabling marginalized or minority voices to influence decision-making long before election day.
Elected governments across the globe are facing intense pressure from public discontent, youth-led street demonstrations, and shifting electoral landscapes. Working-class anger is heavily driven by high inflation, rising living costs, unaffordable housing, unemployment and underemployment. Citizens in many democracies feel that power rests with an insulated ruling class or big tech, leading to widespread disillusionment with traditional institutions. Independent checks and balances, electoral rules, and civil liberties have come under stress in several countries. In Europe, widespread youth-led demonstrations have erupted across nations like France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, and Albania, pushing governments to address economic and social grievances. Recent high-stakes elections in countries like Brazil and Serbia reflected polarized electorates and active pushes either toward or against incumbent leadership and democratic norms.
A major real-time demonstration of this dynamic has unfolded in India, where the ruling government faces a massive wave of public demonstrations over electoral revisions. The country’s Election Commission had implemented a “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of electoral lists, which successfully purged more than 130 million names. Opposition leaders from across the country alongside student groups like Abhijeet Dipke-steered “Cockroach movement,” social reformer Sonam Wangchuk-led Ladak movement claim the purge disproportionately disenfranchised, marginalized voters and minoritized groups to benefit the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The union government and BJP-ruled state officials argue that the exercise was necessary to clean up data by removing duplicate, deceased, and fraudulent voters. The government has gone into a massive counter offensive mode. Union Home Minister Amit Shah himself led a padayatra (foot march) in Hyderabad, accusing the opposition of running a “ghuspetiya bachao” (protect infiltrators) campaign rather than a “vote bachao” campaign against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. In Kolkata, BJP national president Nitin Nabin and West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari led a mega march, challenging the opposition’s narrative on electoral integrity.
Unfortunately, elected governments forget that public protests act as a vital safety valve and mechanism of accountability in a democracy. They allow citizens to voice grievances, challenge policies, and participate in public affairs beyond periodic elections. Handling mid-term social unrest requires a careful balance between maintaining public order, upholding democratic principles, and addressing the root causes of public dissatisfaction. Government must acknowledge the public’s grievances transparently and empathetically, avoiding dismissive rhetoric that can further inflame tensions. It must ensure that security forces maintain order while strictly respecting human rights and the constitutional right to peaceful protest. Over-policing often backfires and unifies fragmented opposition. Government should combat misinformation by providing clear, accessible data regarding the government’s decisions, fiscal constraints, or policy timelines. When a government organizes or sponsors counter-demonstrations against its own citizens’ public protests, it is viewed as engaging in self-aggrandisement, democratic backsliding and suppression of dissent. (IPA Service)
