By Dr. Arun Mitra
The word democracy is derived from the ancient Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule), literally meaning “rule by the people.” Democracy signifies a system in which political power ultimately rests with the people and is exercised either directly, through citizens participating in decision-making, or indirectly, through representatives elected by them. Every adult citizen enjoys the right to vote, contest elections, question those in authority, and participate in public affairs.
A democratic system is supposed to safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of thought and expression, freedom of religion, and the freedom to form associations and organisations. Governments are accountable to the people, while an independent judiciary and other constitutional institutions serve as checks against the abuse of power. Democracy, therefore, is not merely about periodic elections; it is a system in which governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, remain accountable to citizens, uphold the rule of law, and protect civil liberties.
Within Marxist political theory, the term bourgeois democracy is used to describe the democratic framework that exists under capitalism. According to Marxist thinkers, although such systems grant political rights—including universal suffrage, electoral participation, freedom of speech, and freedom of association—economic power remains concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class that owns and controls the principal means of production. Therefore despite the formal equality of political rights, wealth, control over the media, lobbying, and command over economic resources enable the wealthy to exert a disproportionate influence over political decision-making. Consequently, bourgeois democracy is viewed as a political system that primarily safeguards private property and the interests of the capitalist class.
Some historians point to the gana-sanghas and mahajanapadas of ancient India as evidence that early forms of democratic governance existed on the subcontinent. The democratic ideas evolved gradually over centuries before taking the shape of modern constitutional democracy.
As wealthy elites increasingly consolidated their control over economic life, they sought to strengthen their alliance with state power and weaken democratic institutions. The rise of Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany demonstrated how powerful economic interests could support authoritarian and fascist regimes. This alliance pushed humanity towards catastrophe, culminating in the Second World War, in which tens of millions of people lost their lives.
In India, modern constitutional democracy emerged after independence with the adoption of the Constitution. The Constitution itself reflected the ideals that had developed during the freedom struggle. Freedom fighters consistently upheld the importance of popular participation and democratic rights. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru repeatedly emphasised the centrality of the people’s voice. The Communist movement and Shaheede Azam Bhagat Singh & several other revolutionaries went further by arguing that genuine democracy also required democratic ownership and control over the principal means of production so that political democracy would be accompanied by economic democracy.
The Constitution of independent India developed as a result by Dr B R Ambedkar accorded equal importance to democracy and secularism. Governments changed at both the state and national levels, yet the democratic framework broadly continued to function. But, during the past 12 years, under the BJP government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and guided by the ideological influence of the RSS, there has been, a systematic erosion of democratic institutions.
The ideological roots of this tendency are evident in the writings and speeches of early RSS leader and its Sarsanghchalak M S Golwalkar who advocated concentrating national wealth in the hands of a few powerful industrial houses while leaving the rest of society dependent upon them. Such an arrangement, he believed, would strengthen political control. Some of their leaders expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler, presenting his policies as examples of national consolidation. Today, this ideological orientation is reflected, in policies that increasingly transfer national assets into the hands of a small number of large corporate groups.
Those who question government policies frequently face accusations of being “anti-national,” while activists, journalists, academics, and political opponents are subjected to prolonged legal proceedings and imprisonment. Cases such as that of Umar Khalid, who has remained incarcerated for several years without trial, are evidence of the shrinking democratic space. Father Stan Swamy at the age of 84 years was put in jail while he was serving the Tribals in the state of Jharkhand. He was even denied the use of Straw to drink water as he could not drink otherwise because he was suffering from Parkinsonism. Social activists working among the poor tribal population like Sudha Bhardwaj and Sai Baba were tortured; Sai Baba died after long legal and medical ordeals. Their only fault being that they worked among the downtrodden and questioned government’s attitude. Concerns have also been raised regarding the growing pressures on the judiciary and other constitutional institutions.
Against this backdrop, on 22 June 2026, the Anti-Fascist Front organised conventions and demonstrations at district headquarters across Punjab to protest what it described as the communal and authoritarian policies of the Modi government. The participating organisations resolved to intensify the movement against authoritarianism and expand its social base. The Front, formed by Left political parties including the CPI, RMPI, CPI(ML) Liberation, and the CPI (ML) New Democracy, emphasised that the struggle must extend beyond the Left. Speakers argued that democratic forces, progressive organisations, intellectuals, and individuals committed to constitutional values should unite to defend democracy and secularism.
In this context, the ideas of the distinguished Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci acquire renewed relevance. His writings profoundly influenced the concept of building broad democratic alliances against fascism. Gramsci argued that the working class alone could not defeat fascism. Victory required the unity of workers, peasants, intellectuals, and other democratic sections of society. His concept of hegemony explained that ruling classes maintain power not only through coercion but also by securing public consent through culture, education, religion, and the media. Consequently, anti-fascist forces must develop an alternative democratic hegemony capable of winning the confidence and support of the people.
He also introduced the idea that sustained struggles must be conducted within civil society through trade unions, political parties, educational institutions, cultural organisations, and the independent press. In essence, Gramsci’s perspective demonstrates that defeating fascism requires much more than electoral contests or isolated political campaigns. It demands a sustained social, cultural, and political movement capable of challenging authoritarian ideas, defending democratic institutions, and winning the support of the majority.
Likewise Georgi Dimitrov highlighted the need for broad political alliance irrespective of ideological differences to counter the Fascist forces. He emphasized organizing resistance through parliament, through trade unions, youth organizations, women’s groups, cultural bodies, and other mass organizations.
It is time to seriously study their ideas and put them into practice at national and international level. (IPA Service)
