T N Ninan: Democracy and Republic

India’s experience with elections began in 1920. It saw full-fledged democracy (every person, one vote) only after 1947. It stopped being a dominion in 1950 — when it ended its ties with George VI as “King of India”, and gave itself a Constitution that defined the nature of the new republic. Being a republic means more than getting rid of a monarchy; it means a state defined by the rule of law, with strong institutions checking the arbitrary power of those elected to executive office by popular mandate.

The latest elections to four state assemblies (and Puducherry) have been a triumph of Indian democracy — with governments being unseated in three states and, in the fourth, the government winning a third successive mandate. Vital as this is, as a celebration of the people’s will, can it also be a celebration of the Indian republic? Yes, since the Election Commission supervised what appears to have been free and fair voting. If it is true, as Mamata Banerjee has asserted, that people in West Bengal were not allowed to vote freely in past elections, the special attention that the Commission gave to the state this time – holding elections in six phases – did result in triumph of the rule of law.

But there are troubling questions. While the rout of the DMK in Tamil Nadu may be a vote against corruption, what of Ms Jayalalithaa, who is about to become chief minister for the third time? She is the only chief minister in the country who has been convicted of corruption, and who had to step down following a Supreme Court order. As chief minister the last time round, she had the state government withdraw cases against her on corruption charges, including a case in the Supreme Court. For this and other perhaps more valid reasons, no conviction stands against her, while some cases may still be pending. So it is hard to argue that her sweeping democratic victory is also a triumph of the Indian republic.

There are parallels in other states. Ms Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh has cases against her activated or put in hibernation, depending on how she is getting along with the powers in New Delhi. When it comes to Gujarat, the Supreme Court has had to move important cases out of a state where Mr Modi rules as a thrice-elected chief minister. In virtually every election, virtually every political party fields dozens of candidates with criminal records.

Again, it is surely a violation of the republican spirit if a political plutocracy reigns supreme, irrespective of what happens in successive elections. Some two dozen politicians and their families (mini-dynasties, some of them) dominate the political scene in the country, swinging in and out of office periodically as one plutocrat makes way for the next and then makes a comeback. Who might these revolving-door plutocrats be? A rough and ready list would start with the Gandhis and go on to the Pawars, the Karunanidhi clan, the Abdullahs in Jammu and Kashmir, the Scindias and the Thackerays. The mini-dynasties would include the Hoodas in Haryana, Dikshits in Uttar Pradesh/Delhi, Patnaiks of Orissa, a couple of Yadav chieftains in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar…

While some of these cannot be accused of the willful exercise of power, it is hard to argue that they are all uniform respecters of the rule of law. To say this is not to undermine the centrality of popular choice, but to make the point that the health of Indian democracy is a different thing from the health of the Indian republic. And, at the moment, one is doing better than the other.