A democracy needs opposition—but not this one

India today lives in a near-permanent election cycle. Every few months, one state or another goes to the polls, and with that comes a familiar spectacle: a collapse of serious political discourse into noise, accusation, and manufactured outrage.

What should be a contest of ideas has increasingly become a contest of narratives—many of them unverified, exaggerated, or plainly false. Instead of original thinking, there is an overdependence on rhetoric, and increasingly, on the misuse of artificial intelligence to amplify half-truths. It is as though original intelligence has been outsourced, leaving behind a hollowed-out political conversation.

At the centre of this decline is a troubling pattern within sections of the opposition, particularly the INDIA bloc led by the Congress. Rather than articulating a coherent alternative vision, much of its energy appears consumed by a singular obsession: opposing Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Opposition is the lifeblood of democracy, but when it becomes an end in itself—divorced from policy, perspective, or national interest—it risks degenerating into negativity for its own sake. In that process, the line between criticising a government and undermining national confidence is often blurred.

Equally disconcerting is the tendency of some opposition leaders to make statements that appear disconnected from geopolitical realities. Casual or exaggerated remarks about countries like Pakistan, or claims of backchannel “mediation,” raise more questions than they answer.

Diplomacy is a serious business, conducted through established channels, not through political soundbites. When leaders speak loosely on such matters, it not only undermines India’s foreign policy credibility but also reflects a worrying lack of strategic depth.

There is also a persistent misconception that minority communities can be mobilised through simplistic narratives or rhetorical positioning. Electoral behaviour in India has evolved significantly. Muslim and Christian voters, like all other citizens, are discerning and driven by local issues, governance performance, and leadership credibility.

Treating them as monolithic vote banks is both outdated and politically counterproductive. Ground realities repeatedly show that voters cut across identity lines when making choices, and political parties ignore this complexity at their own peril.

Recent campaign trends in states such as Assam illustrate how political discourse can slip into dangerous territory. Allegations made by Congress media department in-charge Pawan Khera made particularly those targeting Rinki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Hemanta Biswas Sarma backfired. It led to subsequent escalation into legal battles and political theatrics forcing Khera to go to Hyderabad to avoid his arrest by Assam police in Delhi.

The language employed by some senior leaders like AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge during his campaign in Kerala has also raised serious concerns. He said, BJP and RSS are like snakes, unless you beat them and kill them, you will have no existence. Is this the definition of Rahul Gandhi’s Mohabbat ki Dukan?

Political rhetoric has always been sharp, but there is a growing coarseness that crosses the boundaries of democratic decency. Kharge tried to dehumanise opponents and insult Gujaratis which reflects a deeper malaise. Kharge said, “Kerala's educated voters cannot be fooled unlike illiterate people in Gujarat and elsewhere.”

There was another leader Mahua Moitra of TMC who said Gujaratis never participated in freedom struggle. It seems she forgot the origin of father of nation Mahatma Gandhi and the ‘Iron Man of India’ Sardar Vallabhai Patel. Such comments make one feel it is time for the government to get the one nation one election bill passed.

When leaders resort to such language, they not only diminish their own stature but also lower the standards of public debate. Democracy thrives on disagreement, but it cannot sustain itself on contempt. Reducing them to regional one-upmanship reflects a narrow political mindset that is out of step with the aspirations of a united India.

The frequent elections themselves are not without consequence. The constant campaign mode leaves little room for governance and encourages short-term thinking. It also incentivises sensationalism over substance, as parties seek quick electoral gains. In this context, the idea of synchronised elections—often debated under the “One Nation, One Election” framework—need to be implemented at the earliest.

Questions also arise about leadership and consistency within the opposition. The absence or low visibility of key figures at crucial moments creates a vacuum that is often filled by discordant voices. Campaign slogans and political branding exercises, however well-crafted, must be backed by sustained engagement and credible action. Otherwise, they risk being seen as mere optics, disconnected from ground realities.

The situation in West Bengal further underscores the challenges facing India’s democratic processes. Incidents of violence, intimidation, and administrative failure during election periods are deeply troubling.

Holding sevenjudicial officers including three women for about seven hours and non-response of DGP, Chief Secretary and police forces who were said to be about 300 metres from the BDOs office and the apparent breakdown of law and order raise serious concerns about institutional integrity. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee conveniently claimed credit for arresting the man who incited violence but abdicated her responsibility when the officers were attacked saying state was under control of CEC which is factually incorrect.

The responsibility for maintaining order even when the election code is in force ultimately rests with the state machinery. Any perception of abdication weakens public trust.

The interactions between political parties and constitutional bodies like the Election Commission also merit attention. Disagreements are natural, but the manner in which they are expressed matters. The TMC ministers and leaders went to the office of the Chief Election Commissioner Gyaneshwar Kumar’s office. O'Brien called the interaction a "shame" and challenged the ECI to release audio or video of the meeting.

Reacting to this, the CEC sources said that they did not ask the delegation to go out. The commission said Derek O'Brien was "shouting" at the commissioners and told the CEC not to speak, violating the decorum of the commission.

Later, in a post on X, the ECI stated that it delivered a "straight-talk" to the TMC, promising that the 2026 Assembly elections in West Bengal would be "fear-free, violence-free, intimidation-free, inducement-free" and without booth or source jamming.

The ECI accused the TMC of attempting to influence Block Level Officers (BLOs) and reaffirmed that electoral processes are governed by law, urging the state to ensure a transparent process.

What emerges from these trends is a larger concern about the direction of political discourse in India. The opposition has a crucial role to play—not just as a critic of the government, but as a credible alternative. That requires discipline, coherence, and a commitment to facts. It also demands a shift from personality-driven politics to issue-based engagement.

(The author is a former Chief Editor at The Hans India)