By Justice (R) Markandey Katju (India)
Democracy is one of the most celebrated ideas in modern politics. In theory, it promises self-government, accountability, liberty, and peaceful change through the ballot box. Yet the real test of any political system is not its moral appeal in the abstract, but its practical consequences in the lives of ordinary people. That is the question India must confront honestly: is democracy, as it is actually practised in India, delivering justice, development, and dignity to the masses?
India today appears to be in a perpetual election season. Elections for state assemblies, by-elections, local bodies, and national institutions follow one another so frequently that public life is almost permanently consumed by campaign rhetoric, political mobilization, and vote arithmetic. But does this constant electoral exercise translate into better governance? Has it improved the material condition of the average Indian? For millions facing unemployment, inflation, poor healthcare, weak public education, and chronic insecurity, the answer often appears to be no.
The problem is not democracy as a principle. The problem is the way democracy operates in India. Anyone familiar with Indian political life knows that voting behavior is often shaped less by merit, policy, or competence than by caste and communal loyalties. In too many constituencies, the decisive question is not whether a candidate is capable, ethical, educated, or genuinely committed to public service. It is whether he belongs to the right caste bloc or religious vote bank. That is a profound distortion of democratic purpose.
The consequences are visible. Public debate is weakened, governance is reduced to symbolic identity management, and deeply entrenched social divisions are not overcome but politically rewarded. Casteism and communalism are among the greatest obstacles to India’s social and economic progress. A political system should challenge such forces; instead, India’s electoral practice often reinforces them.
This is not merely a theoretical criticism. It is reflected in the quality of political representation. Reports following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections indicated that a significant proportion of elected representatives faced criminal cases. Whether every such case is politically motivated or not, the broader reality remains disturbing: public life has become so degraded that the presence of tainted candidates no longer shocks the electorate. In many places, identity outweighs integrity.
That is why the endless contest between parties often changes little for the common citizen. Governments change, slogans change, alliances change, but the structural misery of millions remains. One ruling formation replaces another, yet poverty, joblessness, malnutrition, and institutional decay continue. The ordinary person is entitled to ask: what exactly is being transformed?
The ultimate test of politics is simple. Does it raise the standard of living of the people? Does it create jobs, strengthen education, improve healthcare, expand industry, and secure a dignified life for the majority? If a political order fails on these measures, then its formal democratic character cannot by itself be treated as success.
This becomes even clearer when India is compared with states that have followed a very different model of governance. China, whatever criticisms may rightly be made of its political restrictions, has remained intensely focused on economic transformation, industrialization, infrastructure, and poverty reduction. India, by contrast, remains too frequently distracted by symbolic controversies, religious polarization, and identity-driven mobilization. The result is stark: while one state concentrated on material advancement, the other too often substituted emotional politics for structural progress.
Freedom and democracy are not sacred ends in themselves. They are meaningful only if they serve human welfare. A people cannot live on slogans about liberty while remaining trapped in hunger, illiteracy, unemployment, and social fragmentation. If democratic practice becomes a vehicle for deepening caste hatred, religious division, and political criminalization, then it is failing in its historical purpose.
This is not an argument against the dignity of the people. It is an argument against a political system that has not cultivated rational citizenship on a sufficient scale. Democracy requires more than ballots. It requires civic maturity, social reform, economic modernization, and a public culture that values reason over inherited prejudice. Without these foundations, elections can become rituals that legitimize dysfunction rather than instruments of national progress.
India therefore faces a serious civilizational choice. It can continue mistaking electoral repetition for democratic success, or it can ask harder questions about whether its political structure is genuinely capable of delivering development and justice. Unless politics is reoriented away from caste arithmetic and communal mobilization toward industrial growth, scientific temper, and social uplift, democracy in India will remain noble in theory but disappointing in practice.
Author is a jurist, philosopher and Former Justice of Supreme Court of India.
