A Factual Glance at The Narrative of Electoral Autocracy in IN V-Dem Institute Report & Attempts to Influence IN's General Elections for Regime Change

India, a nation pulsating with diversity and democratic fervor, stands at a crossroads. Despite its status as the world’s largest democracy, it grapples with challenges that threaten the very essence of its democratic fabric.

The V-Dem Institute, nestled in the serene Swedish city of Gothenburg, annually unfurls its Democracy Report—a compass guiding us through the labyrinth of global governance. In the 2021 edition, India’s democratic credentials faced a sobering downgrade. Once hailed as an “electoral democracy” in 2010, it now wears the label of an “electoral autocracy.” The transformation is stark, akin to a chameleon shifting hues in response to its surroundings.

But what led to this metamorphosis? The report points an accusatory finger at India’s 2019 Lok Sabha elections—the grand spectacle where millions cast their votes, shaping the destiny of a nation. According to the V-Dem scholars, the freedom and fairness of these elections suffered a blow, akin to a tempest disrupting a serene lake. The ripples of doubt now lap against the shores of our electoral integrity.

Curiously, the report places India in the same league as Pakistan—an Islamic Republic where non-Muslims are constitutionally barred from the highest offices. The irony is palpable. Meanwhile, Bangladesh, with Islam as its state religion, emerges as a more democratic counterpart in the eyes of the V-Dem lens.

Yet, we must tread cautiously. Our democracy thrives not on monochrome, but on a vibrant palette of political hues. India’s multi-party system, akin to a symphony with diverse instruments, resonates with the spirit of inclusivity. To dismiss other parties as mere footnotes is to overlook the symphony’s harmonious crescendo.

In a nation where diversity blooms like a thousand flowers, political power is not a monolithic entity. As many as 44 political parties wield authority across 31 states and Union territories, each contributing its unique hue to the grand canvas of governance. The existing dispensation and Party, while prominent, does not hold a monopoly.

TMC in West Bengal, TRS in Telangana, BJD in Odisha, and the YSR Congress in Andhra Pradesh. These regional stalwarts secured majorities in their respective states during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The TMC and BJD clinched 22 Lok Sabha seats each, while the DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) triumphed with 23 seats, and the TRS secured 9 seats.

Zooming in further, let’s rewind to 2014, when Narendra Modi ascended to the prime ministerial throne. The political landscape underwent tectonic shifts. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) swept Delhi’s Assembly elections, claiming 67 out of 70 seats—a resounding mandate. In Kerala, the Marxists left their indelible mark, while Mamata Banerjee’s TMC orchestrated a spectacular victory in West Bengal. Not to be outdone, the Congress emerged victorious in Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh, defying the BJP’s tide.

Yet, amidst this vibrant political mosaic, a shadow looms—the questioning of our electoral integrity. When someone casts doubt upon our democratic machinery, every Indian must scrutinize not just the system but also the institutions that wield such judgments.

Enter the Ministry of External Affairs, wielding words like a diplomat’s saber. They brandish the term “hypocrisy” and challenge the self-appointed custodians of global norms. These custodians, ensconced in distant corridors, struggle to digest India’s defiance—the refusal to dance to their orchestrated tune. Rules are invented, parameters set, and judgments passed, all while masquerading as a global exercise. But India, unyielding and proud, stands firm, its democracy a symphony of voices, discordant yet harmonious, echoing across time and space.

The V-Dem report, like a curious detective, points its finger at the elusive concept of “freedom of association.” Simultaneously, the Freedom House Report on “Freedom in the World 2021” echoes a similar refrain—whispers of eroding political rights and civil liberties in India. But let us pause and ponder: How can a multitude of political parties, including those diametrically opposed to the ruling BJP, secure substantial seats in state assemblies and Parliament if their political rights were indeed curtailed? The paradox unravels like a cryptic puzzle.

For a tangible glimpse of this democratic defiance, venture to the Ghazipur border near Delhi. There, our farmers, like modern-day sentinels, assert their political rights and civil liberties. They have transformed a major national highway into a canvas of dissent, painting their grievances with unwavering strokes.

Now, let us embark on a constitutional odyssey. Our compass points to Denmark, Sweden, and Norway—nations perched atop the V-Dem democracy index. Their constitutions, like ancient scrolls, reveal intriguing truths. In Denmark, the Evangelical Lutheran Church stands as the “established Church,” cradled by the state’s embrace. Sweden’s royal decree mandates that the King forever profess the “pure evangelical faith,” while princes and princesses seek government blessings before exchanging vows. Norway’s constitution echoes the same refrain—the King, unwavering, must forever profess the “Evangelical-Lutheran Religion.”

And yet, amidst this constitutional symphony, a curious note emerges. The Maldives, a tropical archipelago, vaults ahead of India in the democracy rankings. But here lies the twist: Only a Muslim can claim citizenship in the Maldives. Religion and state intertwine, inseparable as sun and sea. Secularism remains a distant mirage. And yet, the world gazes upon this paradoxical oasis and deems it a superior democracy.

So, let us unravel these threads, weave our narratives, and question the very fabric of democracy. For within these constitutional scrolls lie whispers of liberty, echoes of dissent, and the promise of a more vibrant tapestry.

Upon examining the constitutions of nations often lauded for their superior democratic standards compared to ours, I find it imperative to assert that only those countries upholding the eight fundamental principles outlined below can rightfully lay claim to being genuine democracies:

Firstly, a resolute commitment to freedom of expression and conscience stands as the cornerstone of democratic practice. Secondly, a steadfast dedication to secularism and the clear separation of religion from state affairs is paramount. Thirdly, the adoption of a republican form of governance underscores the democratic ethos. Furthermore, ensuring equality before the law, mirroring the essence of Article 14 of our Constitution, is non-negotiable. Additionally, upholding the right to life and personal liberty, echoing the sentiments of Article 21 of our Constitution, is indispensable.

Moreover, advocating for gender equality and embracing universal adult suffrage are integral components of a robust democratic framework. While India encompasses all these elements, it's disconcerting to note that many nations purportedly surpassing us in global democratic rankings fall short of meeting these criteria.

I resonate deeply with Sanyal's critique of their methodologies as "opaque and shallow." Furthermore, the observations made by the EAC-PM regarding the shortcomings of these methodologies are profoundly concerning:

Reliance on the opinions of a small, undisclosed group of "experts" undermines the transparency and credibility of these indices. Moreover, the subjective wording of questions renders objective comparisons impossible, thereby undermining the validity of the assessments. The exclusion of relevant questions, such as the election of the head of state, reveals inherent biases within these indices. Furthermore, the use of inappropriate measures like the index on direct democracy fails to provide a comprehensive assessment applicable across all nations.

Delving into the specifics of each index, let's begin with the Freedom in the World Index. This index evaluates countries based on 25 questions across seven topics, with scores allocated for political rights and civil liberties. Regrettably, India's score on this index has witnessed a consistent decline since 2018, signaling a troubling trend. Currently standing at 66 in 2022, down from 77 in 2018, India's classification as a 'partially free' nation raises poignant questions about the state of our democracy.

India has experienced the "partially free" label twice before, during the 1975-76 Emergency period and the economic liberalization era of 1991-96.

Interestingly, countries like Northern Cyprus, known for ethnic cleansing, and others such as Timor Leste, Montenegro, and Mongolia, outrank India, classified as "free."

The EAC-PM scrutinized media reports and pointed out cherry-picked issues influencing these judgments.

According to the EIU-Democracy Index, responses to 60 questions across five categories determine rankings, drawing from expert opinions and public polls. However, India's score relies solely on expert opinions since 2012, without disclosing experts' details.

Since 2006, India has been labeled a "flawed democracy," with a significant decline from 27th place in 2014 to 53rd in 2020, though slightly improving to 46th in 2021, attributed to repealing the farm laws.

Comparisons with other countries show India's rank falling below less democratic nations like Malaysia or newer states like Lesotho. The EAC-PM finds the questions too subjective for objective scoring and cross-country analysis.

The V-DEM dataset comprises around 473 variables rated by experts. India's scores on most indices have been declining since 2014, reaching "electoral autocracy" status in 2021, reminiscent of the Emergency period of 1975-76.

In the latest assessment, India stands at the 93rd position on the V-DEM Liberal Democracy Index. Comparatively, the Kingdom of Lesotho holds the 60th spot, Timor Leste at 64, Kosovo at 79, Nepal at 71, and Bhutan at 65.

An analysis by EAC-PM reveals India's commendable performance in objective metrics like suffrage and direct popular vote participation. However, there's a notable decline in categories relying on "expert opinion".

Further scrutiny reveals that media articles have been selectively chosen, shaping biased judgments with subjective questioning, making objective answers elusive for experts.

Ignoring these perception-based indices isn't an option, as they influence tangible outcomes such as sovereign ratings via World Bank's World Governance Indicators (WGI). These indices are set to gain more significance with the introduction of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) benchmarks in global business and investment landscapes.

In light of this, EAC-PM suggests that the Indian government advocate for transparency and accountability from think tanks providing input for the WGI to the World Bank.

Moreover, there's a pressing need for independent Indian think tanks to delve into these areas, crafting their own indices to offer comparative benchmarks, breaking the dominance of Western institutions.

India prides itself as the world's largest and most dynamic democracy, showcasing unparalleled diversity. It's imperative for citizens to recognize their constitutional strengths and regard these reports with the skepticism they warrant!