The Ethical Decay of Democracy

In one line

Ethical decay is what happens when the forms of democracy are kept and the substance is hollowed out, so that elections continue while the things that made them meaningful are removed one at a time.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the ethical decay of democracy refers to the erosion of the moral and institutional conditions on which democratic government depends, while its outward forms are preserved; its principal manifestations are the criminalisation of politics, the dominance of money in elections, defection and the trade in legislators, the capture or weakening of institutions meant to hold rulers to the rules, the decline of deliberation in legislatures, the use of communal and caste appeals, and the manipulation of information.

What is being claimed, and what is not

The claim is not that politicians are dishonest, which is a complaint about individuals and is made in every country and every century.

The claim is not that the machinery has been abolished. Elections are held, legislatures sit and courts function.

The claim is that the conditions at chapter 830 are being eroded while the machinery continues, so that an election ceases to perform the functions that made it a means of consent. That is a structural claim, it can be tested, and stating it in that form is the difference between an answer and a complaint.

The manifestations

1. Criminalisation of politics

Candidates and legislators against whom serious criminal cases are pending, and in some cases who have been convicted.

Why it is decay rather than crime. A person facing serious charges is not disqualified until convicted, and trials take many years, so the position is lawful and the effect is corrosive. It also alters the incentives of everybody else, because a candidate who can deter opponents has an advantage that has nothing to do with the electorate.

What the law has done. The disclosure requirement in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, is the principal remedy: the voter has a right to know the antecedents of a candidate, derived from article 19(1)(a), because the casting of a vote is an expression of opinion and a meaningful choice requires information, and the Election Commission was directed under article 324 to require affidavits on pending cases and convictions, on assets and liabilities of the candidate, spouse and dependants, and on educational qualifications. The remedy is disclosure, which leaves the decision to the voter.

2. Money

The cost of contesting has risen far beyond what an ordinary candidate can raise, which restricts who can stand, makes parties dependent on contributors, and creates an expectation of return. Chapter 860 sets out the electoral bonds judgment, which is the constitutional treatment of it.