SC Verdict is Welcome But the Ideological, Political Bulldozer Remains

Context

• The principles of democracy are being steadily eroded in contemporary governance, as highlighted in the critique of bulldozer judgement.
• The term, both literal and metaphorical, signifies the dismantling of democratic ideals under the guise of efficiency and strong leadership.
• Therefore, it is important to examine the implications of such practices, delving into the systemic issues undermining democracy, the ideological shifts that perpetuate them, and the urgent need for a return to foundational democratic principles.

The Rise of Bulldozer Governance, Encounters, and the Celebration of Violence

• The Rise of Bulldozer Governance
  • The phenomenon of bulldozer justice exemplifies a dangerous departure from democratic norms, where physical and ideological bulldozers destroy procedural and ethical restraints.
  • The Supreme Court’s intervention in curbing the misuse of bulldozers for illegal demolitions was necessary, but the underlying problems extend far beyond judicial oversight.
  • The existence of political thuggery and administrative abdication of norms highlights a governance model increasingly marked by arbitrariness and impunity.
  • These actions, often justified to enforce law and order, reflect a deeper malaise where the state prioritizes its perceived interests over those of its citizens.
• Encounters and the Celebration of Violence
  • Extra-judicial encounters, another form of bulldozer governance, reveal a troubling normalisation of state violence.
  • Rarely are such incidents thoroughly investigated, nor are perpetrators held accountable.
  • Instead, they are celebrated, often for political gain, for instance, in Maharashtra, public displays of support for encounters, including banners featuring political leaders brandishing weapons, underline the glorification of violence as a governance tool.
  • This cultural acceptance of state-sanctioned brutality reinforces the erosion of democratic accountability and creates a feedback loop where public demand for such measures legitimises their continued use.

An Overview of the Ideological Bulldozer

• Majoritarianism
  • While majority rule is fundamental in resolving differences, its unchecked dominance erodes the spirit of negotiation and compromise.
  • Instead, it romanticises numerical superiority, sidelining minority voices and procedural fairness.
• The Myth of the Strong Leader
  • The yearning for decisive governance becomes a reason of the rise of authoritarian figures who consolidate power personally rather than institutionally.
  • This blurs the lines between public office and personal authority, reducing governance to a cult of personality.
• The Mandate Misconception
  • Elections are misinterpreted as granting unrestricted power rather than a temporary authorization to govern within established norms.
  • This creates a king-like perception of elected officials, enabling them to act with impunity. 

The Implications of Bulldozer Governance

• Erosion of Constitutional Safeguards
  • Democracy relies on a robust framework of constitutional safeguards to prevent the abuse of power.
  • However, bulldozer governance thrives on bypassing these safeguards, often portraying them as obstacles to effective governance.
  • The findings from the Lokniti study, where a third of respondents dismissed the need for courts and constitutional bodies to check elected leaders, highlight a worrying trend of public disillusionment with institutional oversight.
  • This erosion not only emboldens leaders to act without restraint but also diminishes the authority and legitimacy of institutions meant to uphold democratic values.
• The Normalization of Authoritarian Practices
  • The celebration of extrajudicial actions, such as encounters, reflects a growing public appetite for authoritarian measures, often perceived as necessary for maintaining order.
  • This normalisation shifts the discourse from safeguarding rights to valuing expedience and strength.
  • Leaders exploit this sentiment, using rhetoric that positions them as decisive problem-solvers who can bypass inefficient democratic processes.
  • Over time, such practices become entrenched, making it harder for citizens to demand transparency and due process.
• Undermining Pluralism
  • Bulldozer governance exacerbates societal divisions by leveraging majoritarianism to marginalise minority communities.
  • Electoral majorities are often wielded to justify policies and actions that target specific groups, framing them as threats to societal stability or progress.
  • This weaponisation of democracy deepens communal divides, undermines the principles of equality, and corrodes social cohesion.
  • When the dominance of one group becomes the unspoken agenda of governance, the inclusive fabric of democracy is irrevocably damaged.
• Legitimisation of Personal Power
  • The misconception of a political mandate as a license for unchecked authority reinforces a culture of personal rule.
  • Elected leaders, emboldened by the perception of popular support, often equate themselves with the state.
  • This conflation distorts governance, shifting focus from collective responsibility to the whims of individuals.
  • Legislative decisions are increasingly framed as the personal achievements of leaders, diminishing the role of institutions and collective deliberation.
• Perpetuation of the Populist Cycle
  • Bulldozer governance creates a self-sustaining cycle of populism
  • Public impatience with procedural delays fuels demand for quick fixes, which leaders fulfil through authoritarian measures.
  • These actions, in turn, are presented as evidence of strong leadership, further consolidating their popularity.
  • This cycle erodes the public’s faith in the value of procedures and long-term solutions, leaving democracy vulnerable to manipulation by populist leaders.
• Impact on Policy and Legislation
  • While physical bulldozers symbolise the literal destruction of property, legislative bulldozers represent the figurative demolition of democratic norms.
  • Governments increasingly use their legislative majority to push through controversial policies with little regard for debate or dissent.
  • Such actions often bypass institutional scrutiny, undermining the checks and balances essential for a healthy democracy.
  • The result is a governance model that prioritises consolidation of power over deliberative decision-making, leading to policies that may serve narrow interests rather than the public good.
• Public Disengagement and Apathy
  • Over time, the normalisation of bulldozer governance develops public apathy towards democratic processes.
  • When citizens witness repeated violations of norms with little accountability, they may become disillusioned with the system itself.
  • This disengagement weakens civil society’s role as a watchdog and reduces pressure on leaders to uphold democratic principles, further entrenching authoritarian tendencies.

Way Forward: Reclaiming Democracy

• Democracy thrives on a delicate balance between foundational norms, procedural constraints, and popular will.
• However, bulldozer governance disrupts this equilibrium, promoting projects that undermine procedures, delegitimise dissent, and prioritise majoritarianism over pluralism.
• To counteract these trends, it is essential to reaffirm the values of negotiation, accountability, and institutional integrity.
• Judicial interventions, while crucial, cannot substitute for a collective commitment to upholding democratic ideals.

Conclusion

• The prevalence of bulldozer governance in India underscores an extraordinary moment in its democratic trajectory, marked by both physical and ideological demolitions.
• Reversing this trend requires a concerted effort to restore respect for procedural norms and a nuanced understanding of democracy as more than just majority rule or strong leadership.
• Only by addressing these challenges we can safeguard the essence of democratic governance and prevent its further erosion.

Q) What are the dangers of normalising authoritarian practices under bulldozer governance?

Normalising authoritarian practices undermines democratic accountability and shifts public perception towards valuing expedience over rights and due process. It fosters a culture where state violence and extrajudicial actions are celebrated, eroding the legitimacy of institutions. Over time, this weakens citizens’ ability to demand transparency and allows leaders to consolidate personal power at the expense of collective governance.

Q)How does bulldozer governance impact societal pluralism and public engagement in democracy?

Bulldozer governance undermines pluralism by using majoritarianism to marginalise minority communities and deepen societal divisions. It also fosters public apathy, as repeated violations of norms without accountability disillusion citizens, weakening their trust in democratic processes. This disengagement reduces civil society’s oversight role, enabling further erosion of democratic principles.

Source: The Indian Express