India is characterised by having autocracy.
Answers
Answer:
wrong
Explanation:
India is an democratic country
Answer:
THE DEBATE | OPINION
Is India Becoming an Elected Autocracy?
Looking at recent events in India through the lens of How Democracies Die.
By Prabhash Ranjan
January 31, 2020
Is India Becoming an Elected Autocracy?
An Indian Muslim boy holds a placard during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Bill after Friday prayers in Ahmadabad, India, Dec. 13, 2019.
Credit: AP Photo/Ajit Solanki
India dropped 10 places in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s recently released democracy index, marking India’s worst performance since 2006 when the rankings began. The drop in rankings is largely due to the erosion of civil liberties. That begs the question: is India moving toward an elected autocracy?
Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their book How Democracies Die, argue that unlike typical fascist, communist, or military dictators, elected autocrats do not subvert democracy in one fell swoop. There is no formal declaration of emergency or violent capture of power. Free and fair elections are held regularly, giving the semblance of a vibrant democracy. Instead, democracy is subverted through small incremental steps, which, in isolation, do not seem to be problematic and are in fact legal. But when viewed cumulatively over a period of time, these moves reveal a pattern aimed at loosening the nuts and bolts that hold a liberal democracy together.
Levitsky and Ziblatt point out the following traits of elected autocrats. First, elected autocrats try to capture the referees — i.e. independent institutions such as the judiciary, election commission, law enforcement agencies, and the media — by packing them with government loyalists. These institutions act as a check on the political executive — the most powerful branch of a democracy — so that the game of democracy can be played freely and competitively, without cheating. Packing these institutions with government loyalists helps shield the political executive from being held accountable and adds to the executive’s coercive firepower to take dissenters or opponents to task.
Second, elected autocrats try to appropriate important figures in society such as intellectuals, cultural icons, cinema and sports stars, and business leaders to propagate government narratives. Those who refuse to be co-opted or who question the government are sidelined, silenced, or even maligned.
Third, elected autocrats disregard mutual tolerance. For a liberal democracy to thrive, political parties need to accept each other as patriots and as legitimate rivals and adversaries. But elected autocrats paint opposition parties as the nation’s enemy. In fact, identifying enemies, real or imagined, external or internal, is critical for elected autocrats to rally people to their side. A populist narrative that the country is under threat and only a strong leader can deliver prosperity and security produces a “rally round the flag effect.” People become less critical of the government’s failures and are willing to accept authoritarian streaks because of the belief that their very existence, as well as the nation’s, is at stake.