Modi and a ‘Managed Democracy’: An Even More Noxious Tool in the Spin Dictator’s Kit

The 21st century has been witness to the emergence of a sophisticated genre of smart dictators. This was after the US began democratising the world following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. In their 2018 book Spin Dictators – The Changing Face of Tyranny, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman describe the new authoritarians as spin dictators.

The new set used spin to retain power, as against the conventional dictators who resorted to fear and force. Unlike past dictators, most of whom had usurped power through violent methods such as coups, spin dictators came to power through elections.

After the election, they began consolidating their position by amassing power using unfair means. They began controlling the state apparatus and shaping public opinion and thus created public support in their favour. Their strategy was to transform, adapt, and exploit the weak spots in democracy for their own sustenance.

Spin dictators everywhere invest heavily in soft options, all the while pretending to be democrats. They co-opt media owners, editors and journalists as allies and use them. India’s Narendra Modi has not only borrowed from the spin dictators’ toolkit but has invented new devices to tighten his control.

‘Managed democracy’ or ‘controlled democracy’ appears to promote formal democracy while simultaneously resorting to dictatorial methods to manipulate election results. For this, the opposition parties are tired out with blatant use of state power. A strong President or Prime Minister, weakened institutions, and a tightened information control are characteristics of this model. Manufacturing consent by way of controlling information is at its core.

This new hybrid model captures the existing democratic institutions and diminishes them after weaponising them for partisan purposes. The Modi-Shah duo has been pursuing a triple objective: cult build-up, tirelessly intimidating the opposition parties, and saffronisation.

The ‘managed democracy’ model is gaining traction but has not been subjected to deeper study by political scientists and sociologists. One study using Freedom House data describes ‘managed democracy’ as a form of political control where democratic procedures exist but the outcomes are predetermined through co-option of the election commission and courts. Other tools include suppression of opposition through legal or violent means and public relations strategies to manufacture support.

This model allows regimes to claim legitimacy while neutralising dissent. The study warns that ‘managed democracy’ will end up normalising the process of already existing electoral authoritarianism.

Studies by western authors are mostly focused on Russia’s Vladimir Putin. They narrate how Russia under him transformed the state apparatus to create a regime of stealth authoritarianism. In the process, public opinion was controlled through curbs on mass media and the electoral process manipulated so that the ruling party wins a massive majority.

India’s Modi-Shah duo can rightly claim credit for enhancing the concept of ‘managed democracy’ and achieving great success. Early on in Modi’s first tenure, the statutory watchdog panels like the Central Vigilance Commission, Central Information Commission, Lokpal and the Comptroller and Auditor General were tamed without much resistance.

But in the case of RBI, which in those days was headed by independent economists of eminence, at least two governors and one deputy governor resigned. Since then, RBI has been under loyal civil servants. Election commissioners Ashok Lavasa and Arun Goel also resigned.

Enforcement agencies such the Enforcement Directorate, CBI, National Investigation Agency, Income Tax department, Serious Fraud Investigation Office and the Narcotics Control Bureau were conquered. Then it was the turn of historical, scientific, and cultural bodies like the CSIR, the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library and the Archaeological Survey of India. The UPSC and CBSC figure on this list too. Tinkering with the UGC and meddling by governors in opposition-ruled states have left higher education in a mess.

As part of a ‘managed democracy’, the institutions are being assigned their respective roles and obligations – such as saffronisation and rewriting history by obliterating Mughals from textbooks or glorifying Bharat’s Aryan roots while dismissing the antiquity of Tamil culture, even transferring the archaeologist behind the Keeladi excavation.

Such a systematic doctrinaire cleansing has not been a mean achievement. The Modi-Shah duo has always been highly risk-averse. Hence, they simultaneously pursue alternative strategies to promote their authoritarian project. The one-country, one-election plan, certainly, is a sure-shot route to permanent dictatorship.

But ONOE is encountering formidable hurdles such as constitutional amendments and imponderables such as judicial intervention. Even if all hurdles are overcome, a simultaneous election can happen only after 2034, by when Modi will be 84. Yet Amit Shah has already declared that the BJP will be in power for 40-50 years.

This self-confidence is based on the duo’s trust in the efficacy of ‘managed democracy’. They have already gained enough leverage to launch more audacious gambits as a part of this game plan. Among these are the use of governors as the Centre’s stormtroopers against opposition governments. The governors meddled in the appointment of vice-chancellors in universities, and withheld bills passed by the elected assemblies. Now, when the Supreme Court has set a timeline for the Raj Bhavan and President to give assent to bills, the Union home ministry has moved a presidential reference. A constitutional bench is hearing the case.

The Dhankhar episode in July has brought to the fore another startling trend: hidden hands micromanaging procedures of the two Houses of Indian Parliament. The main factor being cited in the Dhankhar’s ouster is that he had tried to ‘defy’ the government’s directive on the impeachment motion against a high court judge.

Weaponisation of federal funds and leveraging of welfare schemes to impose the Centre’s policies on states has been happening for years. In the case of welfare schemes, it works in two ways. The Centre takes the credit even while the state contributes 40 to 60 per cent of the funds. In many cases, the state governments have had to abandon similar schemes of their own.

The most audacious infringements have occurred during the last two months. The first was the weaponisation of the hitherto reputable Election Commission. Then came the three constitutional amendment bills that can unseat opposition chief ministers and ministers on flimsy grounds.

The efforts to tame the Election Commission had begun soon after the Modi government took over in 2014. In 2023, the regime amended the law to remove the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel for the appointment of chief election commissioner, giving the ruling party majority. Using these powers, it appointed Gyanesh Kumar as the new chief election commissioner. Before this, Kumar was secretary in Amit Shah’s department of cooperation. With this began the transformation of the poll panel as the ruling party’s stormtrooper. Of course, even before this, there were allegations of fudging voters lists in states like Maharashtra. But the Election Commission then tried to offer some official explanation and at times tried to convince the complainants of its impartiality.

Gyanesh Kumar has torn off even this thin veil and breached all limits by speaking the language of a political activist. He has now made it clear that a Bihar-like SIR would be forced on other states. West Bengal, another opposition state, is next in the line.  The Wire has extensively detailed how the SIR worked and the way the commission selectively debarred large sections of opposition voters. Article 324 of the Constitution or election rules do not vest the Election Commission with such powers.

The second gambit came as a shock. Amit Shah pushed three constitutional amendment bills in Parliament at the fag-end of the monsoon session. The bills vest the political executive with extensive powers to unseat the opposition chief ministers and ministers in states. All that needs to be done is for the Enforcement Directorate to file a case and put the individual behind bars. On the 31st day the chief minister or minister will be unseated – without even a chargesheet. No bail hearing, no trial, no judicial processes of any kind. Remember, the Enforcement Directorate’s conviction rate has been less than 1% during the Modi years.

The bills violate the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. The new strategy of using statutory institutions and thus destroying these has been the main reason for the desperate rush to the Supreme Court, seeking redress. This happens whenever the executive fails and commits excesses.

Uses and abuses

The Supreme Court had to intervene to protect Sanjay Kumar of Lokniti who was being hunted on charges of ‘spreading misinformation’ of electoral rolls. Two FIRs were filed against him on a complaint by the Election Commission. But no FIRs were filed against the government’s own think tank Niti Aayog when its report on health went awfully wrong, showed Bihar as West Bengal, or when it had to withdraw its own report. The BJP’s Uttar Pradesh chief minister has also lambasted Niti for wrong Covid estimates.

P. Raman is a veteran journalist.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.