The Economic Advisory Council of the PM recently released a case study of three opinion-based indices Freedom in the World index by Freedom House, the EIU Democracy Index, and Varieties of Democracy (V-DEM). The paper, which is the first official study of these indices, has raised serious doubts about the methodology applied by these think tanks and their conclusions ever since Narendra Modi became prime minister in 2014.
The paper says that these indices are based on subjective factors such as assessment of governance, political stability, rule of law, etc., in addition to various economic indicators. The other deficiencies are: “There are serious problems with methodology”; the conclusions are based on the opinion of a “tiny group of unknown experts”; lack of transparency on the choice of experts; and choice of questions which are “subjective and worded in a way that is impossible to answer objectively”. It is authored by Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Economic Advisory Council, and Aakanksha Arora, its Deputy Director. Among the institutions mentioned, V-DEM has defended its findings and argued that its surveys are well thought out. Staffan Lindberg, Director of V-Dem, has, in an interview to the website Article 14, defended V-Dem’s analysis and methodology but most of his explanations are far from satisfactory.
For example, V-Dem does its ratings based on the opinion of a handful of experts. When it rates democracy in India—a nation of 1400 million people—it does not do so on an opinion poll with a sizeable number of respondents. Its conclusions are based on the opinions of a handful of people—just 30 to be exact. Further, after posing a series of questions to these experts, many of which can elicit only subjective answers, the Director claims the institution’s analysis is based on “high math”!
One of the major failings of V-Dem and other institutions which put together these surveys and ratings is the secrecy they maintain about the “experts” who are hired to give inputs for their survey.
Lindberg has said that they work with experts from 180 countries and that disclosure of the identities of experts could cause harm to the experts and their families. But, when just 30 experts dish out opinions and V-DEM—based on their inputs—concludes that India is slipping into “electoral autocracy”, how can we attach any credibility to this conclusion?
Unless we know who these experts are, what their academic and professional standing is and more importantly, what their political background and motivation are, the conclusions will always be suspect.
Pointing a finger at the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), V-Dem has classified India as an “electoral autocracy” and said that “anti-pluralist” parties are driving the agenda of autocratisation in at least six nations—India, Brazil, Hungary, Poland, Serbia and Turkey. One does not know about other nations, but certainly, no Indian party which has some standing and electoral support, including the BJP, can be accused of being “anti-pluralist”.
This accusation is simply laughable in the Indian context because any political and social scientist can see how India’s social diversity has contributed substantially to political diversity, leading to the mushrooming of small caste, language and region-based political parties across the land. In fact, the Second Lok Sabha (1957–62) had MPs belonging to 12 political parties. Four decades later, it had ballooned to over 40 political parties. Since the 1980s, India has seen the emergence of the Janata Dal, the Janata Dal (Secular), the Telugu Desam, the Bharat Rashtra Samithi, the YSR Congress, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, the Biju Janata Dal, the Trinamool Congress, and dozens of such other parties which have emerged in various states. Many of them, like the TMC or the BRS, have secured massive electoral support in state assembly elections.
Secondly, national parties like the BJP and the Congress have recognised the presence and influence of these diverse political entities and made them part of their electoral alliances in many elections and many states. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance itself has 15 parties at last count and 329 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 110 members in the Rajya Sabha. Although the BJP is the dominant party, the smaller parties, especially those with influence in the smaller states, do matter.
Therefore, the charge that the BJP is “anti-pluralist” must be treated with contempt. In fact, this is a veiled charge levelled against India more than a political party because it seeks to hide the phenomenal diversity in the nation’s politics which ensures the representation of diverse communities in democratic bodies.
As a result, over 40 political parties who are part of various coalitions govern India’s 28 states and two union territories with assemblies. This is indeed a celebration of democracy and diversity, but V-Dem or any of the other western institutions which dish out these ratings will never acknowledge it.
V-DEM and other such institutions also fail to acknowledge that full-fledged democracies ought to rest on strong foundations, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, such as equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws (Art. 14); non-discrimination clause (Art. 15); Republic form of government, where the head of state is elected and not part of a protected blue-blood species (the preamble of our Constitution); freedom of conscience and worship (Art. 25) and strong minority rights (Art 25, 26, 29, 30).
For example, since India is a Republic, individuals from even highly marginalised and impoverished communities can become the head of State. Recent examples of individuals from such backgrounds holding high office are the current incumbent Droupadi Murmu and former president Ramnath Kovind. But, for Sweden, Denmark and other such nations which are maintaining their monarchs on public expense, republics do not matter. They are not central to democracy.
Further, even more, shocking is that their ratings show dozens of Islamic and Christian States (which constitutionally declare their adherence to Islam or Christianity) way above India, which is a secular State. India does not have a State religion. In fact, Article 28 of the Constitution prohibits religious instruction in any educational institution funded by the State.
This writer had raised these issues over two years ago when V-Dem and Reporters without Borders sought to condemn India and place it low on the list of democratic nations. But, since these think tanks are agenda-driven, they refuse to answer these questions.
A SURYA PRAKASH
Former Chairman of Prasar Bharati and scholar of democracy studies