Ramification | Why Western democracies should stop virtue signalling India’s democratic institutions

Recently, a money trail had been established by the Enforcement Directorate of India (ED). Arrests were made and evidence in the form of documentation and accused turned approvers were cited as reason enough to arrest Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

In India, Kejriwal’s arrest was debated in the media as it should be for a few days. The rallies his party organised were permitted by Delhi Police (that comes under the Centre and not the state) yet only a motley bunch of supporters, not more than a handful arrived, mostly from Punjab, the only other state apart from Delhi where Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is in power. Food from home, unlike for other prisoners was provided for Kejriwal and utmost care was taken of his health while he vowed to run the state from his new premises. Indians showed faith in the ED and other investigation agencies and moved on quickly to other trending news. But much to the surprise of Indians, it was the Western media and Western governments that seemed to be more concerned about Kejriwal’s arrest and the “doom”, according to the West, that it spelt for democracy.

The US State Department was quick to weigh into Kejriwal’s arrest. The US not once but twice reiterated its call for a “fair and transparent trial” for Kejriwal as well as raising concerns over Congress’ claims that their bank accounts had been frozen to prevent them from campaigning in the upcoming elections. This misplaced concern was also parroted by the United Nations. Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, said, “What we very much hope that in India, as in any country that is having elections, that everyone’s rights are protected, including political and civil rights, and everyone is able to vote in an atmosphere that is free and fair.” The Ministry of External Affairs took a strong stance against the aspersions cast on India’s judicial and electoral processes and remarked that such comments constituted a clear interference in India’s internal affairs.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

However, Western virtue signalling is not new to India. Their self-righteous woke Western academia, policymakers and media often find comfort in India’s left-leaning, anti-Modi and anti-Bharat lobby. The reality is that it is not India but rather the West that has a host of problems relating to not just political and ideological polarisation but also religious and racial divides. Thus, it is not surprising that according to a survey done by Pew Research Centre a majority of 54 per cent Americans have an unfavourable view of the US Supreme Court and about two-thirds of Black adults express an unfavourable opinion of the court, compared with roughly half of Hispanic, Asian and White adults. Furthermore, it is just a meagre 30 per cent of adults under 30 view the courts favourably.

In 2020, an interesting research paper co-authored by Jesse Shapiro, professor of political economy at Brown University, Levi Boxell and Matthew Gentzkow, economists at Stanford University found that “affective polarisation” across multiple Western nations had increased considerably since the late 1970s. They described “affective polarization” as a phenomenon where citizens feel more negatively towards other political parties than their own. The US leading the way amongst other Western countries such as Canada. However, Shapiro stated that the trend was “exceptional” in the US making it harder to achieve political compromise and create better public policy.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

The political witch hunt that the unbridled political polarisation has steered is wholly evident in the obsession with Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. There are at the very least 36 states where formal challenges have been filed against him contesting and three states where they disqualified him from the primary ballots. The Colorado Supreme Court invoked the insurrection clause to disqualify an ex-president, the very first time in the history of the US that a court has done so. The US Supreme Court happened to overturn the Colorado ruling but the sheer perseverance to somehow declare Trump ineligible to run for presidency continued with the slew of criminal and civil cases filed against him. In 2023, 34 felony charges were brought against Trump by Manhattan district attorney Alvin L Bragg, months later Trump had to face 40 criminal counts through the now infamous civil trial led by New York Attorney General, Letitia James. She sued Trump and his adult sons for inflating the president’s net worth resulting in Trump being handed an unprecedented $454 million penalty. It has also been reported widely in mainstream media that efforts to ban Trump from the presidential race have been promoted and funded by politically vested donors such as George Soros through activist groups such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Free Speech for People (FSP). The US must come to terms with the fact that the power of decision lies with the people, not with those in power at least in a democracy.

Therefore, it would be prudent for the West led by the “leader of the free world” to look inward before pointing fingers at countries that they remarkably feel should be following their lead. The harsh realities of their democratic institutions are emerging for the world to see even though they attempt to distract the world from their own failings by being critical of brown democracies. These neo-colonialist approaches find favour amongst the few remaining influencers who are in the case of CREW and FSP supported by anti- Bharat billionaire disruptors.

Unfortunately for these disruptors, the largest and the most robust democracy in the world will see a staggering 960 million people vote. The hegemony that the US enjoyed once is on a decline and India’s rise is undeniable in an increasingly multipolar world. The criticism of India’s internal matters reeks of the inability of the West to accept the rise of a country that challenges their undue criticism and draws its boundaries. In the words of India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, “There is a certain maryada (restraint) amongst countries. There are certain etiquettes, conventions and practices that must be followed in international relations.” Maybe, it’s time that the West learns from Indian democracy because as it stands India does not need Western democracy.

The author is an anthropologist and a scholar of the northeast region of India. She is a columnist and author and presently Distinguished Fellow at India Foundation, New Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.