Why Congress Targets the CEC in Opposition—But Trusts Him in Power
A Satirical Editorial by Y-Trendz
Indian democracy has many traditions. Some are written in the Constitution. Others are written in the unwritten handbook of political survival. One such tradition seems to be this: when in opposition, question every institution; when in power, defend those very same institutions
with the zeal of a temple priest guarding sacred relics.The latest episode in this grand theatre involves opposition parties—particularly the Congress—targeting Gyanesh Kumar, the head of the Election Commission of India. Accusations fly thick and fast: bias, misconduct, partiality, electoral manipulation, and everything in between.
But before citizens rush to buy popcorn, it might be worth asking a small question.
Is this outrage about democracy—or simply about not being in power?
The Magical Transformation of Institutions
In Indian politics, institutions appear to have a mysterious ability to transform depending on who controls the government.
When the Congress is in opposition, institutions suddenly become fragile, compromised, and captured by the ruling establishment. But when Congress occupies the corridors of power, those same institutions magically rediscover their independence, integrity, and constitutional holiness.
It is a remarkable phenomenon. Scientists should study it.
The transformation happens almost overnight. One day, the Election Commission is accused of destroying democracy. The next day—after a change of government—it becomes the guardian of democratic virtue.
Clearly, Indian institutions are not changing. The political lens is.
A Long Tradition of Selective Outrage
This political behaviour is not new. It is older than many of the politicians currently debating it.
When the Congress ruled India for decades after independence, opposition parties frequently accused the Election Commission of favouring the ruling party. At that time, Congress leaders dismissed such allegations as “baseless attacks on democratic institutions.”
Today the roles are reversed.
Now the Congress accuses the Election Commission of bias, while the ruling party dismisses those claims using the same arguments once used by Congress leaders.
In other words, Indian politics is not a battle of ideologies—it is a relay race of accusations.
Each party waits patiently for its turn to switch sides.
Democracy According to Political Convenience
The deeper issue revealed by such controversies is a peculiar definition of democracy practiced by political parties.
For many politicians, democracy does not mean institutions functioning independently. Instead, democracy seems to mean institutions producing results that favour their party.
If the election results are favourable, democracy is thriving.
If the results are unfavourable, democracy is under threat.
It is a simple formula.
Lose election = blame the referee.
Win election = praise the referee.
Football fans may recognize this strategy.
The Institutional Blame Game
The Election Commission is not the only institution to experience this political mood swing.
The same pattern has occurred with:
investigative agencies
constitutional bodies
the judiciary
regulatory institutions
When decisions align with political interests, institutions are praised as independent and fearless. When they do not, they become instruments of conspiracy.
It is almost as if institutions are expected to function like customer service departments for political parties—providing favourable outcomes on request.
The Forgotten Voter
Amid this political drama, one participant remains strangely absent from the debate: the voter.
Indian voters have repeatedly demonstrated that they are capable of making independent political choices. Governments have been voted out at both national and state levels under the supervision of the same Election Commission now accused of bias.
Yet politicians often behave as if voters are helpless victims manipulated entirely by institutions.
This assumption unintentionally insults the very citizens whose votes decide the outcome.
Indian voters have surprised political analysts many times. They may do so again.
The Eternal Cycle of Political Memory Loss
Indian politics also suffers from a rare medical condition: selective historical amnesia.
When political parties move from opposition to power, they conveniently forget their previous criticisms. Similarly, when they lose power, they rediscover those criticisms with renewed enthusiasm.
This cycle repeats every few years like a seasonal festival.
Political memory seems to last exactly until the next election result is announced.
The Real Question
The debate over the Election Commission raises a more serious question that deserves attention.
If every political party accuses the Election Commission of bias when it loses power, what does that say about political culture?
Perhaps the problem is not always the institution.
Perhaps the problem is the expectation that institutions must align with political interests.
Democracy, however, does not operate on such expectations. Institutions are meant to be independent precisely because political parties are not.
A Modest Proposal
Here is a simple suggestion for all political parties, including the Congress.
Before accusing institutions of bias, political leaders might consider a brief moment of reflection:
Did we defend this institution when we were in power?
Did we criticize the same institution when we were in opposition?
Are we being consistent—or simply convenient?
If political parties applied this small test of consistency, public debates might become slightly more honest.
Admittedly, this is a radical proposal.
The Final Irony
The greatest irony of all may be this: every party claims to defend democracy, yet few are comfortable when democracy produces outcomes they dislike.
Institutions like the Election Commission exist precisely to ensure that elections are conducted according to rules—not according to political expectations.
Political parties come and go. Governments rise and fall. But institutions must remain stable.
At least that is the theory.
The practice, as India’s political theatre continues to demonstrate, is far more entertaining.
✔ Y-Trendz Editorial Conclusion
In Indian politics, institutions are often judged not by their actions but by their consequences. When those consequences favour a political party, institutions are celebrated. When they do not, institutions are attacked.
Perhaps the real test of democratic maturity is not how parties behave when they win elections—but how they behave when they lose them.
And in that test, Indian politics still has a few lessons to learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your Comment is Our Inspiration