Context

• The principles of democracy are being steadily eroded in contemporary governance, as highlighted in the critique of bulldozer judgement.
• The term, both literal and metaphorical, signifies the dismantling of democratic ideals under the guise of efficiency and strong leadership.
• Therefore, it is important to examine the implications of such practices, delving into the systemic issues undermining democracy, the ideological shifts that perpetuate them, and the urgent need for a return to foundational democratic principles.

The Rise of Bulldozer Governance, Encounters, and the Celebration of Violence

• The Rise of Bulldozer Governance
  • The phenomenon of bulldozer justice exemplifies a dangerous departure from democratic norms, where physical and ideological bulldozers destroy procedural and ethical restraints.
  • The Supreme Court’s intervention in curbing the misuse of bulldozers for illegal demolitions was necessary, but the underlying problems extend far beyond judicial oversight.
  • The existence of political thuggery and administrative abdication of norms highlights a governance model increasingly marked by arbitrariness and impunity.
  • These actions, often justified to enforce law and order, reflect a deeper malaise where the state prioritizes its perceived interests over those of its citizens.
• Encounters and the Celebration of Violence
  • Extra-judicial encounters, another form of bulldozer governance, reveal a troubling normalisation of state violence.
  • Rarely are such incidents thoroughly investigated, nor are perpetrators held accountable.
  • Instead, they are celebrated, often for political gain, for instance, in Maharashtra, public displays of support for encounters, including banners featuring political leaders brandishing weapons, underline the glorification of violence as a governance tool.
  • This cultural acceptance of state-sanctioned brutality reinforces the erosion of democratic accountability and creates a feedback loop where public demand for such measures legitimises their continued use.

An Overview of the Ideological Bulldozer

• Majoritarianism
  • While majority rule is fundamental in resolving differences, its unchecked dominance erodes the spirit of negotiation and compromise.
  • Instead, it romanticises numerical superiority, sidelining minority voices and procedural fairness.
• The Myth of the Strong Leader
  • The yearning for decisive governance becomes a reason of the rise of authoritarian figures who consolidate power personally rather than institutionally.
  • This blurs the lines between public office and personal authority, reducing governance to a cult of personality.
• The Mandate Misconception
  • Elections are misinterpreted as granting unrestricted power rather than a temporary authorization to govern within established norms.
  • This creates a king-like perception of elected officials, enabling them to act with impunity. 

The Implications of Bulldozer Governance

• Erosion of Constitutional Safeguards
  • Democracy relies on a robust framework of constitutional safeguards to prevent the abuse of power.
  • However, bulldozer governance thrives on bypassing these safeguards, often portraying them as obstacles to effective governance.
  • The findings from the Lokniti study, where a third of respondents dismissed the need for courts and constitutional bodies to check elected leaders, highlight a worrying trend of public disillusionment with institutional oversight.
  • This erosion not only emboldens leaders to act without restraint but also diminishes the authority and legitimacy of institutions meant to uphold democratic values.
• The Normalization of Authoritarian Practices
  • The celebration of extrajudicial actions, such as encounters, reflects a growing public appetite for authoritarian measures, often perceived as necessary for maintaining order.
  • This normalisation shifts the discourse from safeguarding rights to valuing expedience and strength.
  • Leaders exploit this sentiment, using rhetoric that positions them as decisive problem-solvers who can bypass inefficient democratic processes.
  • Over time, such practices become entrenched, making it harder for citizens to demand transparency and due process.
• Undermining Pluralism
  • Bulldozer governance exacerbates societal divisions by leveraging majoritarianism to marginalise minority communities.
  • Electoral majorities are often wielded to justify policies and actions that target specific groups, framing them as threats to societal stability or progress.
  • This weaponisation of democracy deepens communal divides, undermines the principles of equality, and corrodes social cohesion.
  • When the dominance of one group becomes the unspoken agenda of governance, the inclusive fabric of democracy is irrevocably damaged.
• Legitimisation of Personal Power
  • The misconception of a political mandate as a license for unchecked authority reinforces a culture of personal rule.
  • Elected leaders, emboldened by the perception of popular support, often equate themselves with the state.
  • This conflation distorts governance, shifting focus from collective responsibility to the whims of individuals.
  • Legislative decisions are increasingly framed as the personal achievements of leaders, diminishing the role of institutions and collective deliberation.
• Perpetuation of the Populist Cycle
  • Bulldozer governance creates a self-sustaining cycle of populism
  • Public impatience with procedural delays fuels demand for quick fixes, which leaders fulfil through authoritarian measures.
  • These actions, in turn, are presented as evidence of strong leadership, further consolidating their popularity.
  • This cycle erodes the public’s faith in the value of procedures and long-term solutions, leaving democracy vulnerable to manipulation by populist leaders.
• Impact on Policy and Legislation
  • While physical bulldozers symbolise the literal destruction of property, legislative bulldozers represent the figurative demolition of democratic norms.
  • Governments increasingly use their legislative majority to push through controversial policies with little regard for debate or dissent.
  • Such actions often bypass institutional scrutiny, undermining the checks and balances essential for a healthy democracy.
  • The result is a governance model that prioritises consolidation of power over deliberative decision-making, leading to policies that may serve narrow interests rather than the public good.
• Public Disengagement and Apathy
  • Over time, the normalisation of bulldozer governance develops public apathy towards democratic processes.
  • When citizens witness repeated violations of norms with little accountability, they may become disillusioned with the system itself.
  • This disengagement weakens civil society’s role as a watchdog and reduces pressure on leaders to uphold democratic principles, further entrenching authoritarian tendencies.

Way Forward: Reclaiming Democracy

• Democracy thrives on a delicate balance between foundational norms, procedural constraints, and popular will.
• However, bulldozer governance disrupts this equilibrium, promoting projects that undermine procedures, delegitimise dissent, and prioritise majoritarianism over pluralism.
• To counteract these trends, it is essential to reaffirm the values of negotiation, accountability, and institutional integrity.
• Judicial interventions, while crucial, cannot substitute for a collective commitment to upholding democratic ideals.

Conclusion

• The prevalence of bulldozer governance in India underscores an extraordinary moment in its democratic trajectory, marked by both physical and ideological demolitions.
• Reversing this trend requires a concerted effort to restore respect for procedural norms and a nuanced understanding of democracy as more than just majority rule or strong leadership.
• Only by addressing these challenges we can safeguard the essence of democratic governance and prevent its further erosion.