In recent weeks, with the revelations about the Election Commission’s troubling conduct and the disenfranchisement of 13 crore voters by unfair means, a provocative debate has emerged. Some are questioning whether opposition parties should continue participating in elections at all, under conditions they claim are fundamentally compromised. Critics point to the systematic erosion of democratic safeguards, the apparent capture of key institutions by mala fide elements, and a playing field tilted heavily in favour of the government. Why should the Opposition, they ask, legitimise a system they believe has been captured by participating in a rigged process?

To these critics, continuing to contest elections under the present administration would be an empty ritual that grants a veneer of democratic legitimacy to what they characterise as a “managed democracy”. They argue for an electoral boycott, saying such a course is rooted in moral clarity; by walking away from the ballot box, the Opposition would withhold the democratic stamp of approval that the ruling power relies upon to justify its authority both domestically and internationally. A boycott, from this perspective, is not an act of surrender, but a strategy of non-cooperation designed to expose institutional decay, delegitimise the regime, and shock the public into recognising an existential threat to our democracy.

Yet, this logic, however passionately argued, rests on a basic misreading of political power and the nature of state institutions. As the great French diplomat Talleyrand famously observed, “les absents ont toujours tort” — the missing ones are always wrong. To voluntarily withdraw from the electoral arena is not to delegitimise the governing power; it is simply to leave an uncontested field for........

© Indian Express