Democracy is often understood to mean only that the people elect their rulers themselves. However, the reality is that the true test of democracy begins after the election. Voting is the first step in democracy, but how the power is exercised after the establishment of the government, how much importance is given to the opposition, and whether the minority and other weaker sections get justice or not, are the things that prove whether democracy is real or just a formal show. In this context, the leader of the opposition is not just a position, but a symbol of constitutional balance, but unfortunately, it has been considered an unnecessary post in the political environment of our country. However, in the constitution and parliamentary traditions, this position has almost equal importance to the government. Generally, it is understood that the party or parties that do not get a majority are in the opposition. This concept is contrary to the basic understanding of democracy. It can be understood in this way: a party got only 37% of the votes, got more seats, and came into majority, while the opposing parties got 63% of the votes and got fewer seats due to the division of votes. In this way, the ruling party has the support of only 37% of the people, and the opposition is representing 63% of the people. In this way, the government appears to be powerful in terms of seats, but the opposition gets much more support from public opinion. The collective voice of this support is heard in the parliament through the leader of the opposition.
One thing that is often forgotten is that our constitution has made it clear that the country is run not by the government, but by the parliament. The Prime Minister, the cabinet, and the bureaucracy are all accountable to the parliament. The parliament makes laws, passes the budget, discusses policies, and gives constitutional shape to the government's decisions. The parliament is composed of the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, and the President, and it is necessary for the opposition to be strong to maintain balance among them. Democracy should not be changed in the noise of the majority, but should be so sensitive that even the weakest voice of the opposition is heard. This is the foundation of democracy. The responsibility of the opposition is to raise questions, discuss, criticize, or demand amendments. The central role of the leader of the opposition is to question the government's decisions, point out the flaws in the bills, and present amendments. He represents those classes whose voice does not reach the government directly. According to parliamentary traditions, it has been considered necessary to take the leader of the opposition into confidence in the appointment of constitutional institutions, national security matters, and sensitive matters. In democracy, considering the opposition as an enemy is not suitable for any government. The opposition should be considered as the successor to the government. It is said that India's first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, introduced Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was elected as a member of parliament for the first time, to world leaders as the future Prime Minister of India. This was not a political compulsion, but a sign of his democratic temperament. Later governments also kept the opposition with them on matters like foreign policy and national security. In the parliamentary system, there has been a tradition of neutrality, and the speaker was elected from the ruling party, while the deputy speaker was elected from the opposition parties. However, all these traditions have weakened over the years.
Today, the situation is such that the opposition is not hesitated to be called an enemy and a traitor. The leader of the opposition is tried to be presented as a threat to national security. Their voice is suppressed not only in the parliament but also on the streets. Baseless cases, defamation claims, and forgery allegations are used to intimidate them. Examples include sitting the opposition in the back seats during national ceremonies, depriving them of important meetings and international meetings, and humiliating behavior. Politically, this behavior is a sign of authoritarianism and fascism, and morally, it is condemnable. Suppressing dissent is a manifestation of government power, which can be effective in the short term, but it weakens institutions. In this context, the simple T-shirt, smile on the face, and the constitution book in the hand of the leader of the opposition, Rahul Gandhi, are symbols of a long political journey. The message is clear that politics is not about showing power with a majority, but about respecting the constitution. He is seen standing with small traders, laborers, farmers, and students. He has indicated that he will not use communalism even if he loses elections.
In the last decade, the central and state governments led by the BJP have passed many laws, ignoring the objections of the opposition. Many of them were passed in a hurry and without detailed discussion. Such laws can be understood with some examples. The Citizenship Amendment Act, or CAA, is an example of controversial legislation, in which citizenship was linked to religion for the first time. There were large-scale protests against this law, but the government suppressed the protests, and many protesters were killed. Another example is the amendment to the UAPA, which was strongly opposed due to fears of its use against political opponents. In the name of agricultural reforms, three agricultural laws were introduced in 2020, which were strongly protested by the public and the opposition. This protest continued for more than a year and is considered one of the largest public movements in modern India. The central government has also made changes in the labor codes without proper discussion in the parliament, which has been strongly opposed by the opposition and trade unions, who say it will affect the rights of workers. However, the government has not paid attention to the objections.
Similarly, laws were enacted at the state level, such as the law against love jihad and the extension of the National Security Act and other strict laws. Many concerns about these laws have proven to be true, and there have been many examples where these laws have been used against social activists, journalists, students, and opposition leaders. All these decisions have one thing in common: the voice of the opposition has been completely ignored. The opposition was not given sufficient time for discussion in the parliament, and the section of the public for which the legislation was done was not taken into confidence. The latest example is the passage of a new bill by changing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, or MGNREGA, which has been strongly opposed by the opposition, but as always, it has been unsuccessful. It is a tragedy for democracy that the government is suffering from the illusion of majority, and the opposition is helpless.
