Power worship and dominant-party democracy – OPSC OAS Mains GS Paper II PYQ

📝Model Answer

Introduction

Power worship refers to an uncritical reverence for those who wield authority, which clouds objective assessment of their actions and decisions — a concept associated with George Orwell’s critique of leader-cults. A dominant party system, by contrast, is one where a single party continuously forms government over an extended period through free elections, shaping the very character of democratic competition, unlike a multi-party or coalition-driven system.

(a) "Power Worship Blurs Political Judgement" in Indian Electoral Politics

1. Personality-Centric Campaigns: Elections are increasingly fought around the charisma and image of leaders rather than substantive policy debate or governance performance.
2. Cult of Leadership: From Indira Gandhi’s "Indira is India" slogan to contemporary leader-centric branding across parties, hero-worship has repeatedly substituted for critical evaluation of governance.
3. Erosion of Accountability: Uncritical adulation of leaders shields governments from scrutiny over corruption, policy failures, or administrative lapses.
4. Dynastic Politics: Power worship sustains family-based succession within parties, privileging lineage and loyalty over merit and internal democracy.
5. Populism over Substance: Emotional and symbolic appeals — nationalism, religiosity, welfare branding — often substitute for informed deliberation on real issues.
6. Weakening of Intra-Party Democracy: Blind loyalty to a dominant leader stifles internal dissent, discourages alternative viewpoints, and centralises decision-making.
7. Institutional Erosion: Deference to powerful leaders can weaken legislative scrutiny and public perception of judicial and constitutional independence.

(b) Dominant Party Democracy vs. Democracy without a Dominant Party — Indian Experience

1. The Congress System (1952-1967): Rajni Kothari described Congress as a "party of consensus" that absorbed diverse factions internally, while opposition parties functioned as "parties of pressure" rather than genuine alternatives to power.
2. Post-1967 Fragmentation: The decline of Congress dominance gave rise to regional parties and a competitive multi-party landscape, sharpening ideological and regional contestation.
3. Coalition Era (1989-2014): Governance through negotiated Common Minimum Programmes made policy-making more consensual but often constrained by coalition compulsions and instability.
4. The "Second Dominant Party System" (Post-2014): Scholars note BJP’s sustained electoral dominance as structurally similar to the Congress System, though more centralised and ideologically driven, unlike Congress’s earlier centrist, umbrella character.
5. Institutional Behaviour: Dominant party phases tend to see executive ascendancy over the legislature and weaker opposition scrutiny, while multi-party/coalition phases witness more assertive parliamentary committees and inter-party checks.
6. Federal Dynamics: A dominant party at the Centre tends to centralise power vis-à-vis states, whereas the coalition era strengthened cooperative and competitive federalism through regional party leverage.
7. Political Culture: Dominant party systems foster catch-all, consensus-oriented politics, while multi-party systems tend to encourage sharper ideological polarisation and identity-based mobilisation.

Way Forward

1. Strengthen inner-party democracy to counter hero-worship and promote merit-based leadership.
2. Encourage issue-based, policy-driven electoral discourse over image-centric campaigning.
3. Empower parliamentary committees and opposition mechanisms irrespective of the ruling party’s dominance.
4. Promote political and media literacy to enable informed voter judgement.
5. Safeguard the autonomy of institutions like the ECI, judiciary, and media as checks against unchecked power.

Conclusion