Entering his third term leading the world’s biggest democracy, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is weaker than he expected to be. India is the stronger for it — and will be stronger still if he heeds the message voters are sending.
Modi swept to power in 2014 as the head of the first single-party majority India had seen in a quarter of a century. His Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) increased its dominance five years later and thought it would do so again this year. Instead, voters delivered a stinging rebuke: The BJP lost 63 seats and its majority. The government Modi heads is now a true coalition. To stay in power, he must cater to other members, including two fickle regional power brokers.
Voters turned against the BJP for different reasons in different parts of the nation. The ruling party performed worst where it amped up divisive rhetoric, demonized Muslims and looked forward to the constitutional changes a super majority would allow it to make. Hard-knuckled attempts to co-opt or sideline members of the opposition backfired. Voters were more concerned about inflation, unemployment and inequality.
Modi, son of a tea seller, claims a connection to the common Indian. Millions have just told him what they want — jobs, development, prospects for a better future for their families and the nation.
The result was shocking given how much the space for dissent and opposition in India had shrunk. Ahead of the vote, a top figure in the opposition coalition was arrested and the bank accounts of its leading party were frozen. Most of the media has been slavishly uncritical. Courts have been accused of bias. The otherwise well-regarded markets regulator has struggled with politically sensitive investigations. Even the selection of new election commissioners raised eyebrows.
Freedom House rates India as only “partly free,” while the V-Dem Institute calls it an “electoral autocracy.”
Geopolitical partners and global investors have long valued India for the independence of its institutions — including its judiciary, news media, parliament and regulators. Faith in India’s democracy reassured companies that the rules for doing business are clear, not peremptory; that information is accessible and trustworthy; and that disputes would be resolved fairly and transparently.
Lately, such confidence had been tested. The election vindicated it anew — and if the new government draws the right lessons from the BJP’s setback, India would be stronger.
What is needed are reforms to promote jobs — lower tariffs to promote trade, investments in health and education, a less interventionist agricultural policy, and more liberal land and labor laws. A parliamentary majority would not have guaranteed such changes; India’s states preside over important parts of the reform agenda. Being forced to strike bargains with coalition partners, deal with closer scrutiny in parliament and the media, and compromise with those state governments could be helpful. The reforms that emerge would command wider acceptance and be more durable.
The US ought to welcome a return to political competition in India. The nation’s democratic backsliding had drawn little overt criticism from Washington, but it threatened the shared values that are the foundation of their friendship. An India more focused on educating its workers, raising productivity and joining global value chains would be a more capable and trustworthy partner.
The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS