Blog

Author: sachin nandha, trustee and director The concept of the state has long been a subject of deep inquiry and analysis, from the works of classical political philosophers to modern-day commentators. A state, fundamentally, is composed of several critical pillars—the judiciary, military, bureaucracy, and often an elite class that holds significant influence. However, the essence of a state, as postulated by Max Weber, is its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its territory. It exists to protect its territorial integrity, enforce the rule of law, and create an environment conducive to the flourishing of its citizens. Ideally, taxation in such a state is a tool, not for enrichment, but to provide essential services and infrastructure that enable citizens to pursue their endeavours freely and effectively. Yet, the Indian state, though it shares these fundamental characteristics, has evolved into something far more complex and, some might argue, intrusive. Rooted in a unique historical context, the Indian state has grown into an entity designed to socially engineer its population, specifically targeting entrenched inequalities within Hindu society. This objective, while noble in its intent, has manifested in a state apparatus that is, at times, paternalistic and prone to overreach.   The Origins of the Indian State The Indian state did not emerge in a vacuum. Its modern incarnation is a direct descendant of both British colonial rule and the earlier Mughal administration. The British colonial state, as famously critiqued by Indian leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar, was primarily an extractive one, designed to siphon wealth from the Indian populace to serve the interests of the Empire. Nehru, in his seminal work The Discovery of India, lamented how “India was bled” by the colonial administration, which left behind a legacy of underdevelopment and exploitation. This colonial state was built on the remnants of the Mughal administration, which itself was a hierarchical and often autocratic system, albeit with a more feudal character. The British adapted and expanded this system to create a highly centralized and bureaucratic state apparatus, one that was deeply suspicious of the populace and heavily reliant on coercion to maintain order. When India gained independence in 1947, it inherited this centralized structure. However, the new leaders of India were determined to use the state not as a tool of extraction, but as an instrument of social transformation. This vision was encapsulated by B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, who envisioned the state as a mechanism to uplift the oppressed and eradicate the deeply entrenched caste system. Ambedkar famously stated, “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy,” highlighting the intertwined nature of social and political justice in the Indian context. Ambedkar, the man who opposed Gandhi, and saw the State as essentially one that engineers a society.   The Indian State: A Tool for Social Engineering In pursuit of these transformative goals, the Indian state adopted a policy of affirmative action, or what is often referred to as “positive discrimination.” This was designed to uplift historically marginalized communities, particularly Dalits (formerly known as Untouchables) and other Scheduled Castes and Tribes. These policies were seen as necessary to rectify centuries of systemic oppression and to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their social background, could participate in the democratic process as equals. However, these well-intentioned policies also led to the creation of a state that is far more interventionist than many of its counterparts. The Indian state’s role extends beyond the typical functions of maintaining law and order or providing public goods. It has actively sought to reshape the social fabric of the nation, to eradicate caste-based discrimination, and to promote a more egalitarian society. As Nehru himself declared in a speech in 1950, “The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means ending poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity.” But the approach taken by the state has also been marked by a certain paternalism, rooted in the belief that the state knows what is best for its citizens. This has led to a tendency to impose top-down solutions without always taking into account the diverse needs and desires of India’s vast population. The state’s social engineering efforts, while aimed at promoting equality, have at times been criticized for stifling individual initiative and perpetuating a culture of dependency.   Extractive Practices: A Contemporary Example The extractive tendencies of the Indian state are not just relics of the past but can be observed in contemporary examples as well. A striking case of this was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, which revealed how certain state government practices can be more extractive than enabling. In March 2020, just before the nationwide lockdown was imposed, many state governments renewed liquor licenses for restaurants and bars, collecting hefty fees from business owners. This was a significant expense for small restaurant owners, who paid these fees with the expectation that they would be able to operate their businesses as usual. However, within weeks, the government imposed a complete lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing all restaurants and bars to shut down indefinitely. The lockdown continued for months, with no refunds or concessions provided to the business owners who had just paid for their liquor licenses. Thousands of small restaurants were left high and dry, unable to operate yet burdened with the cost of licenses they could not use. This was not just a case of bad timing; it highlighted the extractive nature of the state’s approach, where revenue collection took precedence over fair treatment of citizens. This situation exemplifies the systemic issues within the Indian state where the common citizen often finds themselves powerless against the machinery of government. The lack of recourse or accountability in such situations underscores the state’s tendency to act in its own financial interest, often at the expense of those it is meant to serve. Such practices erode trust in the state and reinforce the perception that the government is

Author: Pravar Petkar, Head of Strengthening Democracy Desk In one of his first statements to Parliament as the new Prime Minister of the UK, Sir Keir Starmer referenced the lack of confidence in contemporary British politics, stating that “the need to restore trust should weigh heavily on every Member here, new and returning alike.” This is an ongoing issue: recent surveys by the Pew Research Center suggest that satisfaction with democracy in the UK has declined from 60% in 2021 to only 39% in 2024; the US has seen a fall from 41% to 31%, whilst France has dropped from 44% to 35%. Across the Channel, following gains for the far-right in the 2024 EU elections, some commentators have pointed to a divide between pro-democracy and anti-democracy factions in Europe. We are confronted by an urgent need to restore trust in our politicians and the very democratic systems in which they operate. Revitalising and regenerating contemporary democracies, I believe, must be underpinned by three central principles: accountability, participation and civic education.  Accountability  There is a worrying trend the world over in leaders seeking to evade the checks and balances on power. Recently, a British Prime Minister was found to have misled Parliament on the upholding of COVID-19 regulations. The former UK government’s ‘Rwanda Scheme’ for asylum seekers was pushed forward in reckless disregard of international law, as upheld by the UK Supreme Court itself. The Election Commission of India appears to have been politicised, judging by its lax responses to religiously divisive rhetoric from PM Modi during the recent election campaign, whilst Poland’s former ruling dispensation (the Law and Justice Party) enacted a series of reforms politicising the judiciary before losing power in late 2023. Few will forget the events of 6 January 2021, when supporters of President Trump stormed the Capitol to halt the peaceful transfer of power following President Biden’s confirmation.  Any successful and sustainable democracy needs robust checks and balances on power. The UK’s historical reliance on norms of good conduct – the ‘good chaps’ theory of government  – has proven unable to stem the tide; stronger restrictions are required, whether enforced by the courts or other independent bodies. These checks and balances have a dual role: to ensure citizens’ survival and so that they can have genuine influence over the state. The state must uphold those fundamental human rights necessary for the people it governs to harmoniously coexist, and which provide the essential conditions for democratic government to continue, including freedom of speech and freedom of assembly within reasonable limits. International human rights law cannot be seen simply as a needless check on power; it instead guarantees the conditions for the state to fulfil its purpose, making a culture of respect for international law – one which has been lacking recently in the UK – essential to ensure government is held to account.   Moreover, our electoral systems must reflect citizens’ policy preferences as closely and proportionately as possible: government is, after all, ‘for the people’. Citizens should, periodically, be able to have a say on how their society is structured and governed: models such as the US Constitution, under which change is so difficult as to be virtually impossible, are no longer sustainable. Rights to protest and assemble must always be available as a last resort to push elected officials towards change, but we cannot fall back on these options too often: our democratic systems must ensure citizens have regular opportunities to hold politicians to account.  Participation  Today, government is supposed to be for the people and is certainly framed as being ‘of the people’, but it is rarely by the people. The extent of most citizens’ democratic engagement is limited to the election of representatives at local, regional and national levels every few years. Yet the tide is now starting to turn. There is increasing experimentation with new mechanisms of participation such as citizens’ assemblies, the most well-known of which is perhaps that held in Ireland on abortion in 2018. There have been notable referendums, including the 2016 EU referendum in the UK, and even the crowdsourcing of new constitutional proposals in Iceland in 2012. Our world is starting to think beyond the representative democratic paradigm that has dominated our politics for the last 75 years.  If our democracies are to sustain themselves into the future, there must be more opportunities for citizen participation on a range of issues, from both difficult and controversial moral problems to local challenges. This is not a call for elected representatives to abdicate their responsibilities – we will still need elected politicians to stand up for our interests on common national and international issues. Yet it is becoming clearer that on a range of issues, giving the people more of a voice has great benefits. These range from enhancing policy debate by crystallising consensus on reform, to developing citizen awareness on key issues such as climate change and cultivating a sense of civic responsibility and social welfare. Our contemporary toolkit is no longer limited to in-person gatherings across weekends. Citizens’ panels and assemblies were moved online during the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst Estonia and Taiwan have led the way in creating online platforms where citizens can make and vote on policy proposals. The future is one of distributed networks for proposing and voting on legislative amendments, online participatory communities to review executive decision-making and even novel deliberative systems on bespoke online platforms, using the latest developments in generative AI to facilitate discussions, aggregate preferences and more. Whilst standing on a busy main road with a placard will not lose its significance overnight, the future of democratic participation is increasingly likely to be a digital one.  Civic Education  If people are to be well equipped to participate in public debate on key policy issues, our education systems must be in good working order. We are beset by misinformation – not only through clever political advertising and the use of ‘deepfake’ technology, but also on the social media platforms that increasingly

Author: Chloe Schuber, Operations Assistant : Strengthening Democracy Desk The recent tragedy which took place on Friday 9th August, where a young female post-graduate trainee (PGT) doctor was brutally raped and murdered while on duty at the RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata, has deeply impacted and scarred the Indian nation’s conscience. What does this crime mean for Indian society, and what policy and societal reforms are being prioritized in response to this crisis? This incident has reawakened, with a newfound strength, calls to reflect on the failure of law enforcement as well as one for systemic change across multiple facets of Indian society. A Call for Immediate Government Action The need is clear for an immediate and robust response from the central government. Justice must be served effectively and in such a clear manner that this case becomes a genuine deterrent or sets a national precedent, rather than becoming just another instance of violence against women. The investigation has been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due to concerns over the local police’s mishandling of the case, potential evidence destruction, and the lack of progress in the five days following the incident. A statement by Prime Minister Modi was issued on 15th August, answering the nation’s at times adamant needs for a response condemning this violence, alongside ensuring that justice will be served and pushing for a united stance against gender-based violence. Modi said, ‘There is anger among the common people. I can feel this anger. […] The country, society and our state governments will have to take this seriously. It is important that those who commit demonic acts should be given severe punishment as soon as possible to build trust in the society.’ Protecting Healthcare Workers Following this incident, both women and the medical community as a whole have launched widespread protests. Healthcare professionals in India, especially women, are increasingly vulnerable to violence; a 2015 survey revealed 75% of this demographic had been victim of some form of violence. Unfortunately, no other significant data sets appear to address this prevalent issue, highlighting the need for further research. The need for a Union legislation to protect medical staff accordingly is ever so urgent. 25 of India’s States and Union Territories do have some laws in that regard, but they are poorly enforced with little to no convictions and therefore, no effective deterrent. The proposed Central Protection Act (CPA) – introduced in the lower house of Parliament (the Lok Sabha) in 2022 but never enacted – aimed to address these issues by making violence against healthcare workers a non-bailable offence, improving CCTV installations, conducting security audits, and even providing security personnel in hospitals. However, the CPA was not enacted. One reason for this was that, when presented in Parliament, then-health minister Mansukh Mandaviya stated that the government opted not to pursue it, since most of its objectives were already addressed by the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance 2020. This decision highlights systemic issues within Indian governance, including a lack of sustained political will, bureaucratic barriers, and poor coordination between stakeholders, often at the expense of more immediate concerns. The complexity of state-level laws and the Indian healthcare system further complicates the creation of a comprehensive and enforceable national law. Reforming Healthcare Institutions The incident at RG Kar Medical College highlights the urgent need for reforms to ensure the safety of healthcare workers, particularly in government hospitals. India is experiencing a shortage of healthcare professionals, especially in these facilities, where staff are often overworked. To address this, the Prime Minister recently announced the addition of 75,000 medical college seats over the next five years, anticipating a 100 percent increase in demand for healthcare professionals by 2030. Beyond expanding the workforce, hospitals must improve working conditions by providing safe sleeping arrangements for female doctors, enhancing security through CCTV installations, and establishing quick response teams. Ensuring a supportive and secure environment is crucial for women in this demanding field. Education as a Catalyst for Changing Societal Attitudes Education is a powerful tool for combating gender-based violence, driving cultural shifts that can lead to lasting change. By focusing on consent, respect, and gender equality, comprehensive education can challenge societal norms like the objectification of women and dismantle patriarchal attitudes that contribute to misogyny and violence. A new generation raised with these values can elevate standards of equality and human dignity on a national scale. However, education alone is not enough; it must work in tandem with legal deterrents to provide a holistic solution. The issue of violence against healthcare professionals is part of a broader problem affecting all women in India, reflecting an entrenched patriarchal mindset that normalises such violence. To address this, we must challenge and dismantle the victim-blaming culture and outdated gender roles that persist in society. The challenge is that large parts of India still function with a 19th-century mindset, which complicates the nation’s progress on various fronts. This coexistence of different ‘centuries’ within the same geography makes it difficult to achieve uniform development, as the more advanced 21st-century ideals are often overshadowed by outdated norms and practices. Media, government, and civil society must collaborate to shift societal norms and attitudes, engaging local communities in discussions about gender equality and fostering grassroots movements. Involving men and boys in these initiatives is crucial. Additionally, fostering a sense of community responsibility is essential. By encouraging community vigilance, training individuals to recognize and intervene in situations of violence, and providing support to victims, we can create safer environments for women. A Path Forward The tragedy reminds us of both the stark reality of the vulnerability both women and healthcare professionals face in India as well as the immediate need for a systemic change. While the immediate focus is on rapidly ensuring justice for the victim and her family, hopefully setting a strong precedent, we must also focus more than ever on changing the systemic issues that contributed to this death. Strong policies are to be implemented to protect healthcare workers, education on

Author: Pravar Petkar, Head of Strengthening Democracy Desk The 2024 General Election in the UK has brought an end to 14 years of Conservative government, ushering in a Labour regime with a landslide election victory. Of the 650 seats in the UK Parliament, the Labour Party has won 412, with the Conservatives on 121, and the Liberal Democrats on 71, on a turnout of 60%.[i] This represents the largest majority in the UK Parliament since the New Labour victory in 1997. However, the result has troubling implications both for the UK’s First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system and the prospects for reform, and will also shape the legitimacy of the new government’s major policy and constitutional reform proposals. FPTP and the 2024 General Election Results Under FPTP in the UK, Members of Parliament are elected in 650 single-member constituencies across the country. These are winner-takes-all contests: the candidate with the most votes will win the seat, even if they fall short of an overall majority. In the 2024 General Election, this has produced the following results: Party Seats Seat Share Votes Vote Share Votes per Seat Labour 412 63.4% 9,804,655 33.7% 23,798 Conservatives 121 18.6% 6,827,311 23.7% 56,424 Liberal Democrats 72 11.1% 3,519,199 12.2% 48,878 Scottish National Party (SNP) 9 1.4% 724,758 2.5% 80,529 Sinn Fein 7 1.1% 210,891 0.7% 30,127 Independent 6 0.9% 564,243 2.0% 94,041 Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) 5 0.8% 172,058 0.6% 34,412 Reform UK 5 0.8% 4,117,221 14.3% 823,444 Green Parties 4 0.6% 1,943,265 6.7% 485,816 Plaid Cymru 4 0.6% 194,811 0.7% 48,703 Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) 2 0.3% 86,861 0.3% 43,431 Alliance Party 1 0.2% 117,191 0.4% 117,191 Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) 1 0.2% 94,779 0.3% 94,779 Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) 1 0.2% 48,685 0.2% 48,685 Table 1: UK General Election Results 2024 The table above indicates some startling results. The total number of votes won by Labour is smaller than in the 2019 General Election by around half a million,[ii] yet this translated in 2024 to more than double the number of seats. Reform UK won the third-highest number of popular votes yet rank only joint seventh-highest (including the grouping of Independent MPs) in terms of seat share. Indeed, its vote share across the UK was higher than that of the Liberal Democrats, which won more than 14 times the number of seats. To gain any one seat, the Green Party needed over 20 times as many votes as Labour did for their respective seats, and Reform UK required almost 35 times as many votes. This indicates significant disparities in respect of the practical impact of individual votes under the current FPTP system in the UK. The data above verifies the pre-election predictions that this contest would produce one of the most disproportionate Parliaments in the history of the UK. FPTP has proven itself unsuitable to translating citizens’ preferences into legislative representation in what has become a genuine multi-party landscape. This reduces the extent to which the UK’s representative democratic system can be considered genuine popular self-government, the principle at the heart of modern democracy. Against this background, the case for reform is overwhelming. Alternatives to FPTP Amongst the alternatives, two forms of proportional representation emerge as potential candidates. The first is the nationwide system of proportional representation (PR) used in countries such as the Netherlands and Israel. Under this form of PR, the entire country acts as a ‘nationwide’ constituency, with seats in the legislature allocated in proportion to the number of votes cast for each party using either the d’Hondt or Saint-Lague formulas. Some such systems have a minimum overall threshold of votes which parties must reach to win a seat. This is designed to protect against the fragmentation of legislatures that would otherwise result from the representation of several small parties.[iii] However, a ‘nationwide’ constituency is not an appropriate hypothetical framework for any UK-wide election. Where the PR constituency is ‘nationwide’, all the political parties on the ballot paper must be nationwide political parties. This is because neither the d’Hondt nor the Saint-Lague systems for allocating seats are designed to differentiate between regional and national parties; this must instead be done when designing the constituencies for a PR system. The UK has several regional parties: the Scottish National Party only contests seats in Scotland, Plaid Cymru only contests seats in Wales, and Northern Ireland has its own political parties not found elsewhere in the UK (including Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party). Were the UK analysed as a ‘nationwide’ constituency using the d’Hondt formula and the number of votes actually cast for each party in the 2024 election, the following results might hypothetically be produced:[iv] Party Votes Vote Share Seats Seat Share Labour 9,804,655 33.7% 229 35.2% Conservatives 6,827,311 23.7% 159 24.5% Reform UK 4,117,221 14.3% 96 14.8% Liberal Democrats 3,519,199 12.2% 82 12.6% Green Parties 1,943,265 6.8% 45 6.9% SNP 724,758 2.5% 16 2.5% Sinn Fein 210,891 0.7% 4 0.6% Workers Party 210,194 0.7% 4 0.6% Plaid Cymru 194,811 0.7% 4 0.6% DUP 172,058 0.6% 4 0.6% Alliance Party 117,191 0.4% 2 0.3% UUP 94,779 0.3% 2 0.3% SDLP 86,861 0.3% 2 0.3% TUV 48,685 0.2% 1 0.2% Table 2: UK General Election Results 2024 – on ‘nationwide’ party list PR system With 326 seats required for an overall majority, a coalition would be required, with the most likely option being one between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Parties (356 seats) producing a narrow majority. This would amount to 54.7% of the total seats in the UK Parliament on 52.7% of the popular vote, thus producing a considerably more proportionate outcome. Because the ‘nationwide’ constituency requires, in practice, a certain threshold of votes in order to secure a single seat, it is unlikely that any Independent candidates would be elected. However, it is unwise to draw major conclusions from this analysis, because it treats the SNP, Plaid Cymru and all the Northern Irish parties as if they were national parties. Given this, a preferable hypothetical model