Election boycotts weaken democracy and empower unchallenged ruling parties

Source: The post Election boycotts weaken democracy and empower unchallenged ruling parties has been created, based on the article “Absence is abdication” published in “Indian Express” on 7th August 2025. Election boycotts weaken democracy and empower unchallenged ruling parties.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- Constitution of India —historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.

Context: Recent calls for election boycotts in Bihar, triggered by concerns over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR), have reignited a debate about the effectiveness of boycotts as political strategy. The article examines historical, regional, and global instances to argue that boycotts usually weaken democracy rather than strengthen it.

The Recurrent Failure of Election Boycotts

1. Historical Lessons from the Region: In 2014, Bangladesh’s opposition BNP boycotted elections fearing state capture. As a result, the ruling party won 153 seats uncontested, despite BNP’s strong electoral prospects. The boycott led to years of political marginalisation.
2. India’s Own Experiences: Punjab’s 1992 boycott by the Akali Dal led to extremely low voter turnout and handed the Congress an easy win. Similar cases in Jammu and Kashmir and central India showed that boycotts failed to halt elections and only reduced broader representation.
3. Global Examples of Political Setbacks: Venezuela’s multiple boycotts enabled the ruling regime to dominate elections and gain supermajorities. Zimbabwe’s 2008 withdrawal allowed Mugabe to win unopposed. Even international criticism failed to reverse these outcomes.
4. The Rare Exception: Serbia in 2000 shows a contrasting example where contesting and protesting election fraud led to the fall of Slobodan Milosevic. But this remains an exception, not the norm.

Implications of Election Boycotts

1. Elections Continue Regardless: India’s Constitution does not invalidate elections due to low turnout. The EC must proceed with polls and declare results based on polled votes. Boycotts merely clear the path for incumbents.
2. Low Turnout Dilutes Mandates: When opposition exits the field, ruling parties often win with wafer-thin mandates, weakening democratic legitimacy and broad representation.
3. Symbolic but Ineffective Protests: Boycotts may express discontent, but their practical consequence is usually the absence of challenge and accountability in the democratic process.

Concerns About Electoral Integrity

1. SIR and Public Distrust: In Bihar, critics claim that the SIR process enables mass deletion of voter names, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups. Lack of transparency in verification has increased public suspicion.
2. Need for Robust Scrutiny: The EC must urgently address these concerns by ensuring transparency, proper grievance redressal, and restoring trust in electoral rolls.
3. Role of Institutions and Media: Civil society, the media, and the judiciary must remain vigilant and press for fair procedures instead of abandoning the electoral space.

Parliamentary Boycotts and Legislative Weakness

1. Disruptions Without Debate: Walkouts by Opposition parties have allowed governments to pass crucial legislation—like the 2020 farm bills—without scrutiny. Such tactics undermine parliamentary responsibility.
2. Comparative Lessons from Neighbours: Bangladesh and Pakistan experienced similar patterns. Prolonged boycotts helped ruling parties legislate freely, weakening checks and balances.
3. Loss of Democratic Forums: Parliament is the core platform for democratic challenge. Leaving it empty deprives citizens of debate and exposes governance to unchecked authority.

Participation as a Democratic Imperative

1. Constructive Engagement Over Absence: Effective opposition requires presence in both elections and legislatures. Boycotts may be emotionally satisfying but are politically counterproductive.
2. Strength in Staying, Not Leaving: History favours those who fight within democratic spaces. Walking away surrenders both the political arena and the public narrative to the ruling party.
3. A Call to Reconsider: The article concludes that democracy depends on vigilant, active participation. Boycotts serve only to weaken the very institutions they aim to protect.

Question for practice:

Examine the effectiveness of election and parliamentary boycotts as a political strategy in democracies, with reference to historical and contemporary examples.