When Parliament Becomes “Optional,” Democracy Is in Trouble

 When Parliament Becomes “Optional,” Democracy Is in Trouble

Hindi Version: https://rakeshinsightfulgaze.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_18.html

In a parliamentary democracy, attendance is not optional. Debate is not decorative. Rebuttal is not a nuisance. They are the core of the system. When a Prime Minister repeatedly treats Parliament as something to enter and exit at convenience, especially when the Leader of the Opposition rises to speak, it is not a minor procedural issue. It reflects a governing mindset. It tells us how powerful accountability.

For years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has cultivated an image of strength. The language of boldness, decisiveness, and personal courage has been central to his political brand. But bravery in a democracy is not measured by chest-thumping rhetoric or carefully managed public appearances. It is measured by the willingness to sit in Parliament, listen to criticism, and respond without deflection.

Here is the uncomfortable comparison. On one hand, we are told this is a fearless leader, a man of resolve who does not back down. On the other hand, when Rahul Gandhi raises serious policy criticism as Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister’s seat is often empty. If courage defines leadership, then courage must include the stamina to endure dissent.

The second issue is competence. Over the years, several public statements made by the Prime Minister have been widely criticized as scientifically or factually questionable. In a democracy, mistakes can happen. What matters is whether a leader subjects himself to rigorous questioning afterward. Avoiding Parliament during critical debate only sharpens the perception that scrutiny is being sidestepped.

So the contrast becomes stark: a narrative of bravery alongside a pattern of avoidance. A projection of strength paired with reluctance to defend decisions in the House. This is not just about optics. It is about institutional culture. When the head of government signals that parliamentary engagement is conditional, it lowers the standard for the entire political ecosystem. Ministers follow. Party leaders mirror the tone. Public discourse shifts from argument to accusation. Criticism becomes “anti-national.” Questions become “attacks.” And slowly, accountability is reframed as hostility.

That is how democracies erode, not through a single dramatic collapse, but through the normalization of diminished expectations. This pattern is not unique to India. Around the world, we have seen leaders who built powerful images of strength while hollowing out institutional norms. In the United States, Donald Trump reshaped the Republican Party through confrontational politics that often treated oversight as personal warfare. In other nations, leaders have consolidated authority by weakening courts, intimidating media, and dismissing opposition voices as enemies of the state.

The script is familiar: project strength, attack critics, bypass institutions, and reframe accountability as sabotage. What makes it embarrassing is not only the behavior of one leader. It is the applause. Supporters who cheer this style of governance must ask themselves a difficult question: If the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy cannot sit through a rebuttal from the Leader of the Opposition, what exactly are we defending? If criticism is treated as an insult, what does that say about our confidence as a nation?

Leadership sets the tone. When tone becomes dismissive of institutions, the damage spreads. The global perception of India is shaped not just by economic growth or military posture, but by how seriously its leaders treat democratic norms.

This is not about liking or disliking a political party. It is about standards. If you believe in strength, demand that strength be shown in Parliament. If you believe in intellect, demand intellectual seriousness in public statements. If you believe in democracy, demand respect for its processes. Otherwise, we are not defending the nation. We are defending the ego. And that is not bravery. It is insecurity dressed as power.