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.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
RSS