"Declining Popularity of Elected Strongmen Raises Democratic Accountability Concerns"
Democratic backsliding
gradual erosion of democratic norms and institutions by elected governments, without formal abolition of democracy
Personalised authority
political power concentrated in an individual leader's image rather than in institutions or party programmes
Democratic theory distinguishes between electoral legitimacy and governing legitimacy. A leader may win an election decisively and still lose the capacity to govern effectively over time. Political scientists use the concept of democratic backsliding to describe the gradual erosion of democratic norms, institutions, and practices by elected governments, as distinct from outright military coups. This form of erosion is particularly difficult to counter because it operates within the formal shell of democracy: elections continue, legislatures sit, and courts function, but each institution is progressively weakened from within.
The comparative study of India and the United States as large, federal democracies has a recognised place in UPSC Mains. Both countries share foundational commitments to constitutional governance, separation of powers, and fundamental rights, yet differ sharply in their institutional designs. The United States Constitution vests executive power in a single president with fixed terms, while India's Westminster-derived parliamentary system ties executive authority to legislative confidence. These structural differences shape how personalised power operates and how it can be checked.
The concept of a strongman leader, one who builds political authority around personal charisma, a narrative of national restoration, and the projection of decisive will, has been studied across democracies from Hungary to Turkey to Brazil. What is analytically novel in the current moment is the question of what happens when such a leader's aura of invincibility begins to crack while they still hold formal office and control the administrative apparatus of the state.
The 'wounded strongman' thesis rests on a specific political dynamic. Personalised leadership derives its authority not only from electoral victory but from the perception of exceptional competence and historical destiny. Followers invest in the leader's image as someone who can solve problems ordinary politicians cannot. When that image fractures, through economic underperformance, foreign policy setbacks, or visible governance failures, the leader faces a structural dilemma. Acknowledging weakness is politically fatal because the entire edifice of personalised authority rests on the projection of strength. The leader therefore cannot pivot to conventional, institution-based governance without conceding that the personalised model has failed.
This creates a dangerous incentive structure. Unable to demonstrate strength through economic delivery or diplomatic success, the leader turns to coercive instruments. These include the use of investigative agencies against political opponents, selective enforcement of tax and regulatory law, manipulation of welfare eligibility, and the mobilisation of extra-legal social actors to intimidate dissenters. …
India and USA are two large democracies. Examine the basic tenets on which the two political systems are based.
'Pressure groups play a vital role in influencing public policy making in India.' Explain how the business associations contribute to public policies.
'The local self-government system in India has not proved to be effective instrument of governance.' Critically examine the statement and give your views to improve the situation.
Consider the following statements regarding the Election Commission of India:
1.It derives its authority from Article 324 of the Constitution.
2.It has the power to superintend, direct, and control elections to Parliament and State Legislatures.
3.Its members can be removed by the President on the recommendation of the Supreme Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Consider the following statements regarding Article 19 of the Indian Constitution:
1.Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all persons.
2.Article 19(2) permits restrictions on free speech on grounds including sovereignty, security of the state, and public order.
3.The right to assemble peaceably is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) and can be restricted in the interests of sovereignty and public order.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Match the following features with the political system they primarily characterise:
Feature — System
1.Executive accountable to legislature — (i) Presidential system
2.Fixed executive term independent of legislative confidence — (ii) Parliamentary system
3.Fusion of executive and legislative power — (iii) Both systems
4.Judicial review of legislation — (iv) Neither system
Select the correct matching:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account