Democracy Without Democratic Governance

Despite having taken varying political courses over the years, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh still grapple with issues of institutional independence and lack of political accountability. The experiences of these countries have shown that while electoral competition is critical to a healthy democracy, it does not guarantee accountable government.

Considering the case of Pakistan, its unstable political history exemplifies the challenges to democratic consolidation, such as civil-military relations, institutional imbalance and political polarization. Despite having a parliamentary form of government, democracy has been unable to ensure good governance in the country. The problem has been further deteriorated by the issue of political polarization, whereby political parties see each other as adversaries rather than democratic opponents and thus, hampering parliamentary debate, cooperation and consensus-building on critical policy issues. The dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 stands out as an example from history where political differences could not be accommodated and the electoral mandate of the Awami League, which won the 1970 general election, was disregarded. Moreover, the consistent dismissals of elected governments, military coups and the involvement of informal networks in Pakistan’s politics since its inception reflect institutional imbalance. Still in the contemporary situation, Pakistan is marked by institutional conflicts and political rivalry, thereby posing consistent challenges to democratic stability. The issue of Pakistan’s democracy can further be exemplified by the 27th Constitutional Amendment of November 2025 that created concerns regarding judicial independence and civilian supremacy. The increasing role of non-elected bodies in politics and constitution-making shows that democratic consolidation requires much more than just holding elections.

As far as India is concerned, it is viewed as the world’s largest democracy that provides many chances for active involvement of people in politics through regular elections and political pluralism. Nevertheless, democracy needs much more than just periodic elections; it also involves the protection of minority rights and political decentralization, both of which are questionable in the case of India. Particularly, the Hindutva-driven policies of Modi government further complicated the situation as the protection of minority rights have been exacerbated by Hindu nationalist overtones. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 is a clear example of this, which sparked intense debate regarding religious discrimination, equal citizenship rights and the secular nature of the Indian Constitution. Moreover, the issue of powers held by centrally appointed governors in opposition-led states raise questions about federalism and political accountability. Furthermore, in the recent past, the opposition and civil society organizations have expressed apprehension over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, being used as an excuse for disenfranchising eligible voters, especially the minorities and the poor, while the lack of transparency and objectivity in the entire electoral process is being questioned. The situation has served to heighten the concerns about the integrity of the electoral process and independence of democratic institutions.

Another valuable example of the democracy without democratic governance is Bangladesh, where in spite of regular elections the lack of accountability led to the political legitimacy crisis and undermined the true essence of democracy. During the rule of Sheikh Hasina, there were numerous allegations of the concentration of executive power, limitations of political opposition and deterioration of the system of checks and balances. The general elections of 2014, 2018 and 2024 were criticized because of the lack of legitimacy and fair political processes. Even though there has been a return to an electoral form of governance in February 2026, questions still remain regarding institutional independence and human rights, especially after the reforms in September 2026 that apparently made things more difficult. This reveals how electoral transitions alone cannot guarantee the preservation of democratic principles.

While there may be significant differences between the political histories of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, their experiences highlight the fact that democracy cannot automatically be guaranteed simply because there exist democratic institutions. Democracy is about more than just having a constitution, holding elections and even separating power into various branches. It is about having an effective opposition to politics, an independent judicial system, freedom of the expression and public administration that works for the people rather than influential political groups. Thus, the prerequisite for fostering democracy in South Asia is to transcend the notion that elections are sufficient for making a state democratic. When corruption, political favoritism, injustice and exclusion become permanent features of politics, then democracy begins to fall apart.