The Nirvik Bureau, Bhubaneswar, 18 October 2026
An elected government is entrusted with power by the people, not entitled to rule over them indefinitely. Peaceful protest and the demand for political change are not threats to democracy; they are among its most essential safeguards.
Democracy is often reduced to the act of voting. Citizens cast their ballots, a government is formed, and the winners claim the authority to govern until the next election. But is democracy merely a periodic ritual in which people exercise their choice once every few years and then surrender their political agency to those elected? Does electoral victory entitle a government to demand unquestioning obedience, even when citizens believe it has betrayed their trust? The answer must be an emphatic no.
A government derives its legitimacy from the people; the people do not derive their rights from the government. Political authority is a public trust, not private property. An elected government is expected to serve the people, protect their freedoms and remain accountable. When citizens believe it has failed in these responsibilities, they must remain free to challenge its legitimacy and demand its departure.
The right to seek regime change is not inherently anti-democratic. It is an expression of popular sovereignty.
An electoral mandate is not a perpetual licence
An election gives a government the authority to govern within the constitutional framework. It does not confer ownership of the country, its institutions or its citizens. Nor does every subsequent government decision automatically represent the people’s will.
Public opinion is neither frozen on election day nor uniform throughout a government’s tenure. Circumstances change, promises remain unfulfilled, policies produce unintended consequences, corruption allegations emerge and public confidence erodes. Citizens who supported a government yesterday are entitled to oppose it today.
The argument that an elected government must complete its term regardless of public dissatisfaction turns the democratic mandate into political immunity. If electoral victory alone were sufficient to silence dissent, democracy would risk becoming majoritarian domination.
Elections remain the preferred and constitutionally established means of changing governments. But democratic participation does not end between polling days. Peaceful demonstrations, public meetings, lawful strikes, petitions, civil disobedience and organised campaigns enable citizens to communicate dissatisfaction and demand accountability.
A government may challenge protesters’ claims, defend its policies and seek public support. What it cannot legitimately claim is that criticism of its performance is, by definition, an attack on the nation.
The right to dissent does not depend on official approval
One troubling proposition in political life is that citizens should protest only when their grievances are objectively justified, their demands reasonable or their methods approved by the government.
Who decides whether dissatisfaction is justified? The government being challenged?
Citizens may oppose a government over unemployment, voting rights, economic hardship, corruption, discrimination, violations of civil liberties, environmental destruction, perceived incompetence or policies they consider fundamentally wrong. Others may be motivated by ideological differences or grievances their opponents regard as misplaced.
The freedom to express dissatisfaction cannot depend on whether those in power agree with its underlying reasons. The right to dissent would be meaningless if the state permitted only opinions it considered correct.
This does not mean every accusation is true or every political demand is wise. Protesters must also remain open to scrutiny and public debate. The right to make a demand must not be confused with a guarantee that the demand will prevail.
India’s Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly without arms, and the right to form associations under Article 19, subject to constitutionally permissible reasonable restrictions. Public order and the rights of others matter, but restrictions must not become pretexts for suppressing peaceful dissent. The state may regulate protests in accordance with the law. It must not extinguish the democratic space in which protest takes place.
The experiences of Nepal in 2025, Bangladesh in 2024 and Sri Lanka in 2022 illustrate how specific grievances can develop into broader challenges to political authority. In Nepal, youth-led protests, triggered by a social media ban and fuelled by anger over corruption, nepotism and governance, culminated in Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli’s resignation. In Bangladesh, student protests over public-sector job quotas expanded into a mass uprising amid allegations of repression and wider political dissatisfaction, ultimately forcing Sheikh Hasina out of office. In Sri Lanka, economic hardship, shortages of essentials and public anger over governance contributed to mass demonstrations that led President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to resign.
These movements differed in their causes and consequences, but shared an important feature: citizens refused to treat governmental authority as beyond challenge. Their experiences also offer a cautionary lesson. Removing a leader does not automatically resolve a country’s problems. Political change must be followed by institutional accountability, respect for rights and credible democratic processes. Violence, reprisals and excessive state force cannot be justified merely by invoking popular will.
A government must tolerate demands for its own departure
The most important test of democracy is not whether a government happily accepts praise when it is popular, but whether it protects the right to criticise, oppose and seek its removal when it is unpopular.
Governments may argue that protests are politically motivated, encouraged by rival parties or influenced by foreign forces. Such claims should be examined on evidence. Opposition parties may pursue electoral interests, protest movements can be manipulated, and disinformation can distort public debate. These concerns call for transparency, independent journalism, institutional accountability and informed public deliberation—not the denial of citizens’ rights to assemble and express dissent.
The state must distinguish peaceful political opposition from violence. Demands for resignation, fresh elections or fundamental political change are not equivalent to armed insurrection, attacks on citizens or violent attempts to overthrow constitutional institutions.
A peaceful protest does not become illegitimate simply because it calls for a Prime Minister’s or President’s resignation. Such a demand may be politically inconvenient, but inconvenience is not a constitutional offence.
Governments retain the right to defend themselves politically, demonstrate their achievements and seek public support. Their supporters have the same freedom to organise in their favour. The contest must take place through open debate, constitutional institutions and the free expression of public will—not intimidation or suppression.
The people are sovereign, not supplicants
India’s democratic tradition rests on the principle that public power is exercised in the name of its people. The Preamble begins with the words “We, the People of India.” This is more than ceremonial language; it identifies the source of constitutional authority.
The government is not the benefactor of the citizen. It is entrusted with governing on the citizen’s behalf. Citizens are not subservient to the government; the government is accountable to them.
Demanding a change of government is not necessarily a rejection of democracy. It can be an attempt to make democracy work more meaningfully. Whether such a demand succeeds depends on public support, constitutional procedures and the lawful means available. But the demand itself deserves protection when expressed peacefully.
Democracy cannot guarantee that citizens will always be right in their judgements. It must guarantee that they remain free to form those judgements, express them publicly and organise peacefully around them.
Ultimately, a government’s legitimacy must be assessed not merely by how it acquired power, but also by how it exercises that power, responds to criticism and respects the people whose consent sustains it.
The right to elect a government would be incomplete without the right to oppose it. The right to choose representatives and constitutional authorities must include the right to demand their departure. A government may disagree with that demand, campaign against it and seek to defeat it democratically. What it cannot do is claim that the people owe it unquestioning obedience.
For in a democracy, the government holds office at the people’s pleasure. The people do not hold their freedoms at the government’s pleasure.
