2023: A Year of Deferred Accountability and Missed Opposition Opportunities
The editorial argues 2023 saw deferred accountability from the government and missed chances for the Opposition.
Photo by Andrea Tummons
Editorial Analysis
The author argues that 2023 was a year where the government successfully deferred accountability on major issues, while the Opposition failed to seize opportunities to hold it to account. The perspective is critical of both the government's lack of transparency and the Opposition's strategic shortcomings.
Main Arguments:
- The government successfully deferred accountability on critical issues like Manipur violence, the Adani-Hindenburg report, and electoral bonds, avoiding significant political repercussions.
- The Opposition failed to effectively challenge the government, appearing fragmented and unable to present a unified, credible alternative narrative.
- The ruling party leveraged initiatives like the 'Viksit Bharat Sankalp Yatra' and the Ram Temple inauguration to consolidate its political position and divert attention from accountability issues.
- The Opposition's inability to learn from past mistakes and present a strong, united front has allowed the government to dominate the political discourse.
Conclusion
Policy Implications
The editorial reflects on 2023, characterizing it as a year where the government largely avoided accountability, particularly on issues like the Manipur violence, the Adani-Hindenburg report, and the electoral bonds scheme. It criticizes the Opposition for failing to effectively capitalize on these issues, often appearing fragmented and lacking a unified strategy.
The author suggests that the Opposition's inability to present a credible alternative narrative or hold the government to account has allowed the ruling party to consolidate power, especially through initiatives like the 'Viksit Bharat Sankalp Yatra' and the Ram Temple inauguration. The piece concludes by urging the Opposition to learn from its shortcomings and seize future opportunities to present a strong, united front.
Key Facts
2023 characterized by deferred accountability
Opposition failed to capitalize on issues like Manipur violence, Adani-Hindenburg report, electoral bonds
UPSC Exam Angles
Constitutional provisions related to parliamentary functioning (e.g., Article 75, 105, 118).
Role and functions of the Opposition in a democracy and mechanisms of parliamentary accountability (e.g., No-confidence motion, Censure motion, Adjournment motion).
Electoral reforms and political funding (Electoral Bonds, Representation of the People Act, Election Commission of India, Right to Information).
Federalism and Centre-State relations, particularly concerning law and order (e.g., Manipur violence, Article 355/356).
Judicial review and activism, especially in matters of constitutional validity and fundamental rights (e.g., SC's role in electoral bonds, Ayodhya verdict).
Corporate governance, regulatory oversight, and financial market integrity (e.g., SEBI, Hindenburg report).
Secularism and the separation of state and religion (e.g., Ram Temple inauguration).
Government schemes, welfare state, and public outreach strategies (e.g., Viksit Bharat Sankalp Yatra).
Visual Insights
Manipur Violence (2023-2025): A Federal Security Challenge
This map highlights Manipur, the epicenter of ethnic violence starting in 2023, and its strategic location in India's Northeast. It underscores the challenges of federalism in managing internal security, with implications for regional stability and government accountability.
Loading interactive map...
Electoral Bonds Scheme: From Introduction to Annulment (2017-2024)
This timeline traces the journey of the Electoral Bonds Scheme, highlighting its introduction, the controversies it generated, and its eventual striking down by the Supreme Court, a key event in the context of government accountability and transparency in political funding.
Political funding in India has historically been opaque, with large cash donations. The Electoral Bonds Scheme was introduced as a reform measure, but its anonymity feature became a major point of contention, leading to its eventual annulment by the Supreme Court, marking a significant moment for electoral transparency.
- 2017Introduced via Finance Act 2017, amending RBI Act, RPA, IT Act, Companies Act. Aimed to 'cleanse' political funding.
- 2018Electoral Bonds Scheme officially launched. First sale window opened in March.
- 2019Multiple petitions filed in Supreme Court challenging the scheme's constitutionality, citing opacity.
- 2021Supreme Court reserves judgment on petitions challenging the scheme.
- Feb 15, 2024Supreme Court declares Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional, violating Article 19(1)(a) (Right to Information). Directs SBI to stop issuance and disclose data to ECI.
- Mar 2024ECI publishes data on electoral bond purchasers and recipient political parties, revealing significant details about corporate and individual donations.
- 2025Ongoing public and parliamentary debates on alternative mechanisms for transparent political funding and electoral reforms.
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
The year 2023, as highlighted by the editorial, saw significant events like the Manipur violence, the Adani-Hindenburg report, and the ongoing debate around electoral bonds. These issues presented opportunities for the opposition to scrutinize government actions and policies.
Concurrently, the government engaged in large-scale public outreach through initiatives like the 'Viksit Bharat Sankalp Yatra' and leveraged events like the Ram Temple inauguration, further shaping the political narrative. The Supreme Court's subsequent judgment on electoral bonds in 2024 became a landmark development regarding transparency in political funding.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding Electoral Bonds in India: 1. The Supreme Court, in its 2024 judgment, declared the Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional primarily on the grounds of violating the right to information under Article 19(1)(a). 2. The scheme allowed for anonymous donations to political parties, with the State Bank of India being the only authorized issuer. 3. Under the scheme, only registered political parties that secured at least one percent of the votes polled in the last general election or assembly election were eligible to receive electoral bonds. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1 is correct. The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment in February 2024, struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme, holding it unconstitutional primarily because it violated the voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Statement 2 is correct. A key feature of the Electoral Bond Scheme, introduced in 2017, was the anonymity it provided to donors, and the State Bank of India was designated as the sole bank authorized to issue and encash these bonds. Statement 3 is correct. As per the scheme's provisions, only political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and which had secured not less than one percent of the votes polled in the last general election to the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of the State, were eligible to receive electoral bonds.
2. In the context of parliamentary procedures in India, which of the following statements correctly distinguishes between a Censure Motion and a No-Confidence Motion? 1. A Censure Motion can be moved against an individual minister or a group of ministers, while a No-Confidence Motion can only be moved against the entire Council of Ministers. 2. If a Censure Motion is passed, the Council of Ministers is not obliged to resign, but if a No-Confidence Motion is passed, the Council of Ministers must resign. 3. A Censure Motion requires stating the grounds for its moving, whereas a No-Confidence Motion does not require stating any specific grounds. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1 is correct. A Censure Motion expresses strong disapproval of a specific policy or action of a minister or a group of ministers. A No-Confidence Motion, on the other hand, expresses a lack of confidence in the entire Council of Ministers. Statement 2 is correct. The passing of a Censure Motion does not automatically lead to the resignation of the Council of Ministers, though it is a serious parliamentary reprimand. However, if a No-Confidence Motion is passed, the Council of Ministers, as per Article 75(3) of the Constitution (collective responsibility), must resign. Statement 3 is correct. A Censure Motion must explicitly state the reasons or grounds for the disapproval. In contrast, a No-Confidence Motion, while often moved due to dissatisfaction, does not legally require specific grounds to be stated in the motion itself, only that the House no longer has confidence in the government.