Ahmad Ayaz
De mocracy is not sustained merely by conducting elections or invoking the phrase “public mandate” in speeches. It survives only when those entrusted with authority respect the verdict of the people in both word and action. Any attempt to dilute, bypass, or neutralise that verdict—especially by elevating those rejected by voters into positions of influence—amounts to a direct assault on democratic ethics. In Jammu and Kashmir, the appointment of a defeated Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) as adviser to the Chief Minister has triggered serious concern. The issue is not personal, partisan, or technical; it is fundamentally democratic. More troubling is the widely held perception that this adviser enjoys access, influence, and proximity to power that reportedly exceeds that of an elected minister—someone who has actually secured the people’s mandate. This development amounts to a mockery and misuse of democracy by those entrusted—particularly Chief Ministers—with the responsibility of upholding its sanctity.
The People Spoke—Why Is Their Verdict Being Circumvented? An Assembly election represents a direct and vital democratic endorsement in the Indian system. When voters reject a candidate, they do so consciously, weighing alternatives and exercising their constitutional right. That verdict is neither ambiguous nor provisional. Yet, by appointing a defeated MLA as adviser to the Chief Minister in Jammu and Kashmir, the system effectively nullifies the moral authority of that electoral outcome. It sends a troubling signal: rejection at the ballot box does not necessarily mean loss of influence. Such actions raise an uncomfortable question—are elections meant to determine who governs, or merely to legitimise a process where real power is distributed elsewhere?
Adviser With Greater Access Than an Elected Minister: Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this appointment is not the designation itself, but the functional reality. In practice, advisers often operate closer to decision-making centres than elected ministers. They enjoy unrestricted access, informal authority, and insulation from scrutiny. In this case, the perception that a defeated MLA, now adviser to the Chief Minister, enjoys greater access than an elected minister is deeply problematic. Ministers are accountable to the legislature, the public, and their constituencies. Advisers, by contrast, are accountable only to the appointing authority. When unelected advisers overshadow elected representatives, democracy is hollowed out from within.
Power Without Mandate, Influence Without Accountability: Advisers exercise influence without carrying public responsibility. They do not face legislative questioning, public audits, or electoral consequences. When such influence is granted to someone already rejected by voters, it creates a double democratic deficit—no mandate and no accountability. In Jammu and Kashmir, where democratic institutions have long struggled for credibility and continuity, this deficit is even more damaging. Instead of strengthening representative governance, such appointments reinforce perceptions of centralised and opaque decision-making.
What Does Electoral Defeat Mean Anymore? In any healthy democracy, defeat carries meaning. It calls for introspection, recalibration, and humility. It is a pause—not a punishment, but a reminder that public confidence must be earned. Converting electoral defeat into administrative privilege erodes this democratic culture. It promotes entitlement over accountability and signals that political relevance depends more on proximity to power than on public approval. Over time, this undermines the very incentive to engage meaningfully with voters.
“The appointment of a defeated MLA as a high-ranking adviser to the Chief Minister in Jammu and Kashmir undermines democratic principles. By granting an unelected official more influence than elected ministers, the administration bypasses the “sanctity of the ballot.” To restore public trust, the government must respect the people’s verdict rather than relying on rhetoric or circumventing electoral results.”
Chief Minister’s Responsibility| Custodian, Not Facilitator: Chief Ministers occupy a pivotal constitutional and moral role. They are expected to protect democratic discipline, not erode it through expedient arrangements. While such appointments may be legally permissible, democratic legitimacy demands higher standards. By facilitating or endorsing the appointment of a defeated MLA as adviser—especially one enjoying greater access than elected ministers—the Chief Minister risks appearing dismissive of the electorate’s verdict. This is not merely an administrative lapse; it is a democratic failure of leadership.
Merit Argument Rings Hollow: Supporters may argue merit, experience, or political understanding. But if merit were truly the guiding principle, why not appoint independent experts, policy specialists, or seasoned administrators? Repeatedly choosing defeated political figures exposes the merit argument as selective. It reveals a preference for political familiarity over democratic legitimacy. In such cases, merit becomes a convenient justification rather than a genuine standard.
A Dangerous Signal To The Public : The public draws conclusions from actions, not assurances. When voters see defeated candidates elevated while elected ministers are sidelined, faith in democratic processes erodes.
Engaged young voters, in particular, begin to question the value of participation. If electoral outcomes can be neutralised through appointments, why engage at all? In a region like Jammu and Kashmir—already grappling with political fatigue and mistrust—this message is especially damaging.
Precedent And Long-Term Consequences: Normalising such appointments sets a dangerous precedent. It teaches future candidates that elections are optional pathways to power. It weakens democratic competition and entrenches patronage. Over time, governance becomes less about representation and more about access—less about consent and more about control
Democracy Is Not A Selective Commitment: One cannot claim belief in democracy while simultaneously undermining its core principle: respect for the people’s verdict. Democracy cannot be reduced to a procedural exercise followed by administrative adjustments. If elections are to retain meaning, defeat must carry consequence, and victory must carry responsibility.
A Better Democratic Path To Strengthen Democracy in J&K : Advisory roles should prioritise independent expertise. Elected representatives must not be overshadowed by unelected appointees. Chief Ministers must set ethical benchmarks, not exploit legal loopholes. Electoral verdicts must be treated as final and binding.
Conclusion|A Mockery Of The Mandate : The appointment of a defeated MLA as adviser to the Chief Minister in Jammu and Kashmir—particularly one enjoying greater access than elected ministers—represents a serious democratic contradiction. It amounts to a mockery and misuse of democracy by those entrusted with the responsibility to uphold it. If democratic credibility is to be restored and preserved in J&K, the sanctity of the ballot must be respected—not circumvented. Democracy cannot survive on rhetoric alone. It demands consistency, restraint, and above all, respect for the people’s verdict.
(The author a political commentator is an active TV Debator. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
[email protected]
