When democratic institutions weaken, economic statistics become political trophies and wealth concentrates around power; a country may appear successful on paper even as its constitutional and social foundations erode.
On Jawaharlal Nehru's birth anniversary, November 14, celebrated in India as Children's Day, we have an opportunity to reflect on a question more consequential than any government achievement: What makes a democracy endure?
Nehru's generation inherited a country emerging from colonial rule, partition, poverty and profound social divisions. The Republic they established was an ambitious experiment: could a poor, diverse, and deeply unequal society sustain universal suffrage, parliamentary government, independent institutions, and constitutional freedoms?
A recent documentary, I Went To A Country Wrecked By Billionaires – It Reminded Me Of America, by Business Explains The World, examines sixteen years of Viktor Orbán's rule in Hungary. It illustrates how democratic institutions can be weakened without abolishing elections, suspending the constitution or formally ending parliamentary government.
Hungary is not an exact parallel for India. Nevertheless, its experience warns of the risks when political power, economic privilege and control over public institutions become increasingly intertwined.
1. Hungary: How a Democracy Can Be Hollowed Out
In Felcsút, a Hungarian village with a population of approximately 2,000, stands the Pancho Arena, an elaborate football stadium with a capacity of around 3,800.
The stadium, completed in 2014, cost approximately €12 million. It was financed largely through Hungary's tax-incentivised sports funding arrangements. Its location near Viktor Orbán's family property makes it a striking symbol of his government's priorities.
The question is not whether a small village deserves a football stadium, but whether public resources and economic incentives are allocated based on public priorities or the preferences of those closest to political power.
Orbán returned to government in 2010 with a two-thirds parliamentary majority. In the following years, his administration rewrote the constitution, restructured judicial institutions, changed electoral arrangements and expanded its influence over the media and public institutions.
The transformation was gradual. Elections continued, Parliament functioned, and the government continued to use the language of democratic legitimacy.
But the distribution of power changed.
A Financial Times investigation examining nearly 350,000 public procurement contracts found that companies connected to thirteen individuals close to Orbán captured approximately 14% of the value of state tenders between 2010 and late 2025, amounting to more than €28 billion.
Prominent beneficiaries included Orbán's childhood friend Lőrinc Mészáros and his son-in-law István Tiborcz.
The resulting economic structure increasingly rewarded political proximity. Competitive enterprise, independent institutions and transparent procurement became areas of concern.
This is how oligarchic capitalism can emerge within a formally democratic system: political access becomes an economic asset, and economic influence reinforces political power.
Financial Times
2. The Warning Signs: When the State Becomes an Instrument of Power
The Hungarian experience illustrates several recurring characteristics of democratic decline.
The indispensable leader: Political messaging revolves around a leader presented as uniquely capable of protecting the nation and delivering its future.
Concentration of wealth: Major contracts, infrastructure projects, concessions and financial opportunities increasingly benefit a small group of politically connected businesses.
Institutional capture: Courts, regulators, public institutions and electoral arrangements gradually lose their independence.
Media concentration: Independent journalism becomes economically or politically vulnerable, while government-aligned narratives gain institutional advantages.
Marginalisation of dissent: Critics, academics, journalists and civil society organisations face increasing professional, financial or legal pressure.
The danger is not that every government decision is corrupt or every public project is misguided.
It is that the system gradually loses its ability to distinguish between the interests of the government and those of the country.
When that distinction disappears, the state becomes less a public institution and more an instrument for sustaining political power.
3. India: The Growing Distance Between the Numbers and the Nation
India's situation deserves serious examination.
We remain the world's largest democracy by population. We conduct large-scale elections, maintain a constitutional framework and have achieved significant advances in infrastructure, digital public services, financial inclusion and technological capability.
Yet a growing contradiction exists between the image of national success and concerns about the quality of democratic governance and the distribution of economic progress.
International assessments provide reasons for concern.
The 2026 V-Dem Democracy Report classifies India as an electoral autocracy, describing democratic backsliding that it traces to 2009.
Freedom House's 2026 assessment continues to classify India as Partly Free, giving it 62 out of 100, down from 63 in the preceding assessment.
Reporters Without Borders ranked India 157th out of 180 countries in its 2026 World Press Freedom Index.
These organisations have different methodologies, and their assessments should not be treated as infallible verdicts. Nevertheless, when multiple institutions repeatedly identify concerns about media independence, civil liberties, institutional accountability and political freedoms, dismissing every criticism as foreign prejudice is neither intellectually convincing nor democratically responsible.
The deeper concern is the relationship between democratic accountability and the concentration of power.
A democracy is not measured simply by how frequently elections are held. It is also measured by whether opposition parties can function freely, journalists can investigate those in authority, courts can independently review executive decisions, and citizens can question government policy without fear.
Electoral legitimacy is essential. But it is not a substitute for institutional accountability.
A government winning an election does not mean every subsequent exercise of power is beyond scrutiny.
4. The Economic Paradox: A Growing GDP and an Unequal Experience of Growth
Perhaps the most important question facing India is the difference between economic growth and economic well-being.
On paper, India's economic performance is impressive. Official estimates indicate real GDP growth of approximately 7.8% in FY 2025–26. India continues to attract investment, build infrastructure and expand technological capabilities.
These achievements should be acknowledged.
But GDP measures the value of economic production. It does not show how equitably that production is distributed, whether employment is secure, whether wages keep pace with the cost of living, or whether families can afford quality healthcare and education.
Consider the other side of the picture.
The 2026 Global Hunger Index places India at 100th among 122 countries, with a score of 24.1, classified as serious. Child wasting stands at 19%, while child stunting is 29.3%.
The government disputes the Global Hunger Index methodology, arguing that several of its indicators measure broader nutritional and health outcomes rather than hunger alone. That methodological debate deserves consideration, but it does not eliminate the underlying public health challenge these figures represent.
Employment presents another important dimension.
Official labour statistics show improvements in certain employment indicators, including the proportion of workers in regular salaried employment. However, the quality of work, income security, productivity, underemployment and opportunities for educated young people remain key measures of economic progress.
The real question is not whether India's economy is growing, but whether its growth is translating into widespread economic security and social mobility.
A country can experience impressive GDP growth, expanding corporate wealth, world-class infrastructure and persistent deprivation among substantial sections of its population at the same time.
These realities are not mutually exclusive.
Nor should the government substitute aggregate statistics for an honest assessment of everyday economic conditions.
A successful economy must be judged by the lives it improves, not merely by the numbers it produces.
5. The Nehruvian Counter-Example: The Importance of Self-Restraint
Returning to Nehru on Children's Day is relevant because his generation understood that building a nation required more than economic planning or political dominance.
Nehru enjoyed extraordinary electoral authority. The Congress dominated Indian politics, and his personal popularity was immense.
Yet during the formative years of the Republic, he broadly accepted the conventions and institutions of parliamentary democracy.
He defended parliamentary debate, engaged with opposition leaders, supported scientific and educational institutions and articulated a vision of India based on secular constitutional citizenship.
He recognised that democracy required more than a majority. It required institutions capable of functioning independently of the government of the day.
His record was not flawless.
His government made serious mistakes, including dismissing the elected Kerala government in 1959. The licence-permit system created economic inefficiencies that would burden India for decades. His handling of the 1962 war with China also exposed major failures of judgement and preparedness.
Nehru should be neither idealised nor held to the standards of a flawless politician.
His significance lies in other areas.
He helped establish a political culture in which parliamentary institutions, constitutional conventions and the legitimacy of political opposition were treated as essential features of the Republic.
Perhaps his most important contribution was not only what he built, but also the institutional space he allowed to exist beyond his own leadership.
The true test of democratic leadership is not how much power a leader accumulates, but how much power a leader is willing to keep constrained.
6. Hungary's Lesson: Democratic Correction Is Possible
On April 12, 2026, Hungary conducted a historic parliamentary election.
With a record turnout of approximately 79.6%, Péter Magyar's TISZA party won 141 of the 199 parliamentary seats, securing a two-thirds majority and ending sixteen years of uninterrupted Fidesz rule under Orbán.
The result showed that even after prolonged institutional concentration, electoral change is possible when citizens mobilise and credible political alternatives emerge.
However, removing a government and restoring independent institutions are distinct challenges. Hungary's new leadership must now demonstrate that the institutions it inherits can be rebuilt, not merely managed by a different political group.
This distinction is important for India.
Democracy is not merely about replacing one political leadership with another. It is about preserving a system in which no political leadership can permanently place itself above institutional scrutiny.
7. The Republic We Must Protect
India has a much more complex constitutional, cultural, and political structure than Hungary. Its federal system, linguistic diversity, independent electoral institutions, large electorate, and pluralistic traditions make direct comparisons inappropriate.
But the underlying principles are universal.
We must not confuse nationalism with loyalty to a political party, electoral victory with unlimited authority, or economic growth with inclusive prosperity.
A government must be judged not only by the infrastructure it builds, the GDP it reports or the international recognition it receives, but also by the institutions it strengthens, the freedoms it protects and the opportunities it creates for ordinary citizens.
The purpose of economic development is not to produce impressive national statistics while neglecting the quality of everyday life.
The purpose of democracy is not simply to elect those who govern us. It is to ensure that those who govern us remain accountable to those they govern.
And the purpose of a Republic is to ensure that its institutions are greater than the individuals who temporarily occupy positions of authority.
On Nehru's birth anniversary, perhaps the most important lesson for the next generation is this:
The strength of a nation is not measured by the power of its leader, the wealth of its oligarchs or the grandeur of its monuments. It is measured by the dignity of its citizens, the fairness of its opportunities and the integrity of its institutions.
India does not need to look to Hungary to discover the value of democracy. That value is already embedded in its Constitution and in the aspirations of its founding generation.
What India needs is the determination to preserve it.
