A tweet of this writer went unexpectedly viral soon after the 2024 poll results. It read: ‘Can we please refrain from creating yet another personality cult — this time around Rahul Gandhi? Is it not healthier for Indians to forgo this fundamentally anti-democratic tendency of making heroes or gods out of political representatives’. Some retweets were by the usual trolls in the business of undermining Gandhi and the politics he represents. Others, however, were by individuals in sympathy with his politics but who had concerns about the harm any further doses of personality-driven politics could do to Indian democracy. Recently, some expressed concerns about Delhi CM Atishi treating Kejriwal like a saint-like figure.

To be sure, communicating and even celebrating a political leader’s vision, efforts, and achievements is part of democracy. Mobilising the support of various citizens is how political representatives win elections in order to implement the socio-economic and political visions of these supporters. We see this happening currently in the US with Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz. But at what point does democratic support turn into undemocratic veneration? And what is wrong with veneration and worship in politics anyway? Must it be considered undemocratic?

We can relate to leaders in two ways. First, we can prefer a political leader or representative whom we think best represents our interests, goals and values, and our vision of what is good for our larger community and country. Here, our commitment to issues and values precedes our support for a political representative. Our admiration for such a leader remains democratic as long as issues and values remain more important to us than the leader or representative. In short, if the representative compromises on the issues and values we stand for, we would demand political accountability, criticise and even withdraw support, if necessary.

However, this support turns undemocratic when we start relating to the leader in the second way — when we become so enamoured that we begin to overlook instances where the leader flagrantly sacrifices the issues and values we once believed were essential for the greater good. Full of only admiration, we cease to question the leader. Instead, we make excuses and rush to defend them from any criticism. Now, instead of democratic admiration and support, there is hero-worship — a personality cult that undermines democracy.

Personality cults in politics are harmful in three ways. First, they make citizens surrender their independent political judgment to one individual. A citizenry which actively thinks about various issues and values, and holds political representatives accountable, is crucial to any really functioning democracy. Second, they hurt representatives themselves. Since the leader around whom the cult is built no longer faces any criticism or questions, he or she starts thinking they are faultless. Such leaders act arrogantly and promote selfish or narrow interests at the expense of the common good. Third, by promoting an uncritical citizenry and mediocre, unaccountable leadership, personality cults promote the neglect of important issues and values that must be actively faced or upheld for the country to progress.

For a country to be considered a democracy, regular elections are necessary but insufficient. An essential feature is ‘deliberation’, i.e., debate, discussion, hearing other peoples’ points of view, and responding to their objections. By promoting uncritical worship, personality cults undermine the public discussion crucial for a meaningful democracy.

We saw the grave harm personality cults did historically in the case of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Today, cults around Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping maintain Russia and China as autocracies. Yet, while most common in autocracies, personality cults are not restricted to them. Multiple reports show that the cult around Donald Trump has severely undermined American democracy. In 1970s India, the cult around Indira Gandhi eroded Indian democracy by side-lining democratic criticism, and undermining democratic institutions like the legislature and judiciary, and — self-defeatingly — the Congress itself. Recently, many Indians have participated in a strong, engineered personality cult around Prime Minister Modi which asked for bhakti or worship. It is no wonder, therefore, that — despite what personality cults may have us deny — a 2021 report by the Sweden-based Varieties of Democracy Institute saw India drop 23 percentage points on its democracy index, being listed (alongside Brazil, Turkey, and US) among 25 ‘autocratising nations’. Given that Rahul Gandhi had then expressed concern about the erosion of Indian democracy, he must discourage even mild forms of personality-based politics, which can marginalise issues and values and further damage Indian democracy. Similarly, Atishi should refocus people’s attention on governance issues that won AAP support in the first place.

END OF ARTICLE