Reimagining Democracy and Accountability: Dissent is Patriotic

Before democracy became a system of elections, it was an idea. An idea based on certain ideals. These ideals encourage responsible leadership and institutions that are transparent, accountable, and committed to the common good. Democracy is ultimately measured by the place they accord to the citizen. It has spent centuries perfecting the art of choosing those in power and has spent just as long trying to perfect the art of questioning them.

Illustration by The Geostrata

Across the timeline, what remains as relevant in the age of hashtags as it was in the age of togas is the question “WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?” In every democracy, it happens to be one of the most defining questions of accountability.

In this sense, democratic ideals are fulfilled not merely through electoral participation, but through the creation of a society where liberty, equality, justice, and accountability enable every individual to flourish.

Democracy today has become more of a “universal political language,” which reflects a supposed victory of a nation; most states claim to speak of it; fewer agree on what fluency it should carry.

Democratic values and institutions were never set in stone; even the meaning of democracy changes throughout time, yet the opinion remains divided on whether the existing democracies of Asia, Europe, and other parts of the world live up to the democratic ideals. These ideals remain contested as well. However, the earliest forms of democracy help us to better understand the fragility modern democracies carry. 

The world of Pericles and Cicero would find today's democracies almost unrecognisable. The stature of democracy has been moulded countless times since classical Athens and the Roman Republic, but its defining impulse has not. Across centuries, citizens have continually devised new ways to question authority, restrain excessive power, and demand accountability. More than two millennia later, that instinct of interrogation continues to live in democratic setups and finds expression in the modern-day student-led movements, civil protests, and demands for transparency that continue to unfold most visibly across South Asia.

INDIA'S DEMOCRATIC MODEL & RECENT SHORTCOMINGS

For the last 7 decades, since it gained independence in 1947, India has claimed the position of the world's largest democracy, disproving the conventional theories that are built on the fact that democracies could flourish only in high-income and affluent societies. This reflects the resilience of India as a democracy. However, its greatest strength has never been electoral participation alone but the belief that those entrusted with power ultimately remain answerable to the people. This has been put to the test at various points in time in India's political history. 

From Lal Bahadur Shastri’s voluntary acceptance of responsibility over the Ariyalur railway tragedy to resignations during the 2G spectrum controversy, the Adarsh housing scandal, and other public controversies, Indian politics has periodically demonstrated that occupying public offices also carries the expectation of public accountability. However, if there's one generation that has redefined accountability in contemporary India, it is Gen Z. They have been like a rapid force encapsulating the whole of South Asia.

For Indian youth, the NEET controversy was never merely about a compromised examination; it was about the credibility of the republic's promise of merit. For millions of young Indians, competitive examinations are not merely entrance tests; they represent years of relentless preparation, financial crunch, and the promise of social & economic mobility, and when the integrity of such an examination is compromised, the damage extends far beyond a leaked question paper. What followed was not simply students' collective outrage but a constitutional demand for accountability.

Moreover, in a country where ⅔ of the total population lies below the age of 35, a geriatric leadership whose average age was seventy was woefully out of touch.

For weeks, Jantar Mantar became a venue demanding nothing more radical than accountability. Through this epochal protest, it was, in many ways, the youth knocking on the doors of the house they themselves had helped constitute, asking rather a simple question. “IF NOT HERE, THEN WHERE WILL ACCOUNTABILITY BE HEARD?” The true success of the movement lay not in who left office, but in reaffirming that no office stands above accountability. 

PATTERNS IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD 

The winds of accountability rarely stop at the border. Across South Asia, the collective fury of a society mired in corruption, economic distress, and mass unemployment toppled the government at a staggering cost. It echoed a broad democratic churn. Across Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, the youth have challenged governments not merely over policy failures but over the absence of transparency and accountability.

Nepal's demonstrations reflected mounting frustration with political instability and governance deficits; Bangladesh's student-led movement expanded beyond the quota issue into a wider challenge to institutional accountability; and Sri Lanka's economic collapse exposed the costs of prolonged fiscal mismanagement and opaque governance.

Though their grievances differed, each movement arrived at the same destination and converged on the principle that has often been quoted as the “bare minimum" via Gen-Z, i.e., “GOVERNMENT MUST REMAIN ANSWERABLE TO THE PEOPLE LONG AFTER ELECTIONS ARE WON.” Eleanor Roosevelt once quoted that with freedom comes responsibility. 

BUT WHY YOUTH OR GEN Z?

With the new era comes innovative ways of protesting. Across these 4 countries, protests started with the digital mobilisation of Gen-Z. The success rate, however, has been unprecedented in all 4 countries; these are decentralised, digitally coordinated, and culturally coded in ways that can appear trivial or opaque to outsiders.

In the 21st century, a meme, remark, viral video, or pop culture symbol may carry more political weight for a 20-year-old than a 40-year-old political party. 

In India, a Temu version of a political party made in the wake of a bizarre comment tested the ideals of a democratic country and the acumen of the citizens. What began as a satirical response to young people being likened to “cockroaches” evolved into one of the most visible youth-led civic mobilisations by simply reclaiming an insult and weaponising it into democratic dissent. The movement’s greatest strength lay in its language.

It spoke in memes, sarcasm, reels, and viral slogans. This doesn't reflect a lack of seriousness, but rather shows how a digital generation communicates. In many ways, the Cockroach Janta Party represented Gen-Z’s political coming-of-age. This factor resonates seamlessly with other countries as well. 

During Nepal's protests, “straw hat Jolly Roger” from the anime One Piece appeared in public demonstrations. For a generation raised online, it shared a collective signal of resistance against corruption, inherent systems, and unaccountable authority. Raised in a generation of instant communication and rapid change, Gen-Z holds little patience for delayed accountability. The generation that refreshes their social media feed every minute, waiting for another five years for a tangible outcome, was never the option.

WHAT'S NEXT FOR DEMOCRACY?

Across the protests that unfolded in these four countries, what echoed louder than any slogan was the Gen-Z demand for what they've been promised and had grown up reading about. They demanded democracy to be lived like the definition by Abraham Lincoln, not merely preached. If these protests reveal anything, it is that democracy can no longer afford to be understood as a static political arrangement. It is increasingly becoming a living, negotiated relationship between the citizen and the state.

Centuries may separate modern democracies from classical Athens; the procedures and practices may differ, but they are united by one defining principle— the right to question power.

No leader, however popular, and no political party, however electorally dominant, should ever become untouchable. The distance between the governed and those who govern should never become so great that criticism is perceived as a betrayal because, time and again, history has proved that DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC.

---

BY YUVNA

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com