The ongoing mayoral contest in Mumbai has exposed a deeper malaise in India’s democratic practice, one that goes far beyond municipal arithmetic. What should have been a routine exercise in urban self-governance has instead become a telling illustration of how majoritarian power increasingly seeks validation not through consensus or constitutional restraint, but through sheer numerical dominance and tactical control.
At the heart of the Mumbai mayoral election lies a familiar argument: those who command a majority possess an unquestionable right to rule. This reasoning, while technically correct in a representative democracy, becomes problematic when it is stretched to imply moral infallibility. The unfolding political manoeuvres, the anxiety over defections, and the visible efforts to ring-fence elected representatives reveal a mindset where numbers are treated not merely as a mandate, but as a weapon.
Majoritarianism in itself is not anti-democratic. Elections are, by definition, exercises in counting heads. But constitutional democracy was never meant to be governed by arithmetic alone. The Indian Constitution deliberately embeds safeguards to ensure that power, even when electorally acquired, remains ethically constrained. Constitutional morality demands adherence not just to procedure, but to principles such as fairness, dignity, pluralism, and institutional respect.
Mumbai’s mayoral episode reflects how far political practice has drifted from this ethos. When securing control becomes more important than preserving the integrity of democratic processes, the spirit of the Constitution is quietly sidelined. The spectacle of political camps focusing on containment rather than persuasion signals a shift from governance to domination. It sends a troubling message that democratic legitimacy ends once votes are counted, and that ethical responsibility thereafter is optional.
This is precisely where constitutional morality is meant to intervene. It reminds those in power that victory does not grant immunity from scrutiny, nor does it justify the marginalisation of opposition voices. The Constitution does not merely empower majorities; it restrains them. It recognises that unchecked majoritarianism can easily slide into exclusion, eroding the rights and confidence of those who fall outside the ruling arithmetic.
The mayoral election also highlights another uncomfortable truth. Institutions may continue to function formally, with rules followed and procedures observed, yet still fail the constitutional test. When democratic outcomes are engineered through pressure, inducement, or fear of instability, legality survives but legitimacy suffers. Constitutional morality insists that outcomes must not only be lawful, but also fair, transparent, and worthy of public trust.
Critically, the responsibility to uphold this morality does not rest solely with courts or constitutional bodies. Political actors themselves are expected to internalise restraint. When they do not, and when public discourse normalises power games as inevitable politics, constitutional values weaken by consent. Citizens too become complicit when they applaud victory without questioning the means by which authority is exercised.
Mumbai’s civic moment is therefore not an isolated local drama. It mirrors a national trend where electoral success is increasingly projected as moral supremacy. In such an environment, dissent is framed as obstruction, and constitutional caution is dismissed as weakness. The danger is not the existence of strong majorities, but the absence of equally strong commitment to constitutional ethics.
Who then guards the republic? Not the majority alone, and not institutions in isolation. The republic is guarded by a collective insistence that power must answer to principles higher than political convenience. Majorities may govern, but constitutions are meant to endure. When constitutional morality is subordinated to numerical muscle, democracy does not collapse overnight. It erodes slowly, quietly, and with public approval.
The Mumbai mayoral election should therefore be read not merely as a contest for civic leadership, but as a warning. A republic survives not because majorities win, but because power knows when to stop.
