News Desk
At the Munich Security Conference, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar did not mince words when it came to the West’s approach to democracy. Speaking before a panel that included Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, US Senator Elissa Slotkin, and Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, Jaishankar accused Western powers of practicing a brand of selective democracy—one that champions democratic values at home while supporting non-democratic regimes abroad.
“There was a time and I would have to say this in all honesty when the West treated democracy as a Western characteristic and was busy encouraging non-democratic forces in the Global South, and it still does,” he declared. His blunt criticism underlined the growing frustration among nations that see their own democratic practices as more than mere imitations of a Western model.
For Jaishankar, the issue runs deeper than policy inconsistencies. It touches on the very way the West defines what democracy should look like. According to him, Western leaders are quick to condemn practices in other regions while ignoring the complexities and successes of their own democratic experiments. “Everything that you say you value at home, you don’t practice abroad,” he said, hinting that the West’s selective engagement undermines its moral authority on global democracy.
This critique gains sharper relevance in light of the tumultuous democratic debates within the West itself. The rise of populism, epitomized by Donald Trump and the phenomenon of “Trumpism,” has exposed cracks in the democratic veneer of some of the world’s oldest democracies. Trump’s tenure as U.S. President and his lingering influence revealed a stark reality: even nations that position themselves as the global stewards of democracy face significant challenges in upholding their own standards.
From efforts to overturn election results to the January 6th Capitol insurrection, the events surrounding Trumpism serve as reminders that democratic institutions are fragile, even in the West. They also highlight the selective application of democratic principles that Jaishankar criticized. While the West calls for electoral transparency and accountability abroad, it struggles to address its own internal failings. These contradictions, Jaishankar implies, make Western democracies ill-suited to preach to the rest of the world about governance.
India, on the other hand, stands as a counterpoint to this narrative. Despite its economic challenges, the country has maintained a robust democratic framework since independence—a point Jaishankar stressed repeatedly. “I do think that in our progress as a democracy, the fact that for all the challenges that we have had, even at a low income, we have stayed true to the democratic model. When you look at our part of the world, we are pretty much the only country that has done that,” he remarked.
India’s journey is presented as proof that democracy is not a monolithic, Western export. Instead, it is a universal aspiration that can be molded to fit diverse cultural and historical contexts. Jaishankar argued that India’s experience, grounded in deep-rooted pluralism and a consultative tradition, offers a more realistic and adaptable model for the Global South. He believes that if the West truly wishes for democracy to prevail globally, it must first learn to appreciate the successful practices emerging from outside its own borders.
A significant part of Jaishankar’s critique targeted what he called “self-appointed custodians” of democracy—critics who have never faced the real challenges of electoral politics. “To self-appointed custodians who have never fought an election, who have nothing to do with democracy is actually telling the rest of the world what is right and what is wrong in a democracy. I think it is, to me, inevitable that it will be challenged,” he said. The minister’s comments resonated with many observers, who see his stance as a call for a more inclusive and less hypocritical approach to international democratic norms.
This candid assessment of Western double standards comes at a time when India’s democratic credentials are receiving global attention. The country recently showcased its electoral prowess, with massive voter turnouts that underline the strength of its democratic institutions. Jaishankar even pointed to this achievement as evidence of democracy in action, countering remarks from Western critics who often question the effectiveness of democratic systems in delivering basic needs.
The global rise of populism, fueled by figures like Trump, further complicates the West’s ability to position itself as the sole arbiter of democratic values. Trumpism revealed a deep discontent among significant segments of the population, raising questions about the inclusivity and adaptability of Western democratic systems. Meanwhile, India has continued to refine and strengthen its democratic processes, even in the face of external challenges and internal complexities.
In an era marked by shifting global alliances and rising calls for multipolarity, Jaishankar’s speech is more than just a critique—it is a defense of India’s democratic model. By highlighting the West’s inconsistencies and offering India’s approach as a viable alternative, he invites a broader conversation about what democracy can and should look like in a diverse world.
As the debate on global democracy continues, Jaishankar’s words serve as a reminder that democratic ideals are not the exclusive domain of any single region. For India, a nation that has managed to uphold democratic principles against numerous odds, this message is both a reassurance and a challenge—a call for the West to reconcile its rhetoric with its actions and for the rest of the Global South to embrace a model that has proven its resilience over time.
This report draws information from various sources, including coverage by India Today, which provided detailed insights into External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference.
