By — Apoorva Lakshmi Kaipa

Abstract

Dissent is not a disruption of democracy but is its core value. It supports deliberation, accountability and progress. This article explores why dissent remains essential in today’s world and how it deepens the richness of democratic life. Drawing on historical and modern conditions, it argues that while dissent is formally protected, it has increasingly been neutralised through procedural, cultural and administrative practices.

Introduction

Dissent is a defining feature of democracy. Protest, criticism, and disagreement are regarded as the signs of a healthy political system. However, in practice, dissent appears to be peculiarly hollow. It is visible and widely circulated, but rarely creates a difference or brings anything new to the table. As DY Chandrachud has stated, “Dissent is the safety valve of a democracy”. A safety valve keeps a machine functioning by managing the internal pressure, not by changing its structure. Dissent, similarly, also currently risks being seen as something to be tolerated so long as it does not fundamentally disturb the current operations of power. Democratic systems acknowledge dissent, allow it space and even celebrate it symbolically, all while ensuring it creates the least amount of disruption. Dissent has been everywhere, but its effects and consequences are limited. Analysing this gap helps us understand that democracy does not survive on agreement alone but on the ability to absorb, respond, and learn from disagreements.

Dissent’s Role in Democracy

In the past, democracy has served a clear purpose; its legitimacy lies in the citizens’ participation and public justification of power. It exposes the injustices faced and forces the people in power to publicly justify their decisions. Hirschman, in “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty” distinguishes between exit (withdrawal) and voice (internal contestation). He described dissent as a voice and defined it as expressing discontent through public actions like protests or pressure for change. He situated dissent as a reform-oriented democratic mechanism. A mechanism that facilitates citizens to express dissatisfaction without exiting the system entirely. Arendt similarly contended that democratic action and political plurality rely on public contestation and active participation rather than mere passive agreement. Across multiple movements like the civil rights, freedom from colonial powers and labour; dissent has been a clear denominator that expanded the boundaries of political participation and redefined what democracy could include. In this sense, dissent is not a disruption of democracy but a way of deepening it by making those in power answerable to the people who gave them the power.

How dissent currently functions

In contemporary democracies, dissent stays constitutionally protected but has increasingly been bureaucratized. Protests have to be permitted, criticism is aired, and grievances have to be recorded. While these acts in isolation are not inherently harmful, when seen together, are often disconnected from meaningful political response. Scholars have noted how dissent is acknowledged without being acted upon. Pankaj Mishra has argued that political systems acknowledge popular anger without addressing the structural conditions that produce it, which creates frustration rather than reform. Arundhati Roy had similarly observed that while dissent is acknowledged symbolically, it is usually constrained when it challenges existing power structures. This results in a form of democratic participation where expression is allowed, but the disruption that follows it is delegitimised. Dissent becomes something to be contained rather than something to be engaged with critically.

Why democracy requires dissent

Consensus provides stability, but is that what democracy really needs to sustain itself? Democracy needs disagreement to remain accountable; democratic theory does not treat stability as its prevalent value. Political theorist Chantal Mouffe, through her theory of Agonistic Pluralism, for example, argues that democratic politics is, and should be, the site of ongoing contestation among legitimate adversaries, rather than final agreement, for the simple reason that power that is unchallenged becomes opaque and unresponsive. Dissent is essential to democracy because it allows marginalised voices that are absent from formal modes of governance to question and reshape political decisions, and is the direct counter to a merely managerial approach to decision-making. Similarly, Amartya Sen has argued that public reasoning is central to democratic life, and emphasised that dissent in democracy is a process that is not concerned with finding consensus, but rather with the community that uses the tools of discourse to face disagreements to achieve a just, civil, and peaceful democracy.

Conclusion

While dissent has not completely disappeared in recent times, it has been reshaped by the people and their institutions. While dissent is visible, it is increasingly being constrained and permitted in form rather than opinionated. Disagreements are acknowledged without consequence, without giving a response or justification, which risks turning democracy into a performative act rather than a sustained relay of practice. The question should never be whether dissent is allowed, but whether it has the capacity to influence decision-making power. When dissent is permitted without impact, it reveals a gap between democratic participation and responsiveness. A democracy that no longer learns from dissent risks losing its capacity for self-correction, which would.

About the author

Apoorva is a second-year student at JGLS majoring in business administration and law. She is an avid reader and artist, actively trying to incorporate creative fields into her everyday work.

Image Source: https://indianliberals.in/hi/content/diversity-democracy-and-dissent/