Are We Witnessing End of Right-Wing Political Dominance?
Democracy prevents any political party from holding power permanently.
Dr Noour Ali Zehgeer
Elections are more than exercises in choosing governments. At critical moments, they signal that societies have run out of patience. They expose the widening gap between those who wield power and those who must live with the consequences of that power.
Elections remain the strongest instrument of democracy, providing citizens with a peaceful mechanism to reward performance, demand accountability, and shape the future of their nations. Yet across parts of Asia, concerns are increasingly being raised about the integrity and fairness of the electoral process. In countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, political opponents, civil society groups, and independent observers have at times questioned whether state institutions are being used to influence electoral outcomes. Allegations often centre on the role of election commissions, state agencies, media influence, and, in some cases, military establishments. Whether justified or not, such perceptions can be as damaging as the reality itself because public trust is the foundation upon which democratic legitimacy rests.
A democracy does not weaken only when votes are manipulated. It weakens when citizens begin to believe that the outcome has been predetermined, that institutions are no longer neutral, and that accountability applies selectively. When faith in the electoral process erodes, polarisation deepens, public cynicism grows, and democratic institutions become increasingly fragile.
The challenge facing many democracies today is therefore not merely conducting elections, but ensuring that they are seen as free, fair, transparent, and independent. Ultimately, the strength of a democracy is measured not by how often people vote, but by how much confidence they have that their vote genuinely matters.
The political landscape is shifting. Hungary voted out Viktor Orbán after 16 years, dealing a setback to the nationalist model Donald Trump admires. Brazil’s re-election of Lula da Silva denied the Bolsonaro camp a comeback. In Serbia, a student-backed movement has challenged the ruling establishment. Meanwhile, Israel’s exceptionally high turnout has sharpened the contest over Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, though turnout alone does not determine the outcome. These developments are not identical, nor do they necessarily indicate a uniform ideological shift. Yet taken together, they raise an important question: are voters beginning to revolt against the arrogance of prolonged political dominance?
Netanyahu presents a revealing paradox. Israel’s longest-serving leader, with 19 years in office across multiple periods, is an unmatched political survivor. His right-wing coalition has divided Israeli society and deepened the country’s international isolation. Yet his resilience cannot be explained by popularity alone. Israel’s fragmented electoral system makes it difficult for a divided opposition to form a stable majority capable of dislodging his coalition. Political survival does not automatically signify public consensus; nor does an opposition’s failure to unite necessarily endorse the government.
Across South Asia, similar currents have taken different forms. Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya uprising challenged a powerful dynasty amid an economic collapse. Bangladesh witnessed a mass uprising against an increasingly authoritarian establishment, while Nepal’s Gen Z mobilisation reflected impatience with corruption, privilege and a system perceived as serving its own beneficiaries. Their causes and consequences differ, but the common thread is clear: younger citizens increasingly reject the idea that political elites have an unquestionable right to govern indefinitely.
The message extends beyond the developing world. Europe’s younger generations have increasingly confronted their governments over economic insecurity, the cost of living, housing, employment and prospects for a dignified future. Their anger is not necessarily left-wing in ideological terms. It often reflects a rejection of institutions and leaders who appear unable or unwilling to address everyday concerns.
The defining conflict may not be between the Right and the Left, but between entrenched power and an electorate demanding accountability.
India, too, faces these counter-currents. The ruling establishment retains substantial organisational strength and electoral influence, but dominance is not an unlimited mandate. Allegations of large-scale electoral manipulation demand transparent investigation and credible answers; without evidence, they cannot be treated as established fact. Electoral integrity is too fundamental to democracy to be reduced to partisan accusation and counter-accusation.
Unemployment, rising education costs, household economic stress and uncertainty about future opportunities weigh heavily on ordinary families. For young Indians, national resurgence means little if secure employment remains elusive, education becomes unaffordable, and advancement appears to depend on privilege rather than merit.
National pride can inspire a population, but it cannot indefinitely substitute for economic opportunity. Nor can appeals to religious identity, nationalism or a leader’s strength permanently insulate a government from questions about jobs, prices, public services and institutional accountability.
The same challenge confronts Trump in the United States. The November mid-term elections will test his administration’s standing, though their outcome should not be taken for granted. Even formidable political movements are vulnerable when voters question whether promises align with lived experience. Right-wing movements have prospered by addressing anxieties about national identity, immigration, security, cultural change and economic dislocation. Many of these concerns are genuine; their appeal cannot be dismissed as ignorance or prejudice. The danger arises when anxieties are weaponised for permanent mobilisation, opponents are portrayed as enemies, institutions are weakened and criticism is treated as disloyalty.
Such politics can consolidate power in the short term. Over time, polarisation narrows the scope for compromise, while concentrated authority weakens checks on abuse. When governments depend on a leader’s personality rather than institutional credibility, political stability becomes hostage to that individual’s fortunes. Yet it is premature to declare the imminent collapse of right-wing dominance. Orbán’s defeat does not erase the forces he embodied; Lula’s success does not settle Brazil’s ideological contest. Student movements may topple governments without coherent programmes. In Israel, opposition fragmentation shows how electoral arithmetic can preserve a leader amid controversy. Change is rarely linear, and defeating one government guarantees neither a more democratic nor a more competent alternative.
The greater significance lies in citizens’ growing assertiveness, particularly among the young. They challenge the assumption that the generation currently in power has an unquestioned right to determine the world they will inherit.
But protest is only the beginning. Anger must become ideas, credible movements, alternative electoral victories and accountable administration. Replacing one entrenched elite with another would reproduce the system people seek to change. Youth alone does not guarantee good governance; competence, integrity, respect for institutions and accountability remain indispensable.
Older leaders must recognise that experience does not confer permanent ownership of the future. Democratic renewal requires fresh leadership, openness to criticism, and institutions strong enough to operate independently of individuals. Entrenched governments face a clear choice: reform, renew and remain responsive, or risk rejection at the ballot box. No ideology, however successful, is immune to public scrutiny.
Perhaps the world is not turning uniformly to the Left. It may instead be turning against political arrogance, complacency and the belief that electoral victory grants an indefinite licence to rule.
Democracy prevents any political party from holding power permanently. It gives citizens the right to reconsider their choices, challenge authority and change their governments.
The real question is not whether the Right will disappear. It is whether any political establishment can keep dominating once it stops listening to the people it claims to represent.
One factual fix: Lula was the sitting president when he won on October 25, so “Brazil’s return to Lula” has been changed to “Brazil’s re-election of Lula”. The other changes are minor punctuation.
(STRAIGHT TALK COMMUNICATIONS)
