VIEWPOINT: When Party Supremacy Undermines the People’s Mandate
Farooq Abdullah, Aga Syed Ruhullah and the Larger Question of Democratic Accountability
Ahmad Ayaz
Democracy rests on a simple but fundamental principle: the people are sovereign, and the mandate they confer through the ballot box belongs to them—not to a political party, its leadership or any individual politician.
Political parties are indispensable to representative democracy. They nominate candidates, provide organisational support, mobilise workers, formulate policies and seek votes. But once an election is over and a candidate is declared elected, the nature of that relationship changes. The candidate is no longer merely a party nominee; he becomes a representative of the people who elected him.
It is in this context that the ongoing confrontation between National Conference president Farooq Abdullah and Lok Sabha member Aga Syed Ruhullah assumes significance far beyond an internal disagreement within a political party.
At its core, the controversy raises a fundamental democratic question: who does an elected representative ultimately represent—the electorate that elected him or the party leadership that gave him the ticket?
It also raises another: can a political party demand the resignation of a directly elected representative simply because he disagrees with its leadership? And can an elected representative be expected to surrender a mandate entrusted to him by the people merely to resolve an internal party dispute?
These are not merely questions about Farooq Abdullah or Aga Syed Ruhullah. They concern the very nature of representative democracy.
The Ticket May Belong to the Party, But the Mandate Belongs to the People
There is a distinction political parties must never lose sight of:
The party gives the ticket; the people give the mandate.
A political party has every right to select its candidate and campaign for him. It can deploy its organisational machinery, formulate a campaign narrative and ask voters to support its nominee. But it cannot claim ownership of every vote cast by individual citizens.
Once elected, an MP or MLA derives his constitutional and democratic legitimacy from the electorate.
That does not place an elected representative above criticism. If Aga Syed Ruhullah has failed to perform his duties, failed to deliver on his commitments or acted contrary to the expectations of his constituents, the people have every right to hold him accountable. Ultimately, they can reject him at the next election.
That is democracy.
But asking a sitting elected representative to resign because he has disagreed with the party leadership is fundamentally different. It risks establishing a troubling principle: that an elected representative is accountable first to the party hierarchy and only afterwards to the electorate.
That cannot be allowed to become the norm in a functioning democracy.
If Every Vote Belonged to the NC, What Happened to Omar Abdullah?
The argument that electoral victories are essentially the property of political parties also becomes difficult to sustain when examined against Jammu and Kashmir’s own electoral record.
If every vote secured by a National Conference candidate were simply a National Conference vote, one would expect the party’s most prominent candidates to enjoy overwhelming support wherever they contested.
The 2024 Lok Sabha election demonstrated otherwise.
National Conference vice-president Omar Abdullah, son of Farooq Abdullah, contested the Baramulla constituency but was defeated by independent candidate Engineer Rashid by 2,04,142 votes. Omar Abdullah polled 2,68,339 votes, while Engineer Rashid secured 4,72,481.
The scale of that defeat is significant.
If party affiliation alone determined the outcome, how could one of the National Conference’s most prominent leaders lose so decisively in the very election in which the party won other seats?
The answer is obvious: voters do not vote mechanically.
They may vote for a party. They may vote for a candidate. They may vote on an issue, performance, personality or political sentiment. They may even vote against a particular party.
The voter is therefore not an extension of the party organisation.
The same political reality was visible in Budgam, where the National Conference lost the Assembly bypoll after Omar Abdullah vacated the seat. The People’s Democratic Party’s Aga Syed Muntazir defeated the National Conference candidate Aga Syed Mahmood by 4,478 votes.
The result demonstrated once again that a party may influence voters, but it cannot own their votes.
This is precisely why Aga Syed Ruhullah’s parliamentary mandate cannot simply be treated as the property of the National Conference.
If the party believes its organisational support alone was responsible for his victory, there is a straightforward democratic way to test that proposition:
Let the people decide.
Party Discipline Cannot Mean Blind Obedience
There is, of course, a legitimate place for party discipline.
Political parties cannot function if every member disregards every organisational decision. Parties have constitutions, rules and internal mechanisms, and their members are expected to respect them.
But party discipline cannot mean blind obedience.
Democracy requires space for disagreement. Political parties become stronger when they can accommodate differing views, not when they suppress them.
If Aga Syed Ruhullah has disagreed with the National Conference leadership, the first question should be whether his concerns were heard.
Were his arguments discussed?
Was an attempt made to resolve the disagreement through dialogue?
Was he given an opportunity to explain his position within the party?
If the response to political disagreement is simply a demand for resignation, then the issue goes beyond party discipline. It becomes a question of internal democracy.
The Real Test of Internal Democracy
The National Conference is one of Jammu and Kashmir’s oldest and most influential political organisations. Its history is closely associated with the political aspirations of the people of the region. That history also places a special responsibility on the party to demonstrate democratic behaviour within its own organisation.
The real test of internal democracy is not when everyone agrees with the leadership.
The real test comes when someone disagrees.
Can a senior elected representative question the leadership?
Can a party member raise uncomfortable issues?
Can an MP take a position different from that of the party president?
Can dissent exist without immediately being labelled disloyalty?
These are legitimate questions in any democratic organisation.
A party that demands accountability from governments must also demonstrate accountability within its own ranks.
Loyalty to a political party should not mean permanent agreement with its leadership. A healthy democratic organisation must be capable of accommodating dissent without treating every disagreement as rebellion.
Aga Syed Ruhullah Has the Right to Disagree—But Also a Duty to Explain
Defending the democratic mandate of Aga Syed Ruhullah does not mean placing him beyond scrutiny.
Quite the opposite.
An elected representative carries a greater responsibility precisely because he enjoys a public mandate.
If he disagrees with the National Conference leadership, he must explain why. If he believes the party has departed from its commitments, he should present his arguments publicly. If he believes his position reflects the aspirations of his constituents, he should demonstrate that through sustained engagement with the people.
A mandate is not a personal possession. It is a responsibility entrusted by voters.
Therefore, if Aga Syed Ruhullah ultimately decides to resign, that decision should be his own democratic choice—not the consequence of pressure to surrender an elected mandate merely to settle an internal party disagreement.
If he believes returning to the people is the appropriate course, he can seek a fresh mandate.
And if he does, the people—not the party leadership—should have the final word.
Farooq Abdullah Is Not the Electorate
Farooq Abdullah has every democratic right to disagree with Aga Syed Ruhullah. He can criticise him, challenge his political position and defend the National Conference’s organisational or ideological line.
But there is a fundamental distinction between being the president of a political party and being the electorate.
Farooq Abdullah cannot substitute himself for the voters who elected Aga Syed Ruhullah.
If he believes Ruhullah has lost public confidence, the democratic answer is not for the party leadership to pronounce that verdict.
Let the voters decide.
If Aga Syed Ruhullah has lost their confidence, they will reject him.
If he continues to enjoy their confidence, that too is the voters’ decision.
The ballot box remains the ultimate democratic judge.
What Happens to the Voter?
Perhaps the most striking aspect of this controversy is that the voter risks becoming an afterthought.
Political leaders are debating. The party leadership is taking positions. Aga Syed Ruhullah is defending his position.
But what about the people who actually cast the votes?
What about the ordinary citizen who stood in a queue on polling day, pressed a button and exercised a constitutional right?
Did that voter surrender his democratic authority to the party president?
Or did he choose a representative whom he believed would speak for him?
The answer may vary from voter to voter. But that is precisely the point.
The vote is an individual democratic choice.
A party cannot reasonably assume that every vote received by its candidate was exclusively a vote for the party.
Electoral outcomes themselves demonstrate that voters can distinguish between a party and its candidates.
One Vote Is Not a Party Asset
The strength of democracy lies in the equality and independence of the vote.
The vote of an ordinary citizen carries the same democratic value as that of a political heavyweight. Millions of such individual choices collectively determine who represents the people.
When citizens vote for Aga Syed Ruhullah, they do not surrender their democratic authority to the National Conference president. They entrust representation to the person they have chosen.
That trust can be withdrawn—but ultimately by the people.
Not by political leaders acting as substitutes for the electorate.
A Dangerous Precedent
The present controversy also carries a wider danger.
Today the issue concerns Aga Syed Ruhullah. Tomorrow it could concern another MP. The day after, an MLA.
If resignation becomes the standard response whenever an elected representative disagrees with the party leadership, representatives will gradually become reluctant to speak independently.
They will hesitate before criticising their own party.
They will think twice before raising uncomfortable questions.
They will fear that challenging the leadership could cost them their political position.
The result would be a legislature increasingly populated by representatives who are elected by the people but remain politically dependent on party bosses.
That would be deeply unhealthy for democracy.
An elected representative must be able to listen to his party while also listening to his constituents.
The National Conference Must Look Inward
The National Conference should therefore use this episode as an opportunity for introspection.
If Aga Syed Ruhullah is wrong, explain why.
If his interpretation of party policy is incorrect, demonstrate it.
If he has violated party rules, follow due process.
If he has made a political mistake, debate it.
But disagreement should not automatically become disloyalty, and dissent should not automatically become grounds for demanding resignation.
The strength of a political party is not demonstrated by how effectively it silences internal critics.
It is demonstrated by how confidently it accommodates them.
Let the People Decide
There is a remarkably simple democratic principle that can resolve this controversy.
If Farooq Abdullah believes Aga Syed Ruhullah no longer enjoys public support, let the people decide.
If the National Conference believes its organisational support was the decisive factor in his election, let the party make that case before the electorate.
If Aga Syed Ruhullah believes he represents a political position that enjoys public support, let him make that case to the people.
Then let the people decide.
No party president, however experienced or influential, can provide a more legitimate democratic verdict than the electorate.
The Real Issue Is the Sanctity of the Vote
The confrontation between Farooq Abdullah and Aga Syed Ruhullah should not be reduced to a personality clash or an internal dispute within the National Conference.
The larger issue is the relationship between political parties, elected representatives and voters.
Political parties are instruments of democracy.
They are not the owners of democracy.
Party leaders are not the owners of electoral mandates.
And elected representatives are not owners of the votes that brought them to office.
Everyone remains accountable to the people.
If Aga Syed Ruhullah has failed, let the people reject him.
If he has performed well, let them support him.
If the National Conference has fulfilled its promises, let the people endorse it.
If it has failed, let the people hold it accountable.
That is democracy.
The People Must Have the Final Word
The lesson from this controversy should be clear.
The National Conference is not above the people.
Farooq Abdullah is not above the people.
Aga Syed Ruhullah is not above the people.
All derive their democratic legitimacy from the people.
A party can nominate a candidate. The leadership can guide the party. An elected representative can disagree with that leadership.
But the mandate created through the ballot box belongs to the electorate.
That is why the most important question in this entire episode is not who wins the political battle between Farooq Abdullah and Aga Syed Ruhullah.
The real question is whether the voter wins or loses.
If political calculations, party interests and leadership authority are allowed to override the choice made by citizens, then it is democracy itself that suffers.
The solution is neither complicated nor partisan:
Respect the vote. Respect the mandate. Respect dissent. Hold elected representatives accountable—but let the people decide.
Political parties may give tickets, but they cannot claim ownership of the votes.
Political leaders may demand accountability, but they cannot replace the electorate.
And elected representatives may invoke the people’s mandate, but they must remain accountable to the same people who gave it to them.
In the end, one principle must remain non-negotiable:
The ticket belongs to the party. The mandate belongs to the people. And the final verdict belongs to the voter.
(STRAIGHT TALK COMMUNICATIONS EXCLUSIVE. The author is a columnist. He can be reached at ahmadayaz08@gmsil.com.)
