SubscriberWrites: When we talk about democracy, but play a different game entirely

A look at populist stories from Trump and Rahul Gandhi

File photos of Rahul Gandhi (left) and Donald Trump (right) | PTI/Reuters

Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.

Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/

Introduction: That Quiet Feeling Something’s Off

These days, it feels like the loudest voices in politics aren’t necessarily the wisest. Whether it’s a sharply dressed speaker at a rally in the U.S. or someone in a kurta waving the tricolor, the noise around “the will of the people” seems to echo everywhere. But here’s the uncomfortable bit — that same noise is often used to drown out something much deeper: a slow erosion of democratic spirit.

What sparked this piece is a personal discomfort. I started seeing eerie parallels between Donald Trump and Rahul Gandhi. No, not in their ideologies or the systems they live in — but in how both seem to wear the mask of populism, claim to defend democracy, and yet might be slowly chipping away at it.

1. Populism: All Talk, Little Substance

Populist leaders usually start with a promise to clean up the mess — to fix the Constitution, bring back “the voice of the people”, or reset broken institutions. Trump told Americans he would “drain the swamp” and take down the elite. Rahul Gandhi, despite being part of India’s most well-known political family, casts himself as the underdog taking on authoritarianism.

But what happens next is telling. They frame everything as a personal moral battle. They point fingers at institutions when things don’t go their way. And somehow, they manage to sidestep real, structural reforms. It’s all about emotion — and “the people” — but the game is often rigged in their favor.

2. Trump’s America: Playing Fast and Loose with the Constitution

For Trump, democracy often felt like a performance — one where he starred as the disruptor. He claimed loyalty to the Constitution, but then came the 2020 election chaos, the court battles, the war on the press. He didn’t just challenge institutions — he tried to bend them.

What drew people to him was emotion: nationalism, fear, pride. But that emotional energy divided the country deeply. And despite speaking of the Constitution, Trump often acted like it was in his way — not something he was sworn to uphold.

3. Rahul Gandhi’s India: Sympathy Over Strategy

Rahul’s journey is different, of course. India is a vastly different terrain. But there’s a pattern. After multiple electoral setbacks, Rahul has been repackaged — no longer just a dynast, but a wounded warrior. A misunderstood man of the people.

And yes, questioning power is essential in any democracy. But what’s troubling is the lack of engagement with actual institutional processes. Rahul’s politics often feel too emotional, reactive, and slogan-driven. The result? Less space for serious policy talk, more space for spectacle.

4. What Happens When Institutions Are Left Behind

Here’s the shared danger: when leaders sideline institutions, democracy doesn’t collapse overnight. It drifts. Slowly. Trump valued personal loyalty over law. Rahul often seems more interested in public sympathy than party-building or strategic opposition.

In both cases, the middle ground — where real democratic work happens — is disappearing. No room for patient dialogue. No effort to respect slow, difficult processes. Just a rush to ride the next emotional wave.

5. Democracy Isn’t a Stage Performance

Performing democracy is easy. Living it is hard.

True democracy means compromise, legal checks, independent institutions, and the messy grind of governance. Leaders who skip these steps — even if they claim to be defending democracy — may be weakening it instead.

Both Trump and Rahul offer dramatic, emotion-driven leadership. They draw crowds, stir debate, and push narratives. But neither seems to invest enough in the hard, thankless work of institutional rebuilding or long-term policy thinking.

6. When Charisma Becomes a Trap

We’re surrounded by charismatic leaders. But democracy needs more than charm. It needs responsibility.

Rahul’s image as an emotional savior could make him the sole symbol of Congress — and that’s dangerous. It isolates him from critique. Similarly, Trump’s iron grip over the Republican base made even his own party afraid to speak up, even when he crossed clear lines.

Populism, when centered on personality, often ends up silencing the very institutions it claims to defend.

7. Democracy Is More Than Just a Feeling

Let’s not confuse warm intentions with solid systems.

Just because a leader speaks of love or empathy doesn’t mean they’re strengthening democracy. Institutions matter. Consistency matters. The rule of law matters. Rahul may not be as reckless as Trump, but that doesn’t mean his version of populism is harmless.

If public trust is based only on emotional connection — rather than systems we can rely on — we’re building democracy on sand, not stone.

Conclusion: The Real Threat Comes Quietly

This isn’t a “good guy vs. bad guy” story.

It’s about a shared style — one that speaks the language of democracy but acts like it’s just another campaign strategy. Both India and the U.S. are proud democracies. But the quiet weakening of institutions, the fading of real debate, and the glorification of emotional leadership — these are slow poisons.

If we care about democracy, we have to look past the speeches and the rallies. We have to ask: Are our leaders strengthening institutions, or just starring in political theatre?

The answer may not be loud, but it matters more than ever.

Author’s Note:

This essay doesn’t claim Trump and Rahul Gandhi are ideologically alike or politically equal. It’s about a common thread — populism that plays on emotions, sidelines institutions, and performs democracy rather than practicing it. Because real democracy isn’t about how leaders make us feel — it’s about the systems we trust to keep them in check.

These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.