What’s the Role of Opposition in National Security?

Why the Opposition Doesn’t Have to Support the Government During a Crisis

June 12, 2025

India–Pakistan tensions remain in the news more than a month after a ceasefire or agreement was reached. Despite the end of direct hostilities, Operation Sindoor continues, and the ruling party has sent a delegation abroad to lobby foreign governments to pressure Pakistan. Interestingly, this delegation includes members of the opposition. It might seem intuitive that the government deserves full support from all sides in matters of national security—but political science suggests otherwise.

First and foremost, there’s a distinction between the “state” and the “government.” The state is the permanent machinery, including the Constitution, the army, the judiciary and civil services, while the government is the temporary political party in charge.

Loyalty to the “state” is expected from all citizens, including the opposition. But loyalty to the “government” is not required, and in many cases, it is precisely because of loyalty to the state that opposition parties must resist the government. For instance, if a government uses a military operation as a cover to crack down on journalists or minorities, opposition leaders would rightly see it as their duty to speak out.

Even during moments of military action or diplomatic pressure, democracies are not meant to suspend scrutiny.

During the United States’ wars in Vietnam (1965–1973) and Iraq (2003–2011), the opposition did not cease to question the administration’s motives, casualties or evidence. In the U.K., Margaret Thatcher faced pointed debates during the 1982 Falklands War. During the Kargil conflict in 1999, India’s opposition criticised the intelligence failures that led to the incursion, even while largely supporting the armed response.

The idea that national security should trump politics, and that the opposition should “wait” until after the crisis to raise its concerns, has been challenged by political thinkers for decades.

Carl Schmitt, a German legal theorist writing in the early 20th century, argued that in times of perceived emergency, governments often declare a “state of exception” to suspend regular constitutional rules and justify extraordinary powers. This allows the executive to bypass normal democratic checks—such as legislative oversight, judicial review or civil freedoms—by claiming that the crisis requires swift, unchallenged action. Schmitt warned that this mechanism could be abused, enabling authoritarian control under the guise of protecting the state, especially when the definition of an “emergency” is left to the rulers themselves.

Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional scholar, also warned that democracies often erode not through dramatic coups or sudden breakdowns, but through a gradual build-up of emergency powers that become normalised over time, just as it happened in Sri Lanka during and after the government’s war on the Tamil Tigers. Ackerman argued that when governments repeatedly invoke crises to expand executive authority, often with public support or silence from the opposition, it creates a slow shift away from democratic accountability.

If the opposition holds back from challenging the government during each declared or undeclared emergency, it risks letting temporary powers, such as expanded surveillance, restrictions on speech, curbs on protests and bypassing legislative scrutiny, harden into permanent ones, leaving no clear point at which resistance is seen as legitimate.

Political scientist and theorist Samuel Huntington noted that regimes often invoke external enemies to unify the domestic population and suppress dissent.

In India’s case, the “rally-round-the-flag” effect—where public support for the leadership rises temporarily during a crisis—is clearly visible. Criticism of Operation Sindoor or the government’s handling of the India–Pakistan tensions is being portrayed as disloyalty. This pattern is familiar. Governments often gain short-term popularity during periods of conflict, but that boost should not be mistaken for sound or ethical decision-making.

Imagine a government as the CEO and senior managers of a company, and the parliament, which includes the opposition, as the company’s board of directors. Now suppose the company is facing a serious lawsuit from a competitor. The CEO might ask everyone to show unity and support the company’s position. But if some board members believe the CEO’s decisions triggered the crisis, they are supposed to ask hard questions and make sure the company is being run responsibly. Their duty is to protect the company’s future, not the CEO’s public image.

When all political forces are expected to agree during wartime or a crisis, it signals a shift from inclusive nationalism, where different voices help strengthen the country, to exclusionary nationalism, where only one voice is allowed and anyone who disagrees is treated as a traitor.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.