When Government Becomes the State
Mohammad Ajeeb
Bradford: In a healthy democracy, criticising a government is not an act of disloyalty to the state. It is one of the essential mechanisms through which citizens hold those in power accountable, challenge public policy and contribute to better governance. Yet, across both developing and developed countries, an increasingly troubling tendency has emerged: criticism of an incumbent government is portrayed as an attack on the state itself.
This distinction matters. Governments change; states endure. When the two are deliberately conflated, criticism of those temporarily entrusted with political power can be portrayed as treason, extremism or a threat to national security. The result is not a stronger government or a stronger state, but a weakening of democratic accountability.
Political theory traditionally makes a clear distinction between the state and the government. The state is the enduring political and institutional entity comprising a territory, population and the institutions and constitutional arrangements through which public authority is exercised.
Governments, by contrast, are temporary administrations entrusted with managing the affairs of the state for a particular period.
In a democracy, governments derive their authority from the people and are expected to remain subject to scrutiny. Citizens have the right to question their decisions, challenge their policies and demand their removal through constitutional and electoral processes.
Criticism of an undemocratic government or its policies is therefore not necessarily criticism of the state. When this distinction is erased, however, dissent can be redefined as anti-state activity. Political leaders may then present loyalty to themselves, their party or their administration as synonymous with patriotism.
Read More: This creates a dangerous political equation: criticism of the government becomes criticism of the nation, and opposition becomes disloyalty.
The broader international picture provides grounds for concern. According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2025 assessment, global freedom declined for the 19th consecutive year in 2024. The organisation reported deterioration in political rights and civil liberties in 60 countries, compared with improvements in 34.
The erosion of freedom of expression is particularly significant. The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute has identified freedom of expression as one of the areas most affected by the global democratic decline. Its assessments have highlighted deterioration in media freedom, freedom of discussion and protections for journalists.
V-Dem reported that freedom of expression was deteriorating in 44 countries in 2024, approximately a quarter of the countries in the world and the highest number recorded in its assessments.
Media freedom has also come under sustained pressure. These developments matter because an independent press and an open public sphere are among the principal mechanisms through which citizens can scrutinise those who exercise political power.
When criticism is increasingly treated as a threat rather than as a component of democratic life, the space for public debate inevitably contracts.
The conflation of government and state is not merely a rhetorical phenomenon. It can be reinforced through legislation.
National-security, anti-terrorism and public-order laws can provide governments with extensive powers of investigation, arrest and detention. Although such laws may have legitimate purposes in protecting citizens from genuine threats, their application becomes problematic when exceptional powers are used against peaceful political opposition, journalists, activists or civil-society organisations.
India provides one example frequently raised by international human-rights organisations.
Critics have argued that legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), provisions relating to national security and restrictions on foreign funding have been used in ways that place significant pressure on activists, journalists, students and civil-society groups.
Read More: Similar concerns have been raised in Pakistan and Bangladesh. V-Dem has classified India, Pakistan and Bangladesh among countries experiencing forms of electoral authoritarianism. Pakistan has also introduced amendments to its Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), including changes enacted in January 2025 that expanded the state’s powers over online content and imposed additional legal consequences for certain forms of expression.
The details and legal contexts differ from country to country. But the underlying concern is similar: laws designed to address exceptional threats can become instruments for controlling ordinary political disagreement.
When peaceful dissent is prosecuted under provisions intended for terrorism, national security or other exceptional threats, the message to society is clear: speak within officially acceptable boundaries or risk serious consequences.
The consequences extend beyond the individuals directly targeted.
A functioning democracy depends on criticism because governments are not infallible. Public officials make mistakes. Policies produce unintended consequences. Institutions fail. Corruption occurs. Citizens possess information that governments may not have. Journalists, opposition parties, academics, civil-society organisations and ordinary citizens can identify problems that those in power may overlook, or prefer not to see.
Suppressing criticism removes this feedback mechanism.
When institutional channels for peaceful dissent are closed, corruption can go unchallenged, policy errors can persist and public trust can decline. Citizens may become reluctant to participate in political life, while civil society becomes weaker and the public sphere narrower.
The political consequences can be even more serious. If citizens are denied peaceful and legitimate avenues for challenging those in power, political conflict may become increasingly polarised. The choice can begin to appear to be between enforced conformity on one side and extra-institutional opposition on the other.
That environment can provide fertile ground for extremism and political violence. Suppressing peaceful dissent does not necessarily eliminate opposition; it can instead remove the democratic channels through which opposition might otherwise be expressed.
This raises a broader question about the direction in which democratic governance is moving.
Read More: Democracy is based, at least in part, on the principle of collective wisdom. No individual leader possesses all the answers. Good governance depends upon competing ideas, open debate, institutional checks and the ability of citizens to challenge those who exercise authority.
Authoritarian systems operate on a fundamentally different premise: political truth and direction are increasingly concentrated in a leader, ruling party or dominant ideology.
The conflation of government with the state helps facilitate this shift. If the government is presented as the embodiment of the nation, then opposition can be portrayed not as a legitimate part of democratic politics but as an attack on the country itself.
The danger lies not only in the laws that criminalise dissent, but also in the political language that makes such laws appear legitimate.
The global decline in democratic freedoms does not mean that every country is following an identical path toward authoritarianism. Nor does it mean that democratic institutions have disappeared everywhere. But the repeated use of legal and political mechanisms to restrict criticism, weaken independent media and constrain civil society points to a wider challenge confronting democratic governance.
The distinction between state and government is therefore far more than a matter of political terminology. It is fundamental to democratic accountability.
A government is entrusted with power; it does not own the state. Its policies can be challenged. Its decisions can be criticised. Its leaders can be opposed. And, in a democracy, citizens must be able to demand political change without being branded enemies of their own country.
A strong state does not fear criticism. On the contrary, its institutions are strengthened when citizens can expose wrongdoing, challenge poor policies and demand accountability without fear of arbitrary punishment.
The author is former Lord Mayor of Bradford UK.
The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.
