The pattern of championing democracy while in opposition but resorting to coercive measures after coming to power has characterised successive governments in Andhra Pradesh. During its five-year tenure, the TDP government, the first government after the bifurcation of the state, adopted a hostile approach towards opposition parties, civil society organisations and employees, frequently cracking down on their protests and agitations. The present TDP-led alliance government has taken this approach further.

A recent example was the police crackdown on Village and Ward Secretariat employees on September 27. The employees were protesting to demand the resolution of their pending issues. According to their representatives, the government sought to prevent the 'Chalo Vijayawada' programme by intercepting participants in their villages, making preventive arrests, suspending union leaders and issuing threats.

In Vijayawada, police reportedly resorted to lathi charge and behaved abusively towards women employees. The decision to file cases against 46 employees, without holding consultations with the staff concerned, has also drawn criticism. Reports further indicate that district officials were directed to identify those who participated in the protest.

Another protest in Vijayawada by candidates and YSRCP supporters, demanding a comprehensive inquiry into alleged irregularities in the sports quota during the Mega District Selection Committee (DSC) recruitment process and seeking redress for the alleged injustice, also turned tense. The police crackdown and alleged assaults on the protesting candidates have been criticised. Counter protests, confrontations and the mobilisation of ruling party supporters, rather than dialogue, risk escalating tensions and diverting attention from the issues raised by the candidates. A similar show of strength by ruling party supporters in Kurnool was followed by police action against unemployed youth protesting over alleged irregularities in the recruitment process.

In Kakinada, youth were protesting for the filling of what they said were around 20,000 police vacancies, citing the government's announcement of recruitment for only 1,600 posts under the Job Calendar. The preventive arrests of CPI(M), SFI and DYFI leaders who supported the protest, along with the filing of cases and binding over proceedings, have drawn criticism. A case was also reportedly registered against a coaching centre operator.

Police also reportedly cracked down on displaced persons affected by the Veligonda project who were protesting at the Collectorate, seeking fair compensation, relief and rehabilitation. The protesters faced arrests and lathi charge. CPI(M) leaders and representatives of various people's organisations were reportedly placed under house arrest from the day before the chief minister’s scheduled visit to inaugurate the project.

In another incident, paramedical students returning from a peaceful protest in Tirupati, where they were demanding an increase in their stipend, were allegedly attacked and arrested by police. Cases were also reportedly registered against SFI, DYFI and other people’s organisation leaders and activists who supported the agitation.

In Paderu, tribal students, their parents and representatives of tribal organisations and the KVPS were subjected to police action while protesting against the abrupt removal of a residential school in Marikavalasa to make way for a proposed centre of excellence. The police action against the protesters has also drawn criticism from tribal organisations.

In Eluru district, CPI(M) leaders and activists have alleged harassment through the opening of rowdy sheets against them. Police also reportedly took action during the ‘jail bharo’ protest held on August 10 against the central government’s policies concerning employees, workers and farmers.

Taken together, these incidents have raised concerns among opposition parties and people’s organisations over what they describe as increasing restrictions on democratic protests and dissent in the state. While police departments can impose restrictions on public gatherings, rallies and meetings for limited periods and in specific areas when circumstances warrant, critics argue that prolonged restrictions in Vijayawada, Amaravati and other parts of the state have become a recurring feature under successive YSRCP and TDP governments.

In a democracy, public opinion can be expressed through protests, agitations, representations and questioning of government policies. Governments, irrespective of which party is in power, are expected to respond to such grievances through dialogue and established democratic processes.

Suppressing protests or discouraging dissenting views can undermine democratic participation. Similarly, expecting opposition parties and people's organisations not to agitate against government policies risks weakening the space for political and public debate.

Every time the chief minister visits a particular area, CPI(M) leaders and activists have alleged that they are placed under house arrest or taken into preventive custody until the programme concludes. The CPI(M) has also alleged that the TDP led alliance government is unwilling to face questions on public issues, including the grievances of displaced persons affected by projects such as Veligonda and Polavaram.

The issue ultimately concerns the broader responsibility of elected governments to respect democratic rights and allow citizens and organisations to raise grievances peacefully. Both the previous YSRCP government and the present TDP-led alliance government face criticism on this issue, while the people have the responsibility of holding governments accountable for their conduct in power.