Power, Policy, and Perception:

By  Sashi Sekhar Samanta|
When Influence Begins to Rewrite the Rules
In any democracy, power must be exercised within clear limits. Laws are meant to be uniform, institutions impartial, and governance transparent. Yet public perception across India—and increasingly in Odisha—suggests a growing discomfort: that certain influential individuals and corporate-linked networks appear to shape government rules to suit their interests. This discomfort is not born out of ideology alone. It is born out of repeated policy shifts, regulatory relaxations, and administrative decisions that appear to favour the powerful—while ordinary citizens struggle with rigid rules, delays, and penalties. At the centre of recent public debate is Baijayant Panda, a prominent national leader from Odisha, whose political access, corporate associations, and policy proximity have drawn scrutiny—not in courts of law, but in the court of public opinion.
India’s governance challenge today is not individual dominance, but institutional imbalance. When lawmakers, corporate advisors, media platforms, and policy think tanks overlap too closely, boundaries blur. The concern many citizens express is this: Are policies drafted with equal distance from all stakeholders? Or do those with access shape outcomes before public debate even begins? When rules change swiftly for some but remain inflexible for others, trust erodes.
Corporate Power and Policy Proximity Modern governance requires engagement with industry. No serious economy can function without it. However, engagement must not turn into policy capture. Across sectors—environmental clearance, land use, digital regulation, industrial subsidies—critics argue that: rules are amended quietly ,compliance thresholds are diluted ,oversight mechanisms are softened ,public consultation is reduced to formality .When such changes coincide with the interests of powerful networks, perception becomes as damaging as proof. In a democracy, perception matters.
Odisha has a long history of resource extraction, industrialisation, and displacement debates. People here are acutely sensitive to how decisions are made. When national leaders from the state gain influence in Delhi, citizens expect: stronger protection of local interests , greater transparency ,ethical distance from corporate advantage ,Instead, many feel excluded from the conversation entirely. The result is not outrage—it is quiet suspicion, which is far more corrosive.
Rule-Making vs Rule-Bending There is a critical distinction between changing rules through democratic process and bending rules through influence. Rule-making involves: parliamentary debate ,stakeholder consultation ,judicial oversight ,public accountability .
Rule-bending happens when:policies are reinterpreted selectively ,exceptions become norms ,enforcement varies by status ,accountability disappears into committees .Citizens cannot always prove the latter—but they experience its effects daily.
Media Power and Narrative Control Another concern often raised is the role of media and digital platforms in shaping public discourse around power. When critical voices are marginalised and favourable narratives amplified, citizens feel that: debate is managed ,dissent is discouraged ,scrutiny is selective. A healthy democracy requires not just free media—but fearless media.
Why This Matters to Ordinary People?  This is not an elite debate. It affects: farmers facing land acquisition , small businesses crushed by compliance ,students navigating rigid regulations ,citizens punished for minor violations. When rules soften for the powerful and harden for the powerless, law loses legitimacy.
Democracy does not collapse through coups—it erodes through exceptions. What Accountability Should Look Like , Public trust can be restored only through visible accountability: transparent disclosure of policy influence ,strict conflict-of-interest norms, independent regulatory bodies , parliamentary scrutiny of rule changes ,strong judicial review, Leaders with influence must welcome scrutiny—not resist it.Power earns legitimacy only when it accepts limits.
A Word on Responsibility Influential leaders often argue—correctly—that association is not wrongdoing and access is not abuse. That is true. But influence carries responsibility: to avoid even the appearance of impropriety , to maintain distance from corporate advantage ,to prioritise public interest over networks .Leadership is not just about power—it is about restraint.
Democracy Demands Distance from Power India does not suffer from lack of talent or leadership. It suffers from concentration of influence. The question before us is simple: Will governance remain a shared democratic process—or become an elite negotiation? Citizens do not demand perfection. They demand fairness. And fairness begins when rules apply equally—regardless of who you are, whom you know, or how powerful you become. That is not opposition. That is democracy doing its job.