Elections in large-sized states are universally accepted as the watchword of democracy. A country that does not hold periodic elections and removes its rulers from power through the instrumentality of elections based on universal adult franchise does not qualify as democratic under the present circumstances. The paper argues that the institution of elections – widely held as the lifeblood of democracy under modern conditions whether in India or elsewhere – is produced through what Giorgio Agamben calls ‘a state of exception’ while paradoxically ‘safeguarding’ it. As he puts it:

Viewed in this light, it is a study not so much of elections being the illuminated face of our democracy but of the dark face that is hidden by it. Yet the very suspension of electoral rules and norms makes the conduct of ‘normal’ elections possible, gives credence to them as an institution and thereby strengthens the foundations of our democracy. The term ‘suspension’ is used here in three relatively distinguishable senses of the sovereign state deciding first not to apply the laws, rules and norms that it has otherwise set for itself, second, to apply them in a way that infringes on what Montesquieu calls, the ‘spirit’ of laws and third, that disarticulates the moral community.