Open Forum
New
Delhi, 27 November 2013
Election Campaign
DOWNGRADED TO WAR
OF WORDS
By Dr. S. Saraswathi
Hectic electioneering on a scale
never experienced so far in India
is being witnessed, months ahead of parliamentary elections 2014. Campaigning in
the five States for Assembly polls have been organized by all parties with the
approaching General Election in mind. Consequently, the campaigns are not
addressed to the concerned States alone, but organized for a wider audience. The
entire nation is involved; all people are closely watching what the parties say
and do and the latter have made this appear like a mini General election.
BJP leaders accuse those of the Congress
and its allies of unleashing a barrage of attacks on their Prime Ministerial
candidate, Narendra Modi, in very offensive language. A senior leader of the
Samajwadi Party, supporter of the UPA Government, ridiculed the background of
Modi, referring to his being a tea seller in the past and asking whether a tea
seller could become a Prime Minister. It provoked Modi to instantaneously retaliate
by asking whether those who sell the nation were fit to become the Prime Minister.
Unfortunately, the comment about Modi,
as observed by several leaders, is not a reflection on this leader, but a dig
at the poor tea sellers that they have no right or opportunity to become Prime
Ministers. The comment coming from a leader of a party professing to be
champions of the Backward Classes can well be interpreted as reflecting the mindset
of some political leaders jealously guarding their power and position confined within
a small clique. Surely, power corrupts.
Personal attacks are growing day-by-day
and name-calling of opponents increase and improve from speech-to-speech. TV
channels and the social media carry these to the public as much as possible
thus vitiating the atmosphere. If Rahul Gandhi is depicted as “shehzada” (prince) by Modi, the Congress
showers the epithet “Hitler” on Modi. The field is practically a free for all.
Modi in the course of election
campaign in Madhya Pradesh, for which polling is over, has already labeled a
former Congress Chief Minister of the State as “a lie manufacturing
factory”. This has not gone in vain. A
few days back, the PM himself is reported to have stated that Modi was
resorting to falsehoods.
The depiction of the Congress symbol
“hand” as “khooni Panja” (bloody
claw) by Modi has invited notice from the Election Commission for violation of
the Model Code of Conduct. On the other side, Rahul is reported to have stated
in a speech in Rajasthan that the BJP is a party of thieves. The election
atmosphere is further spoiled by the two parties calling each other as a party
of “poisonous people’ and “more poisonous people”!
Such mutual incriminations have
become part of the style of election speeches. The two national parties are
busy taking complaints against each other to the EC for violation of the poll
conduct.
The Model Code of Conduct, which
comes into effect once elections are announced, includes several articles
prescribing the limits of free expression, which includes that criticism of
other political parties shall be confined to their policies and programmes,
past record and work. Parties and
candidates must refrain from criticism of any aspect of private life not
connected with the public activities of the leaders or workers of other
parties. Criticism of other parties or their workers based on unverified
allegations or distortion should be avoided.
The Code categorically prohibits any
activity which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or
cause tension between different castes and communities – religious or
linguistic - by the parties and candidates. Under the Representation of People
Act 1951, publication of false statements through election pamphlets, booklets,
handbills, posters or through press is a corrupt practice.
The war of words unleashed in the
current electoral season raises some important issues. Electoral politics is described by a scholar
as a war without bloodshed. Negative campaigning, known in common parlance as
“mudslinging”, appeals more to the common people than serious advocacy or
rebuttal of policies. It is easier than
presenting a positive policy or programme. The receivers too find it easier to
assimilate and entertaining.
Harsh rhetoric and exaggerated
claims and counterclaims are said to be part of electoral politics and
legislative process in all countries where free elections are held. India is not
and cannot be an exception.
Almost every country prohibits hate
speech targeted to attack racial, religious, or ethnic groups. The US is an
exception where even blatantly offensive speeches are to some extent protected
under freedom of speech and free expression guaranteed under the
Constitution. A tradition of free speech
has developed since the First Amendment of the Constitution making free speech
as the cornerstone of American democracy.
Indian courts have upheld the
sanctity of freedom of speech fully but have outlawed vilification campaigns.
Election is the expression of popular will. It should be so conducted to centre
round policies and programmes of different parties from which people could make
free choice.
Justice Subba Rao, in a judgement
delivered in the Supreme Court in an election petition explained that Section
123(4) of the RPA is designed to achieve the dual purpose of freedom of speech
and prevention of malicious attack on personal character or conduct, etc., of
rivals. This has been repeated by the Court in certain other cases also. A
campaign of slander against a candidate is likely to prejudice the dual purpose
of this section.
The EC has expressed displeasure
over the “ tone, tenor, and content” of
certain remarks made during the current campaigns and has asked
concerned speakers to be more circumspect in future.
It is rather difficult to put limits
to freedom of speech and enforce these in election campaigns and also ensure free
speech and wider participation in the democratic process. It is also necessary to safeguard all
individual rights and freedoms guaranteed under laws against transgression by
the freedom of speech. Balancing the two is a real juridical problem.
The experiences of other countries
do not provide any useful clues. Election laws in India unambiguously ban speeches
inciting caste and communal hatred. Hate speech is a punishable crime.
In fact, hate speech issue is
bothering American elections since 1920s. The primary concern in the US is
protection of free speech. Stump speech is a term used today to signify a
candidate’s standard speech. But, in the 19th century, it was used
to describe a speech delivered by a candidate literally standing on top of a
tree stump which was appreciated for its rough and rustic character. Containing
jokes and insults directed at the opponents, stump speech was vitally different
from the polite and sophisticated speeches made in cities.
Election speeches are intended for
mass consumption and have to be clothed in simple, straight, and easily comprehensible
language. This does not mean that these should be devoid of decency and
decorum. We may be able to achieve this by mutual understanding. The real
problem is about lies and allegations that may be circulated freely to tarnish
the image of parties and candidates. Truth takes time to come out and in the
meantime the ballot may do the mischief, unless law enforcing authorities
remain extraordinarily vigilant. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|