Election Spotlight

New Delhi, 23 April 2014

Political Jibes

TAKE A CUE FROM AMERICANS?

By V S Dharmakumar

Elections in every country raise political temperature and political toxicity. The world’s largest democracy and world’s greatest democracy are no exception. Election times bring out highly poisonous verbosity in both these nations. The largest democracy’s 2014 General election is taking place in nine phases---the longest in the country’s history. Some will say that such an exercise involving 81.45 crore electorate without verbal jousting and banter will be no fun.

Political parties flinging invective at opponents were always part of Indian politics but its level has increased with amazing alacrity. This parliamentary election has raised the level of political toxicity to an unprecedented level making the campaigns preposterous. As the election crosses half-way mark, intensity of verbal duels and political dirty tricks are increasing with frightening frequency and respectable political debates declining to an abysmal level. Today’s politicians emphasize more on negativity; hurling abuses and invectives have become an accepted way to engage the public. Result: public’s view of politics and politicians has dipped to an all-time low.  

Humour in politics is becoming something of a lost art. Present day politicians are by and large humourless. They forget that one can be funny and witty and still be a political leader. Humour is not for simply making people laugh. With dignified jokes, jibes and prickly wisecrack one can win over foes, disarm critics and charm the people and media. People respond more positively to politicians when their speeches are laced with humour. But crass humour like the one attributed to Marie Antoinette `let them eat cake’ when told that the peasants had no bread can land one in trouble. Likewise, many of our political leaders have come under the EC scanner for their banter.  

But if you think that it is Indian politicians who have brought campaigning to a new low, you are wrong. Dirty tricks are not the modern invention of politicians. American politicians employed it in their Presidential election campaign 214 years ago. Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the oldest in spreading outright lies about his political opponent. He, through one of his supporters printed a series of vicious tracts spreading lies about Adams. The publications alleged that Adams planned on going to war with France and that he had a hermaphroditical character which has neither the force of a man nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman. The Federalists attacked Jefferson as a godless Jacobin who would unleash the forces of bloody terror upon the land. With Jefferson as President, so warned one newspaper, "Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes." 

The slanderous attack damaged Adams and helped Jefferson to win the election. It is a different story that the same supporter through whom Jefferson attacked Adams turned against Jefferson later with vehemence  publishing scandalous pamphlets alleging that Jefferson fathered children with his slave Sally Hemmings. The charge dented his image but the attacker could not accomplish anything. It may be apt to quote here what President William Jefferson Clinton said in 1998:  “It's nobody's business but ours. Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.”

But sexual issues received obsessive attention in many US presidential elections. In 1828, Andrew Jackson was considered to be a home-wrecker. His wife was involved in a scandalous divorce. In 1884, Grover Cleveland faced the Republican taunts of “Ma! Ma! Where is my Pa”? That was a reference to his siring an illegitimate child. It is a different story, the taunt did not affect him; he won the election and the Democrats finished the refrain with relish: “Gone to the White House! Ha! Ha!” Franklin Roosevelt was accused of an affair with his wife’s secretary. Kennedy’s affair with Marilyn Monroe evoked no contempt, but admiration. Clinton’s 1992 campaign was unusually high-pitched and the sleaziest.  

Humour can serve many purposes, on and off the campaign trail and for the politicians, it is both sword and shield, a weapon to diffuse war of words. Take this example. Sir John Macdonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada well known for his wit and alcoholism was in an awkward situation during an election debate in 1863. He was also known as the alcoholic father of Canada. During the election debate with his opponent, he was so drunk that he threw up right on the stage. His opponent pointed and said: “Is this man you want running your country, a drunkard” The audience gasped in horror at the stumbling Macdonald. Without missing a beat, Macdonald blurted out: “I get sick sometimes not because of drink or any other cause except that I am forced to the ranting of my honourable opponent.” Laughter erupted.

Stephen Douglas, a Democratic Party leader who once defeated Abraham Lincoln in a Senate contest called Lincoln `two-faced’ in a political debate. Lincoln, belittling his own physical appearance, turned to his audience and drawled:”I leave it to you. If I had another face, do you think I would wear this one?” Though Lincoln and Douglas were bitter rivals, they did not nurse any personal ill feelings. This anecdote will prove that. Douglas was at Lincoln’s first inauguration. Lincoln took the oath of office, and then took off his hat in preparation for the inaugural address. But he had no place to put it down. Douglas, who was on the dais stepped forward, took the hat from Lincoln’s hands and moved back saying: “If I can’t be the president, at least I can hold his hat.”   

The present obsession with digging out the minutest details of political opponents’ personal flaws has reached a demeaning level and it will hurt the functioning of democracy because very few potential candidates will have entirely spotless private lives, free from awkward indiscretions committed in youth days’ recklessness. The prospect of fierce scrutiny will dissuade many talented people seeking public office. Many great political leaders of the world have had messy personal lives, while many others, with blameless private lives, have been judged failures in office. If the present obsession with the private lives of politicians had been applied in the past, would Thomas Jefferson, Andreq Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bill Clinton and many other respected leaders have reached or survived in office? 

While it’s debatable whether to keep out private life from public debate, one can be fairly safe with a good jibe. Remember, Lyndon B. Johnson once said at the media: “If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline would read: “President can’t swim”.  The message was terse, but couched. Maybe our netas could take a lesson? ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)