Spotlight
New
Delhi, 12 April 2019
Political Discourse
NEED FOR QUALITY CONTROL
By Dr.S.Saraswathi
(Former, Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
Indian air today is
filled with politics of elections. Political discourse dominating all forms of
private and public communication, there is need for maintaining a certain
standard of quality in contents and decency and decorum in rendering. Unfortunately,
the danger of the shallow nature of the discourse tends to override real and
serious issues with free use of abusive language of communication. As a result,
ideological differences are converted into group wars and personality clashes.
Political speech,
formally delivered from a platform or issued as statements through various
media, is a principal form of establishing political relations. Speeches
constitute the contacts between parties and between politicians and citizens.
Speech-making and
speech-writing are important tasks in the practice of politics as a career.
There is no good speech without a good speech-writer whether both are handled
by the same person or by different persons. Rhetoric matters immensely in
politics particularly in election campaigns. It is an art of persuasion based
on emotional appeal.
But, rhetoric cannot
come without fund of information and convincing contents. A good speaker or a
good writer is basically one with sound knowledge of the subject matter. Many political parties have created the post
of propagandists, some of whom like Jayalalitha grew up very fast in politics.
In these days of TV debates, parties have their spokespersons to explain,
defend, and promote their party stand on various issues. Good
spokespersons are rewarded in all parties which is evidence of the immense
importance of professional political discourse bridging people and politicians.
From the classical
oratory of Roman era to contemporary election speeches, the speakers and
speech-writers have played a major role to link political leaders and the public.
In the multi-lingual
India, the impact of speeches depends much on the ability of translators also.
Political discourse in India is facing today two kinds of obstacles – one is
the language problem of the speaker to communicate and interact directly with the
audience, and the other, the degeneration of the vocabulary of political language
to ridicule opponents in a theatrical style to retain audience interest.
Who is “chor” (thief) or who is “buffoon” are
not the questions to be decided in this election. There are other forums for
that. Campaigns are reduced to fancy dress competitions and slogans are raised
to malign opponents. Promises are liberally extended to woo the voters.
The language of
political discourse through any media matters a lot. Populist rhetoric has
become the style of electoral campaigning. A new form of communication has
developed for electioneering in all parties as it is a political competition to
be fought on equal level with similar equipments and equal vigour.
The debate between US
presidential candidates Kennedy and Nixon in 1960 is cited in textbooks as the
start of effective television-age election campaigning. Visual image was
believed to have an impact on the audience for good or bad. Hence, the
performers are likely to be self-conscious throughout their performance.
However, within a few years, serious issues began to lose their importance yielding
place to emotional appeals in all democracies. Hence, visits to places of
worship, exhibiting sympathy to victims of natural disasters, and taking food
with slum dwellers are believed to have more political impact than offers of
long-term relief measures and welfare schemes.
Surcharged emotions
have resulted in personal attacks including name calling, mixing up public issues
with private life to extremely low levels, and even making baseless
allegations. Instead of elevating the level of political discussions so as to
educate the masses to become useful participants in the political process, the
discourses many a times do just the opposite.
Resulting coarseness
of political discourses has affected the culture of electoral campaigning in
2019 to an extent unknown in the past. India has fallen to the growing global
trend of “vituperative rancour” in
political discourse and is rapidly taking a lead. Open messages that some particular people
should be defeated in the election by any means have become commonly circulated
advice. Negativism is the uniting factor in many places and it breeds hatred.
Intolerance of opponents is the central feature of inter-party relationships
between non-allies.
A new profession of campaign
organizers and media managers has come up.
Acclaimed expert campaign consultants
are in great demand. Highly educated spokespersons are trained with necessary
inputs by different parties to handle media discourses, platform speeches, and
press briefings.
The purpose of
political discourse during election time is in theory related to aid and advise
the voters to choose their candidates. In concrete situations, it means
clarifying citizens’ understanding of political issues, party positions, etc., promoting
citizens’ participation in the political process, helping them to reach sound judgement
between parties and candidates.
These functions can
be carried out only if political discourses are conducted in an orderly manner
and the participants take part with adequate and authentic information. Direct
one-to-one debates between principal contenders to power are not in practice in
India. Even the Lok Sabha – the forum for
debates – is not fully utilised for this purpose and often converted as protest
platform. Challenges are voiced for debates by leaders, but never carried out.
After years of
resistance, UK introduced the practice of direct debates in 2010. When first mooted
in 1964, then PM Douglas-Home dismissed it saying: “You will get the best actor
as leader of the country, and the actor will be prompted by script writer”.
The Election Commission
is the sole authority to make political parties comply with the basic rules of
dialogue and lecture and adhere to the moral code of conduct and engage in
ethical politics. For those fighting solely for power and positions, ethics is
a stumbling block.
True, politics has
always been personal, passionate, and contentious from the days of legends in
the East and the West. Be it Mahabharata or 2019 Lok Sabha election,
personalities are targets of political attack with or without basis.
The concept of “alien”
is commonly used in political discourses in India today with reference to
candidates and voters making a mockery of the fundamental right of all citizens
to move throughout the country without any restriction. Central authority is
resented by some regional parties.
The net result is
replacement of the coveted “cooperative federalism” with a spirit of absolute
independence fostered by rhetoric in State languages to the amusement of local
audience mistaking parochial outbursts as manifestation of self-respect.
A prominent feature
of political discourse in India today is the polarisation of positions. Every issue is dividing people sharply in two
camps, but still there is no bi-polar contest.
The degeneration of
political discourse must be immediately corrected wherever it curbs nationalism,
constitutionality, orderliness, and basic ethics. No need to mention that care
must be taken to safeguard rights and freedoms granted under the Constitution.
As Dr. Ambedkar observed, the grammar of anarchy can never strengthen
democracy; it renders democracy unfunctional.
There is an urgent need
for quality control of political discourse. Control is anathema if it is
external, and hence, it has to be intrinsic to the system and procedure. Unless
actors want decent discourse, it cannot be externally imposed.—INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|