JOIN USWith the heat rising in Karnataka politics, yatras and jatras to reach out to people has become increasingly common. Though these are shows of strength, substantively they offer little by way of a political agenda. Unfortunately, these meetings seem to be showing how low the political class can take public discourse by normalising personal attacks against opponents.
There are two things that come out of these outbursts: this new technique of 'frontal attacks' on the leadership of opposing parties, irrespective of the stature of the person or respect for the office he holds, induces an unshackling of personal attachments to political leadership/families; these attacks, coming from cadres who fail to understand the minimum standards of public etiquette, will contribute to the destruction of people's image of the political system.
In particular cases, these outcomes may be good, but generally, it may also disconnect people from politics. That apart, these are spoiling the spirit of democracy, which demands that mutual respect is observed in any public discourse.
Exemplifying good manners in public should be seen as a virtue. Expressing common courtesies when meeting opponents or those with different views must be a priority. The way our public discourses are shaping up these days, they corner younger generations into learning malicious behaviour in the name of politics.
Parliamentary democracies are based on debate, and etiquette established by the ancient Greeks to promote peaceful and respectful discourse needs to be followed. This mutual respect has proven to be the best method of espousing differing opinions to reach a common goal for the betterment of society. Undoubtedly, this has stood the test of time as a method of working out democracies.
In recent years, Karnataka has been a witness to extreme, violent, incendiary language in election speeches, especially by a certain party. This seems to be the case even in the cyberworld. The rolling back of high standards of behaviour and the values that were once cherished by Karnataka, despite the fact that there was no shortage of heated political debate, is hurting the state.
The problem of civility, attributed today to our politics and political community, has its roots in the public conversations about the contemporary nature and limits of democratic forms of discussion and debate.
The augmented interest of the middle class in politics has contributed to a considerable chasm between the theory of politics that may be understood as civil and the practices associated with a robust democracy. Political participation today demands both active involvement and genuine communication, both online and in the real world, to build good faith in democracy and democratic practices.
Over the last few elections, the character of political discourse in India and in states like Karnataka has started to seem more like a mindless spree of shouting aimed at reaching out to serve the needs of a comment-happy media and the expressiveness of a politician's aspiration for power, forgetting the most important and consequential issues of the day.
In most cases, politicians' ranting presents their frustrations and is their attempt to impress upon their bosses to convey to them that they are one up against their contenders within the party for the party tickets and positions of power, which is often decided at the party's central level. Thus, the sloganeering and clichés do not necessarily represent their manifestoes. In fact, most often, politicians are clueless about the policies of their own party.
Mutual respect
The need of the hour is to understand that in a democracy we agree to disagree and keep alive our differences so as to realise the idea of a common good through our varied approaches. We must, therefore, engage each other with open, public and substantive debates so that people can make their choice between the differing approaches of the party, given the time and context. The operating assumption should be that one can work out one's disagreements through persuasion rather than coercion and despicable language.
Public discussion, debate and argument should be at the heart of any true democracy. We must remain aware that language reflects and shapes social reality and moulds our ways of thinking.
The voter may not immediately engage with it, but he will surely contemplate. Today's voters are more aware and conscious than ever before and have all the information they need to be decisive. They feel affected and offended by the kinds of public discourse that they are witness to. They are aware of deception and are looking for good oratory that builds their faith in politics.
Any attempt to malign their faith in the capability of true politics will backfire on parties that attempt such rudeness. The 5,51,615 who voted NOTA in the Gujarat elections are indicators of the shaky ground our democratic choices stand on. We need to become aware of this sooner rather than later: it could soon be too late to lament.
(The writer, a political analyst, teaches political science at Karnatak University, Dharwad)