Dare our leader debate?

Wolves That Roar

Public debates amongst political contenders is the norm in mature democracies like the presidential debates in the United States and BBC prime ministerial face-offs in the United Kingdom. Indian democracy, modelled on the Westminster template, conspicuously lacks this feature of a head-to-head contest between political rivals. Authoritarian leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro shied away from such public debates though such platforms existed in those countries. Putin unconvincingly feigned overwork and pleaded that such debates “impede his ability to carry out his duties” – this when Putin had held marathon ‘live calls’ for three-four hours each with planted questions, meet-and-greet sessions with assorted groups and even a four-day adventure car drive across Siberia! Clearly, the risk of getting publicly exposed, especially when a reassuring image existed in the public imagination, was high. In the last Indian general elections, too, some politicians had asked for a live debate “anytime, anywhere,” but the bait wasn’t taken.

Indian politics in not about nuance or rationality -- it is predicated on absolutism, where faith in political leaders assumes deific proportions. Such blind reverence towards political leaders, or partisanship, necessitates the assumption of mythmaking and make-believing that cannot risk the unmasking of the deliberately created aura of infallibility. Societal ignorance and fault lines feed such protectionist political instincts as it thrives on subliminal fears, civilisational wounds and deliberately stoked passions that are based on caste, ethnicity, region and religion, but rarely on an issue. The belief in ‘superhuman’ leadership is as pronounced in the national parties as in the regional parties. Their divisive, limited and insincere agendas automatically diminish their ability to articulate or defend their purported promises and policies in open public forums, hence the natural tendency to avoid, shadowbox or sabre-rattle from the sidelines, but never partake in a free and fair debate.

Sadly, a majority of citizens and party cadres are also content with the polarising and limited divides offered by their candidates, as opposed to forming a more holistic, informed and enlightened opinion that could override the considerations of caste, ethnicity, region or religion. Indian democracy has seen the sophistication in driving political preference through the creative use of traditional and modern media, though the actual content is never put through the rigour of adequate fact-checking or viability of implementation, as literally ‘anything goes’ in electioneering mode. This explains the wide gap between promises and actual delivery, by every government, without exception. This perennial lacuna exists because the candidate is never really whom we think ‘they are’, as the same is never put through unfiltered questioning to verify their supposed credentials.

Even Donald Trump, who has openly expressed his disdain for one kind of media – the liberal media -- has routinely taken political questioning on his chin. In the first presidential debate, Trump incredulously stated, “I don’t want to pay taxes” and that businessmen like him, “unless they’re stupid, they go through the laws and that’s what it is.” Now, it is up to the American people to decode and decide the mind and spirit of the President who is seeking re-election.

Nothing could be more honest, transparent or fair than a live debate between contestants who square-off on their policies, accusations and clarifications, vying for public approval. Traditionally, political scientists discounted the fear amongst nervous and insecure politicians about the impact of such public debates in swinging voting patterns as partisan attachments tended to be very sticky. But, of late, we live in an increasingly unsure, wary and questioning world that has rattled the lifelong beliefs of most. From the questionable management of societal divides, pandemic management to tense international relations, the ground reality of today has disconcerted and shaken the most ardent supporters of the Republican Party, and it is in that context that a one-on-one debate with Democrat Joe Biden could perhaps convince border-line Republicans to vote tactically for the latter.

Why should Indian citizens be denied the opportunity to similarly probe, evaluate and test the mettle of the politicians in fray, as opposed to the ‘manufactured’ perceptions? For too long in our experiment with democracy, we have allowed populist, implausible and often-revisionist promises to prosper. Why shouldn’t the leader of 1.3 billion people be asked about their plans on socio-economic issues, economic stimulus, China, law and order, etc? Why must the voter rely on hyperbole, vacuous generalisations, glaring silences or unviable promises? Our beholden or intimidated citizenry spare the politician the necessary grilling. Opposition parties are equally complicit in running away from such debates, fearing the risk of getting publicly exposed.

The looming state election in Bihar exemplifies the lack of transparency and rigour in the democratic processes and choice-making. Sadly, it is not the crippling socio-economic reality of Bihar, agrarian crisis or such concerns, but the manufactured drama surrounding the death of a movie actor, dodgy alliances and caste calculations that are defining the conversation. None of the political aspirants are forced into showing any plans or asked about policies or even quizzed on their past. At best, wily spokespersons defend the rare question with competitive whataboutery, ambiguities and deflections.

The people of Bihar are amongst the most politically conscious and participative citizens, yet the benefits of deciding the politicians’ individual competence, capabilities or clarity of thought are seemingly secondary to the impossible promises and the rote theatrical statements playing to the galleries. In this charade of incompetence, all political parties and the gullible citizenry are inadvertently hand-in-glove to allow a free run to those who will ultimately ‘lead’ us. The electoral wins of a Trump (despite losing the earlier presidential debate to Hillary) shows the limits of even public debating, but society is always served better with more political transparency, not less of it.

(The writer is a former Lt Gov of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)