BackIndia’s shrinking democratic space
The environment in this country has become so polarized that debates are not only adversarial and acerbic, the entire approach is an either-or
Premium
Last week, I bumped into an acquaintance during a brief visit to Bengaluru. Inevitably, the conversation shifted to the new government at the helm in New Delhi. Somewhere along the way the acquaintance, referring to recent offerings of Capital Calculus, identified me among the genre of “Modi Bhakts".
Predictably, I was taken aback. Not because of what was claimed—one is pretty used to the acerbic comments unleashed by loose cannons that inhabit the online space. In any case, this is a democratic country and everyone is entitled to his or her views. Instead, it was from the fact that here was a well-heeled liberal, level-headed and affable individual and not one prone to knee-jerk responses. And yet he had been so quick to conclude that I was a biased columnist.
Naturally, it set me thinking. To me there was a more worrying subtext to our conversation. Not the occupational hazard of being called names. Instead, it was that my acquaintance was so easily mixing up the message with the bias against the messenger—in this case Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who heads the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA).
Yes, undeniably I have been supportive of the new government’s initiatives. Who would not support an idea of “Swachh Bharat", corruption-free government, putting the bureaucracy on alert, creating an enabling environment to do honest business and so on. How can support of a policy be interpreted to be an unqualified support for a government? In that case, I am in a unique position—having batted brazenly for the entitlement regime of the preceding Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), its pitch for food security and reservation for women in legislatures. And the UPA, by the way, is at the other end of the ideological spectrum, compared to the NDA.
What is common between the two regimes is my support for individual policy. Yes, I may have left myself vulnerable to being dubbed an establishment lackey, but that is another story altogether. Coming back to my acquaintance, his mistake, in my view, is that he is confusing support for policy as an endorsement for a government (though at this time, even the NDA’s worst critics will concede that its record so far is impressive and it has set the ball in motion for structural transformation of this country; another issue whether they can pull it off or not).
Frankly, there is logic to this response and that is exactly the cause for worry—shrinking space for democratic dialogue. The environment in this country has become so polarized that debates are not only adversarial and acerbic, the entire approach is an either-or (either with us or against us syndrome). When life is not black or white, how can debates. Yes, you can have polemical debates, but you also need arguments; more importantly independent voices need to be heard and the only way to do that is to guarantee democratic space.
This phenomenon is visible in the polity. The 15th Lok Sabha was so truncated because the only way the NDA, then in the opposition, could oppose the UPA was to be obstructionist (and now the UPA is paying back the NDA in the same coin). It is so visible in our television debates, where anchors driven by their sole push for TRPs engage in screaming matches and trivializing debates by positioning them as an either-or. How can you blame the general public if this is all they are exposed to (something similar to blaming a child for chronic ill-health after allowing them to access only junk food). It is almost as if every response, whether on TV shows or in the Parliament, is limited to the 140-character binding imposed by Twitter.
This is rather ironic for a country, which has had a tradition of public debates. Right from the formulation of the historic Second Plan—which slanted the economy towards socialism—and the Sixth Plan—which recalibrated policy to a more market-based approach—debates have been commonplace. And many of these doyens disagreed with each other but never really sought to stifle the other’s opinion. In fact, this big shift in policy approach, between the Second and Sixth Plans, was achieved precisely because there was a debate, triggered initially by independent voices.
Clearly, the binary nature of our public discourse is eschewing debates. And, this certainly can’t be healthy for a democracy, especially the largest one in the world.
Anil Padmanabhan is deputy managing editor of Mint and writes every week on the intersection of politics and economics. Comments are welcome at capitalcalculus@livemint.com.
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
