Should Campaign Rhetoric be regulated?

Does the collapse of civility during the campaign rallies mean the Election Commission should step in.

 

“Mamata Banerjee is our CM, she is a woman. We expect decency from her that is in sync with Bengal’s culture. A woman, while wearing a saree, is constantly showing her legs is not decent. I found it objectionable,” said West Bengal BJP Chief Dilip Ghosh about CM Banerjee. “Sometimes he calls himself Swamy Vivekananda and sometimes renames stadiums after his own name. Something is wrong with his brain. It seems his screw is loose,” said CM Banerjee about PM Modi, she also referred to the PM as the king of murderers. "There was a person called Sushma Swaraj. She died due to the pressure exerted by Modi. There was a person called Arun Jaitley. He died due to the torture by Modi." said Udhayanidhi Stalin, son of DMK chief MK Stalin. Finally, a few snowflakes seem to be outraged by PM Modi's Didi O Didi riff as he taunts CM Banerjee

In the forthcoming weeks expect the oratorical fireworks to devolve into abject viciousness as spurious attacks and scurrilous insults inundate the deeply polarised political atmosphere of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam, and Puducherry.

 

While the campaigners engage in an almost gladiatorial style combat to inflict maximum damage on their opponent, the question remains, is there a way to enhance the discourse on the election trail?

 

American politician Mario Cuomo wisely noted, “You govern in prose, you campaign in poetry.”

 

Governing is arduous, painstaking, and time-consuming. Most people have forgotten what they learned in school Civics textbooks. Hence, they have no comprehension or concern about this process of authoring and amending bills, eventually passing them through the legislature.

 

A speech expounding the intricacies of deregulation, disinvestment, tackling the fiscal deficit, governmental reforms, the GDP and economic transformations will put the audience into a prolonged slumber.

 

It explains why have been several instances of electoral defeats despite able governance.

 

A perfect instance of that when P V Narasimha Rao was up for reelection. Under Rao’s leadership, India opened up her markets to global investors that led to prosperity for businesses and individuals. Despite that Rao’s government suffered a routing during the polls. One of the major reasons was Rao’s failure to translate his achievements into language relatable to the regular people.

 

A skilled campaigner, therefore, has to be able to tell a story about the outcome of his governing achievements that touches the heart.

Merely citing statistics about electrification never works. Hence, the campaigner reminds the voter that their children can study at night because of the electric bulb or how the electric fan gives you relief in the sweltering heat. The campaigner talks about how life is easier for housewives since cooked food can be stored in the freezer. There will be most eyes everywhere as the campaigner reminds the voter that his family longer has to travel to the city for medical treatment since electricity allows a village hospital to be fully functional.

This certainly taps into the emotional core and causes a permanent impression. Invoking religion always works devastatingly in striking an emotional chord, much more than any developmental achievement.

 

In a perfect world, explaining your accomplishments via relatable stories and letting the voter decide would have been sufficient. But elections are not the perfect candidate instead it is about the available imperfect choices.

 

The campaigner, therefore, needs to highlight the possible perils of electing their opponents. Vote for him and he will sell you out to his industrialist friends. Vote for her and she will not allow you to celebrate your festivals. Vote for them and he will ruin the multicultural fabric of our state. Vote for her and there will be lawlessness and chaos.

 

Then we get to the next stage. The exhilarating political theatre of a rally packed with enthusiastic crowds is almost like a rock concert where the band feeds off the energy of the public and vice versa. There is a great temptation to get an instant reaction from the public. Hence the ‘name-calling’ begins and so does the slippery slope.

 

But this ‘name-calling’ is a powerful tool of influence and has been termed as “linguistic kill shot” by persuasion expert Scott Adams. The opponent is branded with a terse but unique combination of words that are both catchy and comical. This may seem like schoolgirl silliness, but it can work rather devastatingly in causing the audience to focus on the shortcomings of the opponent. A perfect example is the word “Pappu” which paints an image of a blundering blithering man-child. No matter what he says or does, the reputation of a will never cease to prevail. People begin to look for it and even imagine it if it isn’t there.

 

The other frequently made allegation is that negative campaigning and inflammatory rhetoric causes deep and irreparable polarization that can destroy the social fabric. As the late Christopher Hitchens observed, “Politics is division by definition. If there was no disagreement, if there is no conflict, there will be no politics. The illusion of unity is not worth having and anyway it’s unattainable.” Seldon does the winning party secure more than 50 percent of the votes.

 

It has to be remembered that only totalitarian can prevent polarization among the public. Where the winning candidate secures more than 90 percent of the vote share while the loser is found in a ditch with a bullet in his head. There is a general consensus of ideas because the domineering state had outlawed the ‘wrong’ sort of thoughts.

 

“What about the disgusting hateful sexist, communal, and dog-whistle rhetoric? Should the Election Commission do nothing about it? What about the lies?” whines the outraged self-appointed moral custodian.

For this, we have to revisit the most important tenet in a democracy Freedom of Expression. What is obscene to one may be provocative to another. What is crass to one may be comical to another. A bigot to somebody may be a rebel to another.

For a democracy to work, its values must prevail both during and beyond the elections. There will be fervent disagreements, scornful attacks, and raucous debates. We cannot police speech because the worst among us abuse it or a few among us disapprove of it.

 

In fact, unregulated speech often reveals the true colors of the candidate, this naked display can inform the voter’s decision. There have been instances where candidates have solely indulged in negative campaigning and have been rejected.

Upon a landslide victory, the ego within campaigners leads them to believe that their campaign caused them to sweep the polls, but it is quite likely that the voter had already made up his mind. The impact of campaign rhetoric on voting behavior would be an interesting study to conduct.

In the end, the voter has lived in the state for at least half a decade and had experienced both the highs and lows. This voter knows what he wants from the next government.  It would be a grave mistake to presume that the voter can be swayed by white lies or bombast at a rally.