Argumentative, yet not quite ready to debate

My wife was surprised recently by my getting up early in the morning to watch the televised debates between the USA’s Republican Party presidential nomination hopefuls. She’s always known that I was a news/politics junkie, but the ongoing struggle between the well-funded, Republican-establishment favourite Mitt Romney and the far right-wing former Speaker Newt Gingrich to her mind is esoteric. This is probably true for most readers; as it is, our middle-class thinks politics is beneath them, so it can’t be expected to be interested in the politics of another country altogether.

The past fortnight’s debates, however, and particularly the ones held in South Carolina were more spellbinding than a movie. It is my love for film that makes me hope that the Republican primary drags on and on (though that would likely benefit the incumbent Barack Obama, perhaps not a bad thing). Unlike US commentators, I don’t think the debates will become repetitive if the contest is prolonged: rather, the candidates will be forced to search for new things to attack and new methods of attack. It will get more interesting. Also, I think it will force the Republican Party to confront the reality that its establishment is divorced from the identity and concerns of its core voter. As in India, the US is run by an elite, and any sign of upheaval from the ground is always welcome.

America’s political parties give their hopefuls a fair and level ground on which to try and slug it out. India’s political parties are, by comparison, a joke. Take the ruling Congress party: it’s no secret that many aspire to the Prime Minister’s job if Rahul Gandhi does not take it up himself. Dr Manmohan Singh would undoubtedly like to stick on in perpetuity (and I would not bet against his return after the 2014 parliamentary elections) but many heavyweights would like to replace him, and I’m not even referring to usual suspects like Pranab Mukherjee, P Chidambaram or Digvijay Singh.

What will ultimately happen is that Sonia Gandhi will select someone. Let them slug it out American-style, I say. Let them accuse each other of not being pro-aam aadmi enough or of promoting crony capitalism, and let them have to spell out policy stands in order for each to distinguish himself from his competitors. One of the problems with governance at the moment is that no one has a stand on an issue until a crisis emerges; and then they respond either by sticking their heads in the sand (as with the 2G scam) or by draconian measures (as with the talk of internet censorship). I’m sure a democratic primary process in the run-up to our elections can’t hurt.

The main opposition party, the BJP, is no better. Most commentators spend time running down the party in power (which deserves all the abuse it gets) without pointing out what a dismal incompetent failure the opposition is. Those helming the BJP at the Centre do not inspire confidence that they represent the party rank-and-file; if they do not, they cannot know the pulse of the voters; if they cannot, they will find it difficult to find the winning rhetoric for any election. (Many conservatives in India are afraid the BJP, like the Republican Party, will throw away an opportunity to evict the incumbent simply by not having its house in order). A primary (or a variation) would be especially helpful to the BJP which prides itself on good governance at the state-level: it would give exposure to the nationally lesser-known chief ministers (and correct the image of Bihar’s chief minister being the only moderate in the NDA).

You may argue that primaries are not suited in a parliamentary democracy because of the number of regional parties, most of which are run like private or family concerns by the party’s leader. Such parties do not need primaries. Fair enough. But why let them off the hook: why not have debates at the state level? Whether it be the elections in UP or Punjab or even Manipur, I’d like to see the main parties slug it out, and not through proxies as is done on the TV news channels every night. The only worry is that in our county, politicians resort to meaningless scare tactics to portray themselves as “the protectors” — take, for instance, Salman Rushdie’s cancelled visit to a literary festival, or even the SGPC’s indignation over a lame but far from offensive joke on American TV. Notably, such things happen only at poll-time.

Despite the risk of our politicians dropping to the lowest common denominator, I’d still urge US-style debates between our prospective leaders. As Amartya Sen said in The Idea of Justice, democracy is governance by discussion. Debate in India is all the more necessary since even parliamentary discussion is treated with contempt by would-be leaders like Rahul Gandhi and his gang. Even if the US debates seem more like politics-by-reality-TV, it’s still a way of engaging the voters with the politics of the day. Watching a televised debate between Mayawati and Rahul Gandhi would be more interesting than watching Ra.One or some other rubbish. Trust me.    

— The writer is the Editor-in-Chief, DNA, based in Mumbai