Debates – Political face-offs, the civilized way
On the 16th April, I saw new evidence of involvement by the educated and intellectual class, in what is beginning to increasingly feel like a very different election season! This new ‘thing’ was a debate between four candidates of the Bangalore South Parliamentary constituency – a debate before a packed audience of more than 1000 odd people including a large number of IT professionals, in a swanky new auditorium belonging to an Infosys, which was let out first time for such an occasion. Similar debates are taking place in Mumbai and many other cities where voters are interested in involvement and informing themselves firsthand about the candidates.
The candidates truly reflected the changing nature of our politics. There was a sitting BJP candidate Ananthkumar (whom I have endorsed by way of disclosure), Congress Candidate Krishna Byre Gowda on the Congress plank, Dr Radhakrishan of JD-S , standing on a plank of regional aspirations and Capt Gopinath – and independent candidate fighting on the plank of being an anti-politician!
The debate was a first for me! I went as a skeptic – anticipating one of those typical political events – of rancor, bitterness and name calling and discussion about everything but the substantive issues facing us – of the form that we have seen recently between our top ‘leaders’ and parties.
But I and the crowd of the 1100 were in for a surprise and a very good one at that! The four candidates performed extremely well. The moderator – Harish Bijoor a resident of Bangalore did well – probing and posing a mix of tough and easy questions to each of the four candidates – and always keeping them from meandering into the wonder-world of slogans and rhetoric.
The candidates themselves did stray into small forgivable moments of political grandstanding! But in general all four could outline their visions for country and constituency – and found their support within groups and parts of the audience! At the end of it all, when all four candidates lifted their hands together and shook hands and smiled for photographs together, it struck me that Bangalore South was fortunate to have four good candidates and indeed be miles away from Delhi and the rancor and hostility that prevents consensus on any issue, a civil debate on issues and indeed distorts the political debate altogether.
There have been suggestions for a debate face-off between the two Prime Ministerial candidates and I strongly believe, it’s in the interest of our democracy that leaders engage in a debate – which is why a Dr Manmohan Singh vs. LK Advani debate would have been great for the Indian voter and Indian Democracy! I gather there is some worry on part of Dr Singh to engage in a debate. I genuinely hope he gets over it and that before the voting is over, Indians do get a chance to observe a debate between the people who want to be our leaders. This is the right thing for these leaders to do – to offer all of us an opportunity to hear them faceoff in a civilized manner!
24 Responses to “Debates – Political face-offs, the civilized way”
Leave a Reply
Swaroop C H on April 18th, 2009
It’s a very good trend, and I do wish there was a debate between Advani and Manmohan ji.
But then again, why should this only be during election time? For example, why not have a “Face the nation” national debate every year to ask how the government is performing?
May sound ridiculous, but then again, since television/media is involved, it is a possibility.
Prasanna on April 18th, 2009
Thanks Rajiv for highlighting this debate and courage in disclosing your endorsement
I think an influential section of national mainstream media has been running a vitriolic and vituperative campaign against a particular political party and they have partially responsible fo vitiating the quality of the election debate.Their entire agenda has been to divert the real issues facing the electorate by staging clearly orchestrated studio discussion comprising mainly of smartly attired mickey mouse degree students probably drawn from JNU, the necropolis of toxic Marxist academia
and cornering representative of a particular party
One would have expected the media to have gone hammer and tongs against the unelected PM for shriking a public debate but it appears that this particular party is not answerable for the ills of the country having governed it for most part of 62 years
Anyway congrats to the yound Gowda for displaying a democratic spirit that is so uncharacterisic of the party he comes from and participating in the debate
Anupama on April 18th, 2009
Debates are good. Unfortunately most of our candidates / party spokespersons seem to think scream fests on TV will cut it. Oratorial grandstanding must give way to clear articulation of policies, and not stop at slug fests. This year has seen some real low points in personal attacks. And some welcome changes too, like the nearly 62% voter turn out, and there’s such an awareness about the need to vote among urban indians.
Debate face-offs may win elections, but i’m not too sure if silver-tongued wordsmiths have a vision for our country.
TJ on April 19th, 2009
A very good idea, but I think the Congress Party senses that LK Advani would “win” the debate hands down.Dr. Singh is not exactly a great orator, either in voice, body language or even energy level. Which is unlike the candidate that does a great job interview but is a disaster on the job. And US presidential polls have shown that the debate winner need not necessarily be the President. George Bush Jr. the striking example.
Rasita on April 19th, 2009
The very purpose of democracy is to debate issues concerning the nation.But over the years politics has taken such a down slide that debate on pressing issues also just becomes a matter of upstaging the rival party. Bitterness, sloganeering, boycotts etc have become the order of the day. I hope as more and more young and educated people enter the parliament the quality of debated would go up and parties can arrive at consensus in a civil manner. I am sure the day is not far off and not just idle dreaming of mine.
sachin kundu on April 19th, 2009
Infact debates should be made essential at local levels. People have all the right to listen and ask questions before hand from their to be representatives. But where a substantial portion of elected representatives are ill educated and infact criminals how can you expect them to get involved in such academic pursuits. Not everyone is as lucky as bangalore.
gv sreedhar on April 19th, 2009
It must have been a great event to listen four prospective candidates on one platform, talking sensibly and talking politics, that too at a highly critical time and to educated group. Hope some responsible group of young Law Makers will take pains by next polls, for Assembly/Lokasabha and organise such cultured discussions through out the Country. But language may become a problem, not sure only English speaking prospectives/audiance are cultured.
TJ on April 20th, 2009
On the subject of Advani Manmohan debates, I recently saw a few face offs between Arun Jaitley and Kapil Sibal on a variety of issues an different English Channels. These two are probably the best debaters in either party and proxy for their respective PM candidates/party manifesto. While Kapil Sibal (for me) is the better debater, the points and counterpoints were flying so thick and fast that the average viewer may be as confused as before. What I would like to know is what are the major diffrences in the manifestos of these two parties. Apart from the “communalism/secularism” issues (”demonization” as Rajeev puts it) are these two parties really any differnt ony of the major issues concerning us today….like development ? terrorism ? liberalisation ?. On foreign policy I know the BJP would be more hawkish than the Congress….Would like someone to expound on this if possible…
shrek on April 20th, 2009
At last! Someone has taken the initiative. I have been clamouring for a debate amongst the Indian politicians for a long time and was sorely disappointed when Dr.Manmohan Singh backed off.
@TJ.
I was very impressed with that debate between Mr.Jaitley and Mr.Sibal that you are talking about, but I beg to differ on your assessment. I have a review of the debate on my blog here
And the differences you ask were to be seen even in that debate. Congress is positioning itself as a left-of-centre and BJP is positioning itself as a right-of-centre party in Economic policy, as was evident from their manifestos. It is a different issue that within Indian politics, even the centre is left-leaning(so to speak) because of the requirements of all parties to adhere to “socialism” according to our constitution.
Shashidhar Bhat on April 20th, 2009
Most of the politicians i know will hasitate to participate in debates.this attitude shows their, fear to face the truth.if you call them for a debate they start discussing on personal issues.they always play for gallery. but every law has its own exception, I think Banglore south is an exception. whether we should have a minimum qualifications for politicians ? right thinking people should think about this issue, and we should debate on. then only democracy will grow.
Yashwanth on April 20th, 2009
Blore south is actually probably a rare exception where we are getting to see this.
Fully endorse Swaroop’s point of an annual face the nation / constituencies where elected representatives give out their balance sheet of achievement.
But then again, Is’nt Parliament the place where they need to debate, most of them hardly participate.
Can MP’s be penalized for not attending the parliament ? Not Raising questions ?
Could technology be introduced where the speaker has the right to disqualify an MP’s vote for not attending parliament ?
We all saw what happened during the crucial vote for passing the nuclear bill, I think it was an extremely unfortunate incident when the govt acted against the best interests of the country.
Again, a far fetched view, but with technology, it might not be too difficult.
Rajeev on April 20th, 2009
debates allow a citizen interaction and involvement thats more direct than watching parliamentary debates…any punishment etc of MPs have to be provided in the constitution and/or the rules of parliament…its very difficult for the speaker to disqualify an elected MP from parliament unless its really pressing grounds…this protection to the MPs rights was ostensibly done to protect democracy ..:) but it seems to be working sometims the opposite way.!
Bsk777 on April 20th, 2009
Here we go again!
A debate took place amongst four candidates in Bangalore South. Mr. Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Member of Parliament, in his blog http://www.rajeev.in/blog calls this the “changing nature of Indian politics”. I saw a plane fly high in the sky last night, and I suppose we can ignore all our roads now, since this could very well be the changing nature of transportation in India.
It appears as though Bangalore South is suddenly into a new fashion - political debate. It also appears as though the mix of people in this debate is a fairly homogeneous one. It does not appear, however, that this model can be replicated elsewhere in the country or across the country, simply because we have too many different languages and a vastly diverse culture of communication and very different ideas of what makes India.
There are thousands of migratory workers from Maharashtra and Bihar working in the fields in Tamilnadu, now that the sugarcane harvest is on. I would be curious to know whether any of them would even know what a debate is, and if they would care about any issues being debated upon by a bunch of urban literates. I wonder if they even know their representatives from their home constituencies. But if they didn’t do their jobs, we wouldn’t have much of a sugar output this year. Absolutely nothing will come out of a bunch of Bangaloreans debating the future of the nation, for they won’t implement anything they debated upon.
That’s what is unique about India - the people who have all the great ideas don’t have much of an impact upon the way things are done on the ground, until their ideas percolate all the way down to implementation. The ideas at the top come from people who don’t have a clue on how things are at the bottom. The people at the bottom don’t have much to choose from and do not have an expectation of a great India - they just want to get by.
The reason we cannot have a debate like the American presidential debate is because no two leaders represent anything close to the aspirations of the Average Indian. There is no Average Indian since people living in Rameswaram have issues totally different from those living in Assam. It is a great thing that India is holding together despite our enormous diversity in culture, concerns, language, abilities, food and outlook on life. But the truth is, we love the idea of India and that India does not have to be anything other than this confusing mess.
It is fashionable for the urban literate to think they can model our country like something they have in their heads. The reality is that no matter how much anyone tries, the whole of India is not easy to grasp in one lifetime. Urban literates have the time to discuss ideas, while the migratory worker, the fisherman, the farmer and the train driver keep this country running. Urban literates can afford to go to http://www.nocriminals.org and talk about real snakes getting tickets and make noises about “no criminals”! But the real India doesn’t quite stay glued into these vanity visionaries. The snakes amongst them will come to power, no matter what, for it is the snakes that can feast upon the helplessness of the rural masses.
We haven’t empowered the majority of India, and we will continue to reap the rich harvest of ignorance. We will have chief ministers of individual states refusing to accept that the chief of the LTTE is a terrorist, while the nation’s policy clearly defines him as such. We have no cohesive “Indian” thought process that applies to the whole of India. Indeed we can do very well without a sanitized homogenity, but we can have no national debate until the worlds we live in can have some common ground. An educated South Indian does not live in the same world as an uneducated rural criminal politician from Bihar.
The ONLY thing that can hold the fabric of India together is economic opportunity. As long as there is a reasonably good chance of most Indians making their lives better, we don’t have to question status quo. There is no magic, no silver bullet, that will cure this country of all ills, but we can do with a pill that can wake up our urban educated and get them to think beyond their sterilized, protected existences, their cute notions of how their debates and civilized exchanges can actually do something to change the reality of the underserved, underutilized, ignored, eroding India.
The most important question still begs to be asked - how many Indian candidates trying to get votes actually have a brain that can process a fair amount of information, that can make sense out of chaotic issues that beseige us, come forward with confidence and participate in a debate that is interesting, engaging and useful at the end? If the figure crosses zero for any geographical area, we would be blessed.
Gautam Nandi on April 20th, 2009
Any begining in the right direction is a good begining. I fully endorse your views and see a bright ray of hope for a qualitative change in the political dispensation in the not so distant future. The riff raff who are already in the system will gradually get eliminated as participation and awareness gathers momentum. The existing ‘old senile’ crowd of politicians will have to give way sooner than later. Three cheers to you and your kind. Keep the good work going for the future of India with this qualitative change that you have initiated till it gathers quantity to make an impact and change things that we all deserve.
The Mulayams/Lalus/Gowdas/Karats/Singhs etc. are beyond their shelf life and must not be allowed to jeopardise our future any longer with their selfish agendas. The other day I read some where that India grows at night when the politicians are asleep - let us put them to sleep by voting the useless out.
devegowda on April 20th, 2009
le.. website ge yella duddu haal maadbeda.. nam kumarswamy nodi kali.. hogi mike munde vadaru.. illi yaaru nodalla..
Shreekanta Murthy on April 20th, 2009
At last! Someone has taken the initiative. I have been clamouring for a debate amongst the Indian politicians for a long time and was sorely disappointed when Dr.Manmohan Singh backed off.
Shreekanta Murthy Mysore on April 20th, 2009
At last! Someone has taken the initiative. I have been clamouring for a debate amongst the Indian politicians for a long time and was sorely disappointed when Dr.Manmohan Singh backed off. yes
Kanak Nagarkatti on April 21st, 2009
Rajiv Gandhi, with 420 odd seats in 1984 buckled in to the power brokers. Independents will never be able to achieve anything on their own. They should join political parties and cleanse from these parties the corrupt, the useless and most important, THE DYNASTIC members. Also work towards a 2 party system, at least at the centre. A system in which the PM, once elected, like the US president, cannot be brought down by a change of loyalties.
Ganesh Panemangaluru on April 21st, 2009
Rajiv should have been more forthright and should have been critical of Manmohan Singh for refusing the debate offer of L K Advani. It was both arrogant and disgraceful for the Prime Minister to refute such an invitation from a senior political figure like Advani and that too in a rude and unforgivably churlish manner. The sentence used by Dr. Singh was he “doesn’t want to see Mr. Advani as an alternative Prime Minister,” heights of arrogance isn’t it? This despite he refusing to contest the elections and still getting himself projected as the Prime Minister. Contrast this with the fighting spirits of our democracy’s veterans, Advani and Fernandez.
Obviously the intellectual community won’t be protecting its moral guts by refusing to chastise the Prime Minister on his indifferent and cocky attitude to Indian democracy. And Rajiv can’t be condoned for being so mild on Mr. Singh. He has not looked more decent by doing go.
psusane on April 21st, 2009
Hi,
Debate between the political persons in the presence of civilians is deliberately good cause.This gives an idea how the politicians are more conscious about the welfare and development of the nation and its people and how they implant it.So that the right candidate will be elected by the people.
=================================
psusane
http://www.getinforum.com
Raj on April 21st, 2009
The suggestion to have a debate between the PM and Advani is just a copy paste from the US. We all know what Advani will tell and what the PM will tell. It’s a sheer waste of time. Democracy is not an oratorical slugfest. Advani was considered as a man of steel, but he was helpless when Khandahar happened. As far as knowledge is concerned, Advani is no match for the PM, because the former’s rhetoric is based on a warped sense of history and a despiccable effort to divide the country along communal and religious lines. As a Hindu, I cannot certify this divisive stratergy.
Ganesh Panemangaluru on April 22nd, 2009
Mr. Raj seems bent on justifying a political coward and he looks to have so little sense of history himself here. If Mr. Singh and Mr. Raj believe that Mr. Advani’s agenda is divisive they can as well tell the same in crystal clear terms in a debate and Mr. Advani is just asking for a chance to reply to that.
As far as Mr. Raj’s accusation that this idea of debate of Mr. Advani is just a copy and paste of the American system, he could not have looked more silly. Human beings have evolved from the tribal state of existence where they only used to brickbat and brutalize their opponents to the argumentative stage only because the saner cultures of democracy and debate developed and India is one among such developments. And Mr. Raj needs to be reminded that we Indians have perhaps the most ancient argumentative culutres and minds dating from the times of Vedas and he can read Amartya Sen’s “The Argumentative Indian” if he has any doubts over his own intellectual inheritances.
As a Hindu, Mr. Raj refuses to certify the divisive strategy of Mr. Advani, but as a Hindu I have got two questions to Mr. Raj.
1. Why are you bent on throwing stones at our own cultures-both political and intellectual-of debate and discussion, contest and a fight in an election, and instead blindly endorsing the PM’s cowardly refusal to both debate with Advani and contest the election even though projected as a PM by his party? Isn’t Mr. Singh straigthtway not concurring with Advani that he is a “nominated PM” by avoiding these two things? Do you have the right to become a coward (a decent word for me) just because you look decent (I am puzzled by the extent to which this word can be abused)?
2. Why is he degenerating the idea of a good political debate to an oratorical slugfest? Does he still belong the only DD (Doordarshan) age of Rajiv Gandhi where opposition was dubbed as “communal, criminal, divisive etc. etc….” and Rajiv Gandhi once famously invited his political opponent for a debate and then rany away? Are you nostalgic of that age Mr. Raj?
Wishing both you and your leader well
Anindya on April 23rd, 2009
I think the idea of a debate is good; if for nothing else but injecting some civility into the political discourse. I think that is my principal takeaway from your post.
As many comments to this post maintain, this may not achieve anything substantive for various reason. But, at least it shows the way to the other constituencies and other voters and leaders; we can differ in a democracy but can do so without ill-feeling or rancour vitiating the atmosphere.
This is all the more important when no party is going to be able to come even close to a majority of seats in Lok Sabha. So, irrespective of their public posturing before the elections, they will need to work together after the elections, either as part of the government or part of the opposition: party with party, leader with leader. In many instances, the government and the opposition will need to work together and muster bipartisan support behind important steps to address national issues.
Sadly, the amount of name calling that is going on in this elections, reflecting a degree of insecurity and even deseparation among the parties and leaders (Advani calling Manmohan Nikamma, Jairam Ramesh calling Advani a lier, Pranab and Laloo face-off virtually ruling out collaboration after the elections..) will make it very difficult for these leaders to swallow their pride and work together to form a government after the election. As for the government and opposition working together; dream on!
I applauded when Advani said gracious and kind words to Pranab on the floor of the house. Alas, my hopes died young.
TV Kumar on April 28th, 2009
Rajeev You have been a source of inspiration for the new generation for a couple of decades for your visionary outlook. You have taken up the cause independently in the nation’s interest unlike the ways the steriotyped and half baked politicians are adopting simply to grab power. Keep it up ‘YOUTH AAP KE SAATH HAI’(To borrow the expression extensively used by poiticians of the day)!