By not answering, political Netas also lose ability to question

By not answering, political Netas also lose ability to question​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 7th Dec. 2017

There are all sorts of questions flying in the ongoing polls in the Western state. The most crucial amongst them are the questions from the farmers and rural dwellers, the urban poor and tribal communities. These are classes who are large in numbers and have seen little benefit from whatever that may have happened to the economy. To them a scrutiny of the Chief Minister’s report card mattered. It mattered not because that would have improved something in their day-to-day struggle, but because it would have established the fact that somebody is responsible and has to listen to them. This would also put pressure that the political Netas perched by their zealot supporters need to go beyond rather than just making noises through their support network, but also connect with common man. Failing this, the tendency to find one of their own (read caste leaders) to be put in helm, rises.

With many small businesses looking for re-anchoring and realignment and corporates taking re-look at locations of the projects, it requires perhaps a greater handholding from the policy makers during the midst. And report card again goes on to show responsibility taking along with allaying of lingering fears in whichever corners. This is especially when some ‘change’ has been introduced for the very first time under the stewardship of the Neta. However in our polity, the Netas respond to concentration of power or a potential concentration of power only otherwise which they may not be keen to be responsive as it is seen as defensive. This behavior by itself calls for a stronger and responsive opposition. What we have in opposition currently is the rat race amongst Netas to put ‘me first’ rather than upholding of some principles and then positioning themselves as key torch-bearers of those principles. While this afflicts the ruling party/combine as well however its projection of a Neta or a select few, and parade revolutions of a clutch of Netas around them, tends to project image that things are hunky-dory. Decisive leadership is where the principles are well propagated and well understood, and the demands of the situation is appreciated as well as responded to. The Netas and parties lack this collectively but are loath to acknowledge the same.

The policies like Demonetization, might have effected some Netas in the ruling combine as well, however the Netadom collective almost always tends to maintain their closeness to the power centers rather than sulk, for this ensures that their brokerages for other things remains intact. Similarly, the short term and long term consequences of the GST and required re-alignment of the businesses might be in need of articulation so that the businesses tide over the same faster. While the solution provider businesses may have sprung up, the possible actions amongst Netas from different states to conjure up solution and resources might be missing. This is even where GST have been projected as a ‘consensual’ effort, although with some degree of denial or political blame game. If economics were to be center-stage in the electoral hustling, then there are clear ‘dos’ for the Netas and government (and its failure to have been highlighted as plank by the opposition) should have been clear, but unfortunately it requires social media to make its point and this is a pointer to the interest of politics in everyday economics. The tendency to rely on ‘other factors’ remain high and diluted focus leads to weak stories and branding (of the Netas/parties/political planks). The actions of the lower level orderly Netas to continue to dig-in with the power-center Netas is construed by the senior Netas as their chimera is working. The senior Netas are ensured about successful rallies which together with the commercial news media apparatus would convince voters about the invincibility and subsequent falling in line by the voters.

Given the situation, perhaps there is a need to question that why should the voters come out to vote where the Netas are unclear about their political planks, if that were economics. However, here the commercial news media seems helpless having to do its moral duty and obligation to continue to keep people engaged with the politics and therefore the Netas. Let’s see the Game’ evolve….

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

The Cost of Silence: By Not Answering, Political Leaders Forfeit Their Right to Question​

In the dynamic and often contentious world of politics, the ability to communicate effectively can make or break a political career. Politicians, or "Netas" as they are often called in India, are expected to engage with the public, address concerns, and provide clarity on a myriad of issues. However, in recent years, a troubling trend has emerged where political leaders choose to remain silent on critical questions, often in the face of controversy or when the answers might be politically inconvenient. This deliberate avoidance not only erodes public trust but also has a more subtle and far-reaching consequence: it strips these leaders of their moral and intellectual authority to question others.

The Power of Transparency​

Transparency is a cornerstone of democratic governance. When political leaders are forthcoming and honest with the public, they build a reservoir of trust. This trust is essential for effective governance, as it allows leaders to rally public support for their policies and initiatives. Conversely, when leaders dodge questions or remain silent, they create a vacuum of information that can be filled by speculation, rumors, and even misinformation. This not only undermines their credibility but also diminishes the public's faith in the political system as a whole.

The Loss of Moral Authority​

One of the most significant costs of silence is the loss of moral authority. When a politician chooses not to answer a question, they are essentially saying that they are not accountable for their actions or decisions. This lack of accountability can have a chilling effect on the political discourse. If leaders are not held accountable for their words and actions, they set a dangerous precedent that can be emulated by others, leading to a culture of secrecy and evasion.

Moreover, the public has a right to know. In a democracy, citizens are the ultimate arbiters of political power. They have the right to ask questions and expect honest and straightforward answers. When a leader fails to engage with these questions, they are not just failing the public; they are failing the very principles of democracy. This erosion of trust can make it difficult for leaders to question the actions of others, as their own credibility is in question.

The Intellectual Cost​

Silence also has an intellectual cost. Engaging with difficult questions forces politicians to think critically, to consider multiple perspectives, and to articulate their positions clearly. This process of engagement is not just beneficial for the public; it is also beneficial for the leaders themselves. By avoiding tough questions, politicians miss out on opportunities to refine their arguments, to learn from criticism, and to grow intellectually. This intellectual complacency can lead to poor decision-making and a lack of foresight.

Furthermore, when leaders are unwilling to engage in dialogue, they contribute to a polarized political environment. Constructive debate and dialogue are essential for the health of a democracy. They allow for the exchange of ideas, the resolution of conflicts, and the building of consensus. By not participating in these conversations, leaders are not just silencing themselves; they are silencing the potential for progress and innovation.

The Double Standard​

One of the most glaring issues with political leaders who remain silent is the double standard it creates. When a leader chooses not to answer a question, they implicitly acknowledge that the issue is sensitive or controversial. Yet, when it comes to questioning their opponents or the government, they often adopt a stance of moral superiority, demanding transparency and accountability. This inconsistency is not lost on the public, and it further erodes trust.

For example, a politician who remains silent on questions about corruption or malfeasance in their own party but is quick to point out similar issues in the opposition is seen as hypocritical. This hypocrisy not only damages the leader's reputation but also contributes to a toxic political culture where accusations and counter-accusations dominate the discourse, rather than substantive policy discussions.

The Way Forward​

To regain their ability to question and to restore public trust, political leaders must embrace transparency and accountability. This means facing difficult questions head-on, even when the answers are not easy or convenient. It means engaging in constructive dialogue and being willing to learn from criticism. It also means admitting mistakes and taking responsibility for their actions.

Political leaders should also be more proactive in communicating with the public. Regular press conferences, town hall meetings, and social media interactions can help build a rapport with the electorate and demonstrate a commitment to openness. When leaders are seen as accessible and willing to engage, they are more likely to be trusted and respected, even when they disagree with the public on certain issues.

In conclusion, the decision to remain silent on critical questions is not just a tactical choice; it is a strategic blunder that can have long-term consequences. By not answering, political leaders not only lose the public's trust but also forfeit their ability to question others effectively. In a democracy, the power to question is a fundamental right and a crucial tool for holding those in power accountable. To maintain this power, leaders must be willing to answer the tough questions and to engage with the public in a meaningful and transparent manner.