The cut and thrust of the presidential debate in the US may leave many voters in America shell-shocked, but this is a clear reflection of the ‘hollowness’ and ‘shallowness’ of the choices being offered...
The presence of a 24x7 media has made dramatic developments in democratic politics in any corner of the wide world, a matter of keen interest across the world. This becomes even more obvious as the American presidential election campaign reaches a feverish crescendo. Across the world, the more we project each country as distinct and different, the more we realise the striking similarities and prominent parallels across democratic and electoral processes. When one watched the two debates between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates and followed the cut and thrust of their campaign, one realised that in the modern day and age, candidates for “high” office across the world, led their electoral campaigns in predictably similar ways.
In “new” democracies of the developing world it was often argued that “who you are” mattered much more when deciding whom you voted for rather than “what one believed in”. The current presidential election campaign in the United States is clearly indicative of the centrality of this trend. When identifying the possible supporters of Donald Trump one refers to “middle class white males who have not had access to college education” or/and “middle class rural white males” or “middle class families that have suffered economic stagnation”. On the other hand, the typical Hillary Clinton supporters are projected as being the “African-Americans”, “Latinos”, “women” and the “economically less privileged” segments of society. In many debates, support for either candidate is being calculated in terms of the different social and economic groups who are likely to be swayed by the shrill rhetoric of the two key candidates.
“Politics” and “politician” bashing has also become fashionable not merely in the developing world, but in the US also. Welcome to the real world! Mr Trump has gone to town lambasting the conventional and professional politician and the “establishment”. He has consistently attacked his opponent (and what she represents) as being a symbol of the “entrenched political class”. In the recent television debate, Mr Trump did not bat an eyelid when he said that “as a politician” and he hastened to add that he was surprised that he was describing himself in those words! The “anti-politics”-“anti-politician” rhetoric is something we are only too familiar with in India. The Aam Aadmi Party claimed that they would usher in “alternative” politics. Today, as one witnesses their politics, one realises that it is not “alternative” politics but an “alternative within mainstream politics” that they are offering the voters of the country.
The cut and thrust of the presidential debate in the US may leave many voters in America shell-shocked (as is clear in the hours of discussions in the electronic media, long commentaries in the print media and what’s trending on social media), but this is a clear reflection of the “hollowness” and “shallowness” of the choices being offered. If one candidate threatens to send the other to jail if elected (Mr Trump did not merely say that in the TV debate but has repeated it in his campaign) and states that he would “direct” his administration to take action in this regard, it is clearly reflective of the “disruptiveness” to what was considered “accepted norms” of democratic governance and electoral politics which many in other democracies are accustomed to more as a rhetoric in electoral campaigns to challenge the opponent with precious little happening once elected. The ethical issues that have erupted in the election campaign — be it the infamous Trump video that is a decade old, Mr Trump’s non-disclosure ofhis income-tax returns, Ms Clinton’s email controversy or the focus on Bill Clinton’s escapades, have seen personal attacks at a level never seen earlier in US presidential campaigns. One must hasten to add, that the last word may not have as yet been said! It would be useful to reflect on whether this represents a “paucity” of real issues or a preferred style of whipping up emotional sentiments. While both candidates mentioned that they would like to focus on their policies, projections and programmes more often than not they highlighted patently personal attacks and taking potshots at each other’s character.
The “double-speak” of politicians who would prefer to forget what they said or did a decade ago is clearly evident in the American presidential elections. Mr Trump has his past coming back in newer ways with every passing day. As a part of his campaign he does talk of the days that he and Mr Clinton played golf together and what transpired as part of their conversations! Ms Clinton quotes the speech that Michelle Obama made at the recent Democratic Party convention but Mr Trump wants to remind his opponent of what the First Lady said when Barack Obama and Ms Clinton were locked in a bitter tussle to secure the Democratic Party nomination eight years ago. While both candidates would like to bury many events of the past, the price one pays when contesting for “high” office is that this past may verily become an open book. Politicians in India have been quite used to this fact and are frequently found scurrying for cover to justify a past action or statement that is inconvenient in a new emerging context.
The next few weeks of the US presidential campaign is likely to see much more of this contradiction playing out in unpredictable ways. Electoral campaigns anywhere and everywhere seem to offer tremendous scope for stunning similarities and critical comparisons.
Dr Sandeep Shastri is a keen student of electoral politics and is the pro-vice-chancellor of Jain University at Bengaluru
