The imagination and collective life of a nation is defined in large part by its public discourse. In a democracy, it is public discourse that provides the dialectical space for the back and forth necessary to develop consensus for the renewal or creation of a new regulatory framework. It is the public discourse through which new ideas and innovations are brought into the mainstream. Public discourse is one that gives ordinary people space for expression and engagement in our collective lives and that gives citizens the ability to prioritize and set boundaries within which governance decisions are made. However, public discourse in our country is no longer playing its role of educating or providing space for dialectical engagement between citizens and people and government. Instead, it is doing the opposite. It is dividing people into partisan groups, spreading propaganda, promoting hatred and bigotry, and attacking civilians with rubbish hitting national headlines for the purpose of widespread distraction and confusion.
Some justify this overabundance of nonsense, which has parodied our public discourse as “democratising”. The aristocracy is said to have lost its gatekeeping powers and today’s cacophony is the inevitable chaos created by the influx of new voices. This explanation is unconvincing. It is not democratization when the new set of voices is merely reacting to an agenda set elsewhere, nor when the responses are constrained to express support or opposition to political heroes. It is not democratization when the public discourse is overwhelmed by built issues irrelevant to people’s daily life, thus reducing the space for their opinion or mobilization on issues related to the governance and vision of the country. What is passed off as democratization is a calibrated ecosystem driven by power, profit and profit between the political class, TV news channels and social media platforms. bad faith. For TV news media, stitching together a panel discussion with a “spokesperson” or supporter of terrors from different political parties is an easy strategy that requires minimal intellectual, time or monetary investment, but provides unlimited hours of programming. . It may serve India’s ruling party well, but opposition parties have also given birth to it through a model of ‘professional’ communication where expression is almost always divorced from organizational decision-making and political initiative. Meanwhile, social media platforms have been deliberately weaponized for the spread of disinformation, to obscure the distinction between scrutinized information and propaganda, and to undermine the integrity of our public discourse.
The resulting discourse is one in which an ordinary person can only enter within the framework of partisanship. Everything from serious issues like inflation, unemployment and the rule of law to rubbish fabricated by third-ranked politicians in search of headlines is only seen within the framework of political divisions. This framework reduces citizens to only supporters of one party or another, inhibiting their ability to think independently or as citizens and to cooperate. Public discourse is how we think, talk and dream as a nation and how new ideas are taken on, but because our discourse has become subject to partisanship, our imagination is now closed and We are compelled to think in terms of persons, events and belonging. As a result, India has been mired in petty protests rather than ally citizenship.
One reason this happens is because of our lack of community organizations that can facilitate civic engagement and allow citizens to collaborate horizontally rather than being cast as partisan adversaries. A network of such organizations would have allowed citizens to run a parallel discourse beyond fabricated stories, thereby impacting the agenda set by the mainstream media and political parties. On paper, there are many local organisations, such as panchayats, rotary clubs, residents’ welfare associations and youth clubs, that can play this role, but they either themselves suffer from partiality or are too small to become a site. Concentrating on concerns. The great conversation about the nation and its trajectory. Thus there is a need to create such thought-provoking spaces where citizens can be political without any conscious bias.
TV news channels and political parties should also not be complacent as they are riding a wave which can lead to their own death. If the only thing TV news has to offer is the personal opinion of the talking heads, often unchecked by any editorial due process, then it is only a matter of time before they will be seen as online ‘influencers’. is replaced by a new growing crop. Similarly, unless political parties, especially those in opposition, deepen their expression through community engagement and political programs, they will not only contribute to the spoiling of our public discourse, but also to be swept away by new entrants. would also be unsafe. This is not an exaggeration. In recent times newcomers have shunned established parties around the world.
India is young, 65% of our population is below 35 years of age. Some visit libraries to understand current issues and most look for cues from public discourse. We are thus indebted to our youth for bringing some prudence, rationality and civility back into our public discourse.
Ruchi Gupta is the Executive Director of Future of India Foundation. That @guptar. tweets on