#53 The State Of Our Public Discourse
Does the coming together of three forces in public discourse - a teflon establishment, the shrinking of middle ground and a diminished role of reason - signal a new social compact?
This newsletter is really a public policy thought-letter. While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought-letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. It seeks to answer just one question: how do I think about a particular public policy problem/solution?
Welcome to the mid-week edition in which we write essays on a public policy theme. The usual public policy review comes out on weekends.
This isn’t a public policy post. Not in the conventional sense. We are trying to make sense of the public discourse in India. Why now, you may ask? Are we giving in to the familiar tendency of over-reading the current moment and drawing broad conclusions from it? We’d say no. There’s something afoot which suggests we are in midst of a more fundamental shift.
What’s Driving Public Discourse?
We have a dominant political party with a PM who enjoys high approval ratings. An overwhelming majority believe we have a hardworking leader with a single-minded objective of building a stronger and more prosperous India. The results of these efforts have been mixed. On most objective economic measures, even prior to the pandemic, we were faring below expectations. Things have gotten worse since. This dissonance between efforts and outcome is one factor in the current discourse. The partisans are in search for answers to reduce this dissonance.
There has been a continuous shrinking of the liberal space over the past few years. There are many reasons for this including the inability of these voices to persuade the public, the elitism and hypocrisy that’s often associated with it and opportunists among its ranks who have changed their stripes. What’s made it worse is the splintering that’s accompanied this shrinking. Indian liberals have been quick to imitate the worst instincts of ideological purity that pervades the U.S. liberal discourse. This has meant attacks on anyone who is otherwise a fellow traveller in the cause but might hold one divergent view from you. This narrowing of the definition is a self-goal in a scenario where few are willing to stand up for the liberal cause. This is the second factor.
Lastly, the rising number of COVID-19 cases in India and the semi-permanent lockdown in most Indian cities have led to a greater sense of anxiety among people and lowered the trigger thresholds among them. There are health fears, insecurity about jobs and rising distrust of the private sector which is seen gouging public during times of distress. This makes it a difficult environment to have a discussion based on reasoning and facts. Sentiments prevail.
Establishment V “Establishment”
There’s a strong feeling we aren’t doing as well as we should because there are saboteurs dragging us down with diversions. There’s a relentless search for a strawman of “establishment” to knock it down as the reason for the dissonance between efforts and performance. An example of this is the “9 PM debate” spectacle that plays out every evening across TV channels. There’s hardly any political opposition left in the country and there are few voices that are willing to be on the panels to be on the other side of the debates. Yet an “establishment” is defined, built up and fought against every day. Often it is the opposition that’s not supporting the government or the nation. Other days it is history and Nehru that let us down. In some debates, it is the bureaucracy that’s stymieing progress. Then there is the permanent “establishment” of the elites, liberals and minorities who are forever to be damned.
Viewed in cold light of the day, this “establishment” has no power except writing a few op-eds or running niche online news sites. The real establishment has corralled all the power, yet it projects itself as a victim of history and the elites. Then this imagined victimhood is internalised and outraged on social media platforms. This has become the default battle line and any contemporary event – from Chinese incursions at LAC to the death by suicide of a young actor – is easily framed within it. A faux establishment is propped, a few known voices speak against it often to serve their own interests and a craftily structured message is then broadcast far and wide on media platforms. It is quite a feat in narrative setting.
Amplification V Chilling Effect
We are developing our indigenous models of chilling effect and cancel culture. The extreme left has its stringent code of who and what qualifies as a ‘legit’ voice. Nobody knows anymore what’s acceptable while talking about a liberal cause. A well-known writer and lyricist writing against caste privilege is accused of appropriating the cause while old tweets are dug up to prove some remote ideological impurity. Someone isn’t liberal enough because she once praised former PM Vajpayee. Another isn’t good because he let a far-right voice use his platform to write on his area of expertise. Advocating or writing for a free and liberal society seems like a long race with hidden hurdles. You can trip anytime. Is it any surprise that there are fewer people willing to stick their necks out?
To compound the problem, the far-right has become bolder and creative by the day in labelling people as Jaichands, imagining offences, and dispensing punishment. It has become mainstream enough to have its voices amplified in mainstream media. What was considered controversial is now acceptable because of this amplification. Further, nothing is too small to outrage about or to draw a false equivalence. The recent example of a stand-up comedian receiving death threats over a joke on a statue is an example of this. The spate of apologies that followed establishes the chilling effect. People will think twice and not speak the next time. There’s nothing that pleases establishment more than self-censorship. Between these two extremes, free speech is in for rough days ahead.
Reason V Emotion
The past six months have been among the most difficult periods for the country. The government is contending with a health crisis, an economic slowdown and a border skirmish with an arrogant China that wants to be a hegemon. We haven’t got a handle yet on the spread of the COVID-19 cases. We have multiple localised lockdowns that are holding back the full restart of the economy. And the economic package that was announced a couple of months back hasn’t primed demand yet.
This multi-pronged crisis requires a rational, data-oriented and reason driven approach to policymaking. Often such an approach yields formulations that go against the grain of conventional thinking. They are tough decisions to sell to people because they appear counter-intuitive to them. We have taken only a handful of such steps. Instead, we have relied on emotions, used slogans and hoped for the best. There is merit in rallying people through emotive appeals. But they must be supplemented by a realistic plan to find a way out of these crises. There’s a sense we have used emotions as a substitute for policy and let things drift.
A Different Compact?
Like we said at the start, this appears like a fundamental shift in discourse in India. The coming together of the three trends – the establishment deflecting accountability, the shrinking of the ‘middle’ space and sentiments trumping reason – portends a different social compact than what was established post-independence. It might lack a moral force, but it has democratic legitimacy. Its counter can only emerge from We, the people.
HomeWork
Reading and listening recommendations on public policy matters
[Article] Spencer Bokat-Lindell in the New York Times on the Harper’s Magazine letter and the debate on open debate. Detailed plus lots of links.
[Article] Pratap Bhanu Mehta in The Indian Express on the recent SC judgment on the Sri Marthanda Verma vs State of Kerala.
[Podcast] Ezra Klein and Yascha Mounk debate on Free speech, safety, and ‘the letter’.
Amazing perspective. Something that a lot of us have felt but haven't known how to express, put across beautifully. Bookmarking this.
This is a really interesting perspective to understand the nature of our current discourse. I would also add that corporations by quickly reacting to this 'cancel culture' with firing the person in question have legitimized this culture to a large extent. But more so on US. Incidentally, I wrote something similar recently (https://allthingsequal.substack.com/p/cancel-culture-and-polarization-without)!