Instead of prohibiting pre-poll surveys, the Election Commission should help voters be better informed about their candidates. Compulsory presidential-style debates between prime ministerial candidates is a good place to start
The Congress-led UPA regime recently called for a blanket ban on opinion polls in India, tagging these as subjective and manipulative. Such a demand by the Government exposes the complexes of the ruling party and the insecurity that is prevalent among its members. How wonderful it would have been if, on the contrary, the party had called for a public debate between all Prime Ministerial candidates, and influenced the results of these opinion polls through their argumentsIJ
Such debates date back to Abraham lincoln, when a series of seven debates took place that lasted for a couple of hours. However, it was in the 1970s that President Gerald Ford shaped the modern concept of debates. He agreed to participate in three debates on three different issues, out of which two debates were on domestic agendas and one on foreign policies. Even vice-presidential debates were introduced during that time.
Interestingly, in America the holding of these debates is not a constitutional compulsion; but over the years, as is seen in progressive democracies, it has become an integral part of the pre-election process. These debates are supposed to cover all issues of concern from political, social to economic agendas. Not only do these debates remove prejudices and biases, but they also allow the voters to peep inside the minds of the candidates.
These debates are generally held only after the parties announce their presidential candidates, in the final lap of their election campaign. The debates are held in front of large crowds, and also telecast across the nation. The 2012 US presidential debates were viewed live by more than 70 million people each time, and later on by millions more across the world. The three debates in 2012 between Mr Barack Obama and Mr Mitt Romney shaped public perception by clarifying the political agendas of the Democratic and Republican parties respectively.
Now contrast this with India. Few Prime Ministerial candidates dare to face the nation on national television prior to the election, leave alone debate their opponents. In fact, as most parties declare their man for the top job only after the election is over, voters are kept guessing about their to-be Prime Minister even after they have the cast their vote.
Additionally, political agendas are shrouded in darkness too. The Supreme Court and the Election Commission should ensure that it is mandatory for national political parties to, first, declare their Prime Minister candidates before the election; and second, for these candidates to come for live public debates at least three or four times before the election. This procedure may be replicated at the State level too.
The debates can be designed to cover all vital issues of the nation and moderated to allow enough time to all candidates to express their views and opinions on contentious topics. Recordings of these debates must be archived for easy access later on for all voters through the Internet, TV, radio and other communication media.
Imagine the clarity voters will have if all electoral candidates in India were to debate on important issues three to four times on national television. And also the clarity the leaders will have when they receive feedback from the people post these debates. leaders like Mr Rahul Gandhi, Mr Narendra Modi and Mr Arvind Kejriwal will do well to debate issues of poverty and corruption (social), inflation (economic) and foreign policies (geo-political) and defend their stands with the help of policies they plan to introduce or implement once and if they are elected. Such debates will also eliminate the fissures that appear because of a coalition Government.
Above all, these debates will make the leaders accountable and answerable to the electorate and not to the so-called party ‘high-command’. Such transparency empowers the electorate and upholds the concept of participatory governance systems. The fact is that politicians need not be worried about such debates. Isn’t it true that in any parliamentary session, debates between politicians are telecast liveIJ Then why fear moving these debates to national public forumsIJ
But one would also like to go a step further and request the Election Commission to make it compulsory for all prime ministerial candidates to go on a nationwide visit, meeting their voters. This visit should be conducted before the polls, with the candidates travelling to all the States. Given the demographic and geographic spread of our nation (and variation in culture and language), such visits become even more vital.
There have been incidents where a large part of a constituency has failed to recognise the Prime Minister by name or by face — leave aside knowing the names of other national leaders! Such visits will break the shackles that bound our democratic structure. They will enhance the meaning of democracy and also empower the voters with election agendas, manifestoes, the leaders’ points of view and party policies.
The Election Commission and the Supreme Court should seek to introduce such moves that bring leaders closer to their citizens, rather than keeping them inaccessible and aloof. After all, if we have to live up to the nom de plume of the world’s largest democracy, then we have to imbibe at least the easiest of progressive steps to make our democracy more mature.
(The author is a management guru and honorary director of IIPM Think Tank)