NIRUPAM HAZRA
Politics, particularly democratic politics, is an art of persuasion. It is an arrangement where one needs to win the support of the people to win political power. Today democracy is largely seen as universally desirable form of governance, at least from the perspective of the common people, but it took centuries for such an arrangement to emerge where political power would revolve around ordinary people. When democracy began its journey, it was met with deep suspicion and strong resistance. The resistance inevitably came from those who had traditionally enjoyed power without much accountability.
Democracy made the political elites realize that power and political authority would no more remain confined among a privileged few. So, they were expected to oppose it. However, there were others, especially from the educated and enlightened class, whose interests were not directly hurt by democracy, yet they had been apprehensive and doubtful. The doubts were about how the demos would exercise their newfound political power. The common people at that time were mostly uneducated and lacked, it was believed, the fine judgment required in matters of governance. The power to take major political decisions, so far, was bestowed upon a handful of people who were considered to be worthy and efficient.
Democracy opened a floodgate. Anyone with the support of the masses could wield power and take decisions. Democracy, however, in its early days was not as inclusive as it is today. Nevertheless, there had been a sense of anxiety because it was presumed that democracy would eventually be captured by rabblerousers. A system of mob-rule, as the name suggests, would be mastered only by the demagogues. The fears were not unfounded and democracy, from the very beginning, explored ways to tame megalomaniac demagogues and rabble-rousers.
Transition to democracy brought about fundamental changes – not only in the process of governance but also in the political life of the people in general. It opened a space for dialogue – between the ruler and the ruled and among common people themselves. Before that ordinary people had hardly any say in political matters, as politics and governance were considered to be the domain of the high and mighty. Democracy by creating a space for dialogue changed the earlier equation. But what remained a cause of concern for many was that the space provided by democracy was equally available to both democrats and demagogues. Similarly, rhetorical power and oratory skill that helped garner popular support in a democracy were equally exploited by democrats and demagogues.
A demagogue would try to draw support by whipping up passion, appealing to popular prejudice and by acts of manipulation of public opinion. Reasoned deliberation and informed judgment would find themselves deserted against the emotive incantation of demagogues. So, the question is how to sieve a true democrat out of megalomaniac demagogues. Democracy has always been vulnerable to the devious designs of demagogues and would-be dictators.
There is no fool-proof mechanism to keep them permanently away. However, certain aspects of their conduct and characteristics may help to spot a demagogue. One such aspect is the way they engage with the people or how they make use of the space for dialogue offered by democracy. The ways of reaching to the people are supposed to vary and it often depends on individual stylistic preferences of a leader. However, demagogues, more often than not, resort to fierce monologues to fire up support, to persuade people; while democrats are more amenable to dialogue. Notwithstanding the fact that dialogue and monologue can be used by both democrats and demagogues, when considered with other traits, a demagogue, as history tells us, shares an unusual penchant for monologue.
From the past dictators to the present populist leaders – most of them were great orators and above all, great monologists. Dialogue, on the other hand, means an exchange of thoughts where the space for disagreement or even dissent remains open and it undergirds the very idea of democracy. Dialogue does not necessarily need to take place between people and their leaders; dialogues among people are equally important for a democracy. But a demagogue or an aspiring dictator finds monologue more effective and ‘safe’ way to engage with people. Monologue comes with certain advantages for one who exercises it. Monologue gives the speaker complete control over the content.
The speaker moulds the narrative the way she or he wants – unquestioned and unchallenged. Monologue – however direct or unmediated it may appear -is essentially a one-way traffic. So, the speaker is not directly or immediately answerable to anyone for what is said. Hence, fact and fiction, truth and lies, reality and imagination can be seamlessly stitched together into a singular convenient narrative. The preferred crowds for a political monologist are also distinct in their nature – they are either credulously enchanted or effectively silenced. Through absolute allegiance or complete silence, a demagogue can emerge as the supreme leader of the people, the final arbiter of truth and the possessor of panacea for all the problems of the people. So, monologue is the tool through which a demagogue creates a fantasyland, unrestrained by questions, criticisms, disagreements and dissent.
But leaders who believe in democratic values always prefer to engage in dialogue, even with their fiercest opponents. Monologue may mint a saviour out of an unsavoury demagogue; but it takes a toll on democracy. The hypnotizing monologue reveals as much the oratory skill of a demagogue as it paralyses the enchanted listeners’ ability to think reasonably. Thus, demagogues’ desires expressed through monologues eventually become the voice of the people – people who will always agree with their leader, people who will not allow opposing or dissenting voices to rise, people who will believe only in what they or their leaders believe to be true. These monologues are further amplified when they are served with a dose of disinformation on social media platforms.
Such platforms, in the garb of direct communication, allow the demagogues to effectively bypass any method of mediated dialogue. Social media creates virtual islands of citizens separated from each other and reluctant to engage in any form of meaningful dialogue. Its impact is felt in the actual world as well. The mesmerising magic of monologue at times becomes so overpowering that we forget it can be interrupted or questioned.
Monologue, therefore, as a mode of communication certainly augurs badly for democracy, especially when we see the rise of such demagogues and their band of followers across the world. The unwillingness of the demagogues and the incapacity of their followers to engage in dialogue are indications of the attack that democratic instincts face today.
If it goes on unabated, dialogue will soon become an improbable option to engage with leaders and fellow citizens. Then every disagreement will be met with threats, trolling, shaming and even physical violence. So, it is necessary that we restore the space for dialogue that any vibrant democracy should have.
(The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work, Bankura University.)
