Opinion Ringing silence
UPA failed to recognise the necessity of political communication — at its own peril.
UPA failed to recognise the necessity of political communication — at its own peril.
On Monday, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram made a significant public admission about the UPA’s tenure when he spoke about the lost years of 2010 and 2011, when the anti-corruption protests led by Anna Hazare took aim at Parliament, the legislative process and government, and in fact the entire political class appeared dazed.
As the government was serially battered by the courts, CAG, opposition, and from street protests, it failed to dispel these narratives or offer a compelling one of its own. In an earlier time, it may have been enough for the prime minister to address other branches of government alone, and communicate sparingly with the people. But that kind of lofty remove does not work in a media-saturated environment. It conveys a sense of drift, a lack of engaged leadership.
The Congress party, too, seemed unable to grasp the worth of communication, a remarkable drawback for a political party. Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi often disparages the opposition, saying they are great marketers, and claims that his own party believes in action. But no political party can afford to imagine that action and persuasion are unrelated.
In fact, the government’s communication has been so dismal that even the Congress campaign seems unaware of the UPA’s most important achievements, its investment in healthcare, its strides in maternal and infant well-being. State governments run by regional parties are taking credit for flagship schemes conceptualised and funded by the UPA.
To some extent, this has to do with the peculiar way authority was structured between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi. It is no secret that the UPA and the Congress were unable to script and own a common story. The dissonance between the party’s public positions and the UPA government’s decisions often embarrassed the prime minister, slowed the government’s reflexes, and diluted its authority and credibility.
It made no attempt to argue its own case, to make symbolic points, to take credit or employ any of the standard techniques of democratic persuasion. The Manmohan Singh government left communication to the party’s political leadership, other leaders also awaited their cue, cautious about even the most natural gestures like expressing compassion and fellow-feeling to young people venting their anguish about sexual violence, for instance. Long periods of radio silence were followed by hectic, misguided activity, as the UPA responded to the fleeting demands of TV anchors. While it is evident the UPA’s top leaders are not enthusiastic orators, the lesson from this experience has been that no party can afford this reluctance to engage in this mass-mediated age, that they must get over their own preferences and institutionalise effective communication.
Share
