DailyPost 2354
POLITICAL DIVINE SILENCE – SPEAK WHAT & WHEN YOU WANT!
Thrones are not meant to be of roses. Authority to rule assigns you with the responsibility of the welfare of the masses. The ruler and ruled share a symbiotic relationship in a democratic country which is barely visible in actual operations. Transparency and dialogue are the key to the functioning of a robust democracy. Democratic communication in not a one-way game. You need to communicate in full measure when it is warranted, in the right and proper owner. Owning up communication responsibilities by the top and the powerful has been eluding Indian democracy since ages.
If you were to answer only questions you knew and rest of the question paper would be declared invalid in an exam is the exact scenario we are dealing with, in democratic public for decades for now. The situation remains the same whether it is the best of the communicators or the ones who barely speak. Think of a situation where you had the liberty to take an exam at the time, location and invigilator of your choice, followed by an interview with questions known. You also the keep the veto power to speak or not to speak. This can be called as the Divine Silence. In the present day information age, you can run a whole army of disseminators, who can do the bidding on your behalf.
Even in worst of crisis of the crisis you can decide not to speak and that has been the democratic story over the last so few decades. In the nonsensical information blitzkrieg, which voters have to handle perforce, you are pumped in with election political noise beyond the comprehension and handling of a normal layman. The listener, the voter and the citizen are duty bound to listen whatever is dished out to them, at whatever time, and in the whichever way. Given the state of affairs there needs to be an constitutional amendment on the communication responsibilities, where they are legally mandated in the specific circumstances and can cannot escape that accountability.
Not to commit on anything and not to held accountable and more even more importantly, they would be forced to act if the engage with the electorate. Few such expositions can create a narrative which they would difficult to dispense with. Can anyone of them create a ppt with facts / narrative and influence anyone? Not only the right to silence so vociferously exploited by them, they vehemently defend the full safety ecosystem they have created for themselves. There is nothing democratic about it. The government acts; good, bad or ugly and the party defends. When you find it tricky, you can very escape saying that you are not authorized by the government. Government barely speaks. Electorate is at a total loss.
SELECTIVE SILENCEN IN AN ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY IS PARADOXICAL.
Sanjay Sahay