Election Seasons are nothing short of hyperbolized news accounts, advocacy, and increased if not obvious polarity with the congested air of restlessness. From the election seasons in stagnating superpowers to those in developing economies, the gimmicks remain the same. Today, news organizations and media platforms in different corners of the world seem to be in sync with the myopic vision of the western media. This is the western lens that has monopolized the political conversation for the world. This monopoly over conversation is due to a discreetly agreed upon criteria that prevails in the contemporary society. A criterion that one has the choice to either follow or be critiqued.
The most evident analogy anyone draws up when you bring up an election is this notion of traditionally two contenders on different ends of a political spectrum with the occasional ‘third candidate’ potential. Keeping this notion in mind, we have lodged into our heads the notion of who deserves the vote.
When we think of the different responsibilities the state is required to carry out, a key component of this is the fulfilment and betterment of the citizen rights. Whilst these encompass a distinct spectrum, the most basic include civil, economic, political and social rights of the citizen.
However, today, the norm in contemporary society is to interpret this spectrum in a condensed manner, connecting all the issues to the field of ‘social rights.’
The ‘Social’ Arena has made pivotal strides. From increased awareness and advocacy, and a newer sense of prioritization, we now see the potential for social change. Our decade has seen a spike in discourse and acceptance, which is a step towards increased inclusivity, with ongoing hurdles such as:
the Supreme Court of the United States deciding the status of LGBTQ rights in the workplace (debating whether Title VII includes sexual orientation and gender identity).
the increasing global pressure on nations persecuting minority groups in different corners of the world, from the status of Catalans in Spain to the inhumanly treated Uyghurs in China.
Narrowing it down to literate societies worldwide, the importance of mental health and well-being has been stressed in the recent times. Celebrity culture has also played an instrumental role in bringing delicate topics like body positivity and colorism to question in media. Even if this discourse narrows in on the Hollywood industry, it has influenced us, the audience, to challenge the long-set norms that drove a divide and constructed rules for the common people.
This is best explained by the two consequences that result from our fresh new criteria…
All Progress is Good Progress?
While these battles of the social arena need to be addressed and are gaining momentum, there is the other range of issues that also need the same level of priority and urgency. With this zeroing in on specific issues, the curiosity to learn and to weigh in the economic and the structural facets has reduced. Thus, if a political party has action plans which have other issues at priority, our social criteria, chances are that it is simply overseen and dismissed as a less promising and instrumental party to vote for.
Nationalism as a Vice
Another component that results is the antagonism of nationalistic viewpoints. This is to say political parties with such agendas are by default the target of attack by the media. The ideology is associated with notions of outdated and traditional beliefs, radical patriotism and a sense of enforced identity attributed to institutions and peoples. Thus, parties with the slightest hint of this mindset tend to be the targets of popular media, without actually diving into specifics which might be problematic with the associated view.
With these consequences, we dismiss other value systems and mindsets and focus on just one facet of the whole picture.
Forcing the state to adopt the Western methodology yields unstable governance.
It is evident that developing and developed countries have stark differences. From the infrastructure, institutional set-ups to economic opportunities and the very basic standard of living. However, literate societies and media are now trying to mimic and bring in western movements into consideration in this part of the world.
This means advocating for change in arenas which are temporarily irrelevant in this context. For instance, consider a campaign for a newfound type of discrimination created by the west which isn’t prevalent in the country. But the same nation has pressing issues, such as regions with a lack of access to basic sanitation.
The conflict here is the sheer distinction in importance of the two issues. While this campaign would be essential to consider, it deviates from the vital issues that require greater attention. This is problematic for all; the communities in these nations and the state which is often confused with this conflict in priorities.
Right Side is the Wrong Side?
The highly reputed news organizations of the West have joined the bandwagon in framing this sole criterion. Now this is not to say that they report wrong, but rather report in one perspective. That is the antagonizing of leaders and candidates with particularly conservative views, while creating a romanticized narrative for those with progressive stances.
Literate college towns termed ‘open-minded and intellectual’ judge those with differing mindsets and even create a gap with the same individuals.
In college, courses that require debates and discourses, there is a default side everyone supports beforehand. It literally includes all entities at the colleges. This in turn makes it tough for those with opposing mindsets to speak their mind.
Even class curriculums today focus on one approach toward social progress, there isn’t this mapping of the holistic picture with a balanced viewpoint. A good example of this is the US election of 2016 when students witnessed a trade theory economics professor refusing to teach class for the week due to the political outcome of the election. In a class focused on balance of payments calculations and trading mechanisms, the skewed discussion of politics is unnecessary.
The Breeding Ground for Opinion over Content
Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter which allow us to share our views, and now even Snapchat and Instagram stories, share the same dilemma. With the need for digital validation comes the viral trend of instant post sharing. Without actually reading up on issues, people believe the regular social media advocates who actively post on these issues on an ongoing basis. This is mechanically sharing something without subconsciously knowing whether one agrees with the content or not.
This candidate is so charismatic, speaks about inclusion, makes commendable promises toward our societies (minus the implementation of an Action Plan) = IDEAL CANDIDATE
While the content, delivery and promises made in a speech are vital, there is a continuous lack in concrete implementation of these plans. Time and again, Buzzfeed posts, or CNN polls draw attention to a string of candidates that are known for being politically conscious, ‘goody’ image, rallying public support through the repetitive tag line of being respectful and aware. But these tabloids distract.
While there are political candidates being respectful of every category of human (yes, this is to mock the new, endless string of sensitivities that one has to be mindful of which is completely impractical). There are candidates that are doing constructive work for the betterment and development of nations. This constructive work is implementing economic policies that actually help the local community and improve job opportunities, increased international deals and negotiations in the works and so on.
This type of candidate may have traditional, close minded and even problematic views toward an arena and lack the charm that a well-spoken social warrior candidate may have. The point is not to dismiss him/her because of that, but to weigh in everything equally and then decide what candidate would lead the country toward a better future sustainably.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
What’s problematic in all these cases is the assumption that nobody in the classroom, in the neighborhood, on a social media platform, or in a society can have a different view than the norm.
At the end of the day, political candidates are humans too. There is not one political leader that can tick off all the requirements in different people’s minds. With corruption, with increased polarity and a divided world, there is the urgency for us to change with time. We have to consciously weigh in the pluses and minuses rather than go by charm, a sole promise, a media trend, or societal pressure to succumb to the ‘obvious choice’. This monopolization of political discourse is detrimental to not only a nation state but to the societal well-being and future of democracies.
-Anushka Tiwari, GSP Blog Team Contributor