Political discourses by all concerned in the last couple of months has been abusive to say the least, slanderous and utterly disgusting, creating a political strife never seen before in the country. Political Parties have been indulging in completely amoral, unethical and below dignity repartees that do no good to their tenets. Rather than the political parties, it is the people that man them who have been a national disgrace. If the slander that almost everyone has indulged in for the other, is any yardstick to go by, and audit the quality metric of the ongoing political circus, then the future does not behold great tidings. Accusations ranged from moral corruption to calling names to personal attacks that at no time will pass muster of a civil discourse. Unfortunately, neither the leader nor the followers nor the opponents played fair. Statesmanship was the casualty. People were the losers.
Like Nostradamus a French apothecary’s prophesies in early 1500’s are becoming a reality, the 1946 Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Robert Penn, “All the King’s Men” has been equally effective in prophesying slander politics. The book makes a fascinating look at corruption in politics. It follows the rise and fall of Willie Stark, a fictional governor. What started out as Stark’s interest in helping his close friend, turns into megalomania on a grand scale. It gives an inside peek as to how political slander and defamation works, and how it is perpetuated.
Defamation is the catch-all term that incorporates the torts of slander. It refers to oral statements, whereas libel applies to the written word. Though no one indulges in libel, slander has been much abused in the current edition. It refers to a false, oral statements about an individual that harms his reputation or standing within the community. Slander is not a crime, but a civil wrong that is subject to being held responsible in a civil lawsuit. Statements made about a person must be factual, or they must express the legitimate opinion of the speaker. Statements that are made in anger or malice, which are untrue, are commonly viewed as slander.
In this era of fake news, criminal accusations, and allegations of misconduct made toward politicians by fellow politicians, some people may wonder why they don’t sue to set the record straight. Of course, politicians, as public figures, must also meet significantly higher burdens of proof than an ordinary person. Several statements were passed off as legitimate by the election commission hiding behind freedom of speech and often citing lack of action based on the content of statements missing satisfying narrowly defined requirements. The press largely played a partisan role with the common folk endlessly searching for the truth.
If one accused the leader of the other of promoting nepotism, the other went a step further by accusing the first of deserting his wife and having no family to understand the vagaries of a family life. There were even uncharitable words uttered about certain leaders of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force nor firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman. As the slurs piled on, one was labelled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while the other was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. Even the families were not spared. If a good deal of mud was slung on one side accusing of stealing money to pay friends, the other painted a corrupt character by literally bringing back to life so to say, the dead from the grave.
If men in opposition painted the leader in power as a grasping and bloodthirsty character, a budding tyrant, a despot in the model of Caesar, Hitler or Napoleon, whose election would spell the death of the republic the men in power were not far behind. They branded the opposition as corrupt, as aristocrats, and-ridiculously partisan and nepotistic.
With so much happening it is also interesting that no one approaches the Court for redressal. To prove defamation, an ordinary person must prove that the defendant made the false statement, at least, negligently. However, if the court concludes that a plaintiff is either a limited or general public figure, the plaintiff must prove “clearly and convincingly” that the alleged defamatory statement was made with ‘actual malice’, that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. This is also the catch. Politicians generally fall into the category of public figures. The truth is, people can sue anyone if they feel they’ve been defamed or slandered. Even if the defamed party wins, the election will be over by the time the court reaches a verdict. The defamation will have done its damage.
We also see several politicians escaping the wrath of the court by resorting to oft repeated plea that it was their personal opinion. Showing the court that such is the case, provides a defence to a defamation lawsuit. The right to freedom of expression allows all people to express their opinions about things, even if those opinions are unflattering, or downright harm another person’s reputation. Malice is difficult to prove anyway. Though slander has been going on for centuries, it is distressing to see that it is moving at lightning speed due to technology,
Political elections breed competition. And everything has its yin and yang. A flip side to that competitive spirit is that people tend to play dirty. Put Crores of rupees at stake, and that ugly side shows up even more and part of the problem is that slanderous and defamatory campaigns work. If it didn’t work, campaigns wouldn’t be spending Crores to continue it.
A senior politician in the heat of Bengal battleground, tweeted “Wit, humour and sarcasm have no place in autocracies, survive only in a free society and those dictators don’t like to laugh at them”. If only he were to accept it, as applicable to the ruling party as well, a meeting ground could be found. Unfortunately, the lack of civility among politicians even in times of natural calamities only reinforces the popular perception that the political culture in the country has sunk to such crude levels that it might be impossible to bring it back to normal.