When
the electoral process for the recently held general elections had begun in
India, the result was not supposed to be as crystal clear as we got on 23rd
May. With the loss of BJP in the bypolls and key assembly elections in few
states, the NDA win was not that obvious. New political alliances were being forged
and NDA was to fight loosely stitched but a resurgent coalition of opposition
parties. In such a bitterly fought electoral environment, it looked to be a
close call and political parties sought to capitalize on celebrities' star power.
As a result, a number of stars from Bollywood, Bhojpuri Cinema, and Sports had
embellished the political arena. From Delhi itself, we had celebrity candidates,
namely, Gautam Gambhir, Manoj Tiwari, Hans Raj Hans and Vijendra Singh who
jumped into this battle. However, not all of them found the electoral success
and the big names such as Raj Babbar, Jaya Prada, Vijendra Singh, Nirahua etc
were among those whose star appeal did not attract the voters.
However,
this is not a new phenomenon being witnessed in our democracy (or in world
polity). Film stars/Sport stars have been active in politics since long and many
of them have left legacy much of a politician, than a celebrity star. For
example, Late US President, Ronald Reagan was actually a film star. Reagan’s
era is credited for successfully ending cold war and bringing peace and has
left its imprint on every aspect of American life (politics, diplomacy,
culture, economics etc). Coming to India (especially Southern region), many
celebrities has left a mark in Indian politics and the common string among them
is the movies that catapulted them into politics. For example, MG Ramachandran
aka MGR, regarded as one of most influential actors in Tamil Cinema, rose to
the power and became Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. After MGR, Jayalalithaa, another
actor turned politician became Chief Minister. Jayalalithaa had formed a
personality cult and was well known as Amma among her followers. Although
infamous for corruption charges, she is also well known for her public welfare
in state (including several subsidised "Amma"-branded goods). Similar
was the case with NT Rama Rao, M. Karunanidhi etc.
It is
not always that easy for the celebrities to take this political challenge,
especially for women and very often they are presupposed to be lacking the
qualities necessary to be a representative of the people. Let us take the
candidature of Mimi Chakraborty and Nusrat Jahan as an example. Both of them were new to this political battlefield. They were both trolled heavily on social media
and sexist/abusive words were hurled at them (which continued even after they
won). However, if we look at other male celebrities and former celebrities-turned-politicians
who are older than both of them, from the same angle, the similar kind of
belligerence was absent. And their gender and profession were not brought into not
question when they entered the politics. However, they both triumphed over it and became MPs.
We also have the example of Smriti Irani who was persistent with her hard work
in politics even after she lost the seat in 2014 and ultimately defeated Rahul
Gandhi in 2019. Recently, she attended the cremation of her close aide who was
shot dead in Amethi and also lended shoulders to the mortal remains. This act was
very well appreciated on the social media and was hailed as a beacon for
women's empowerment. It also has another politically meaningful message for
those who forget their workers after ascending the throne of power.
But the
main question is why political parties are fascinated by celebrities and prefer
them over their grassroots leaders who work hard on the ground to nurture a
constituency? It is a repetitive aspect of Indian politics even though it is likely
to cause heartburn among local leaders and give opposition a moral weapon. Would
it not be frustrating for those leaders to lose out the political space to these
outsiders? Also, in such cases, it is quite natural that the enthusiasm of
local workers or leaders would be less due to lack of personal attachment. Many
factors can be attributed to this call for celebrities:-
1.
Being famous and in the public gaze for
years, celebrities have already established an identity and need little work to
get voters acquainted with them. People relate to their brand value and their
voting behaviour gets influenced by it.
2.
Although they are branded as ‘political
outsiders’ by the opponents, they are far away from the shadow of awkward
compromises, fake/unrealistic promises and endemic opportunism which falls flat
on the traditional politicians. They become an acceptable option as they are
new, invigorating and unpredictable (voters are convinced by the challenger of
a need for change); all attributes which an incumbent politician lack.
3.
They have already built the connection with
their audience, which politicians thrive to build with numerous campaigns. For
example, BJP ropes in Bhojpuri actors to woo voters in the regions like Eastern
UP and Delhi (migrants’ population).
4.
Elections in India have become a sort of
display of money power and a massive amount of money (directly/indirectly) is
needed to contest elections. Seizure of cash during election is a testimony to
it. In the recent general elections, more than 3000 crores have been recovered
in form of cash, alcohol and drugs. Also, this election has been described as
the “most expensive election ever, anywhere”. Because of their larger appeal, celebrities
don’t struggle much to generate money or many times their star appeal
compensates for the money.
5.
Also, they are not, in a majority of cases, a
political threat to any of the leaders. See the example of Shatrughan Sinha.
His fallout with his own party and decision to contest elections on a different
party symbol didn’t prove to be a threat to Ravi Shankar Prasad. It is a
perfect example where celebrities are dependent for their election on existing political
parties and their individual brand does not offer an attractive option for the
voters when they does not conform to the party lines.
6.
Most of the celebrities take refuge to
electoral politics when their professional career is on decline, where they can
optimize earned money and fame. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t.
From
the above points, we can see that the electoral mechanism is similar to the
consumer market where popularity, mass resonance, and glamour of celebrities are
used to endorse the consumer products. In a similar way, all the parties try to
persuade customers (voters) to buy their product (candidates) through different
mechanisms. The credibility of the celebrity will likely translate to that of
the political group that he/she is endorsing. Celebrities have the ability to
generate parasocial relationships (feelings of a personal connectedness despite
the lack of direct contact) as individuals start to believe in the values,
convictions and behaviors portrayed by the celebrities in their professional
roles. Such identification influences the individuals’ behavior. Now, that
entire concept is being used to endorse the electoral product which is the
political party itself.
However,
the life after occupying the electoral seat is not so easy and celebrity
politicians need to position their past non-political life in the light of
their new political role. The discrepancy between a celebrity politician’s past
and current political life, championed political values and preferences will
lead to credibility damage (often through selective media coverage of their
past life). So, when celebrities get selected as MPs by using their popularity
(bypassing grassroots-level politics), expectations are much higher and they
now need to perform their electoral duty and not simply project their old
public persona.
But,
does it happen? The answer is not a clear ‘YES’. Most of the elected celebrities
do not engage themselves in parliamentary activities/debates and have a below
average attendance. A pertinent question arises. Are they not inquisitive
enough (although their social media presence suggests very different
perspective)? We can see the example of Sachin Tendulkar and Rekha. Although Parliament
was graced with their presence, they failed to make an impact. Rekha had
not asked a single question in the house in her nearly five years in the Rajya
Sabha (however, Tendulkar fared better by asking 22 questions). The duty of Rajya Sabha members includes
raising questions on issues concerning the public and making those in power
accountable. Can’t it be considered as dereliction of duty on their part
or can we conclude that they didn’t heed to their moral responsibility to
further the pro-democratic changes. For example, news of government apathy towards sportspersons has become a routine
affair and there is a lack of good sports facilities with world class
infrastructure. In such a scenario, a "distinguished sportsperson" in
Rajya Sabha was expected to raise these issues. But, it didn’t happen.
Why
does it happen? Most often, the lines between the entertainment/sports industry
and politics blur, to the point where people don’t know or are not able to
comprehend whether they’re voting for the celebrity or the characters they’ve
played (reel life). And when they do so, they should stop being hypocrites and
have no moral right to complain when these celebrities fail to live up to reel
life reputations. What can be the solution? Either we stop allowing them to enter
the electoral fray or should vote on the basis of their real life experience
(for example, what they have done for the social causes, what is their stand on
the critical problems being faced by the country). The first option is
absolutely undemocratic and hence should be more informed and curious about the
latter. Hence, the basis of our predictions of moral rectitude expressed by
electing those celebrities should be well informed and reasoned.
From
few examples, it can’t be concluded that celebrities’ entry in the electoral
arena is necessarily detrimental to modern society and to our political system.
It offers the potential to reinvigorate Indian politics by introducing new
blood and new ideas. Unlike traditional politicians, they typically are less bound/
obliged to vested political interests because of their own wealth or ability to
raise money. Thus, in the political discourse, they can act like autonomous social
agents who can bring a change in the society. Powerful and timely conversations
can bring about change and celebrities can play a big role in it.
However
in India, celebrity politicians are rarely known for taking a stand on
politically divisive issues and issues which have adverse socio-cultural
consequences for the society. Most often their reel heroism, courage and integrity
become the parameters on the basis of which people elect them. However, the
same values and ethos rarely get reflected in the real political life and
remain restricted to the reel life. Here, I am not suggesting or concluding
that celebrities can’t become good politicians. Rather, I am just postulating that
being a celebrity can’t be the sole criterion for electing them. We should not
deduce from their non-political performance (be it cricket or bollywood or
anything else) that their political performance will also be a blockbuster.
One of
the key determinants for the success of democracy is the “trust factor” between
the electors and the elected representatives. However, this relationship is rather
paradoxical. On one hand, trusting the elected representatives makes us
vulnerable to their power. On the other hand, Governments can hardly act (or
act in a much less boldly manner), unless a particular trust in candidates/party,
or policy and a general trust in the basic institutions exists. Lack of trust
compromises the willingness of citizens to respond to Government policies and
can fundamentally challenge the quality of
representative democracy. Hence, they must tap into a considerable
reservoir of trust which is important for the success of a wide range of public
policies that depend on behavioural responses from the public.
Trust
is persistent when the confidence of electors stems from faith in the moral
character of candidates. Here lies the
fault line in Indian democracy when we see politicians with criminal background
or charges with corruption cases entering the temple of democracy. A decline in
trust is one of the reasons for giving tickets to the celebrities. Celebrities
can take it as an opportunity and being the agents of social change; they can
raise the bar for Indian politicians and increase the trust factor between the
politicians and the citizenry. We all know the Pulse Polio campaign where
Amitabh Bachchan's voice was instrumental in getting families to immunise their
children against the virus. It is a perfect example of effectively using the
star power to drive home a social message.
Today,
many celebrities are harnessing their fan bases (star power) to speak out about
social justice and promote causes ranging from fighting poverty, environmental
degradation, human rights violations, gender-based violence etc. For example,
Kajol is associated with Swachh Aadat Swachh Bharat campaign, ‘A Playing
Billion’. With health and sanitation being a major concern in India, this campaign
can play an important role in sending across the relevant messages to the
maximum number of people. I am not concluding that traditional politicians
can’t do this, but celebrities have a larger reach. And, in speaking out about
causes they care about, they foster a conversation which attracts the attention
of media, general public, policy makers etc. The million number of retweets or
share or being watched on youtube is a testimony to the fact that their
messages resonate with the masses and they do internalize those values.
Comments
Post a Comment