There will always exist a dispute amongst two or more parties in politics with a different set of beliefs, and with that will always exist partisanship. However, a democracy allows for the fruition of debate and argument to put that dispute to a rest by the majority’s vote.
Yet this vote can be manipulated with by twisting and entangling facts, appealing to one’s emotion allowing debate to turn into a breeding ground for ‘Post Truth’. We are all aware of personal attacks being used during a debate to overcome the opponent, this is a last resort that people use once they’ve run out of logical counterclaims; this specific fallacy is called Ad Hominem. We see this one too many times in a political environment wherein bills, acts and legislation have been opposed by opposition questioning the integrity of the bill writer, rather than the bill itself. In society discrediting a human for his/her beliefs and values essentially discredits all and every one of their lives works, even if the work is beneficial to society. Essentially politics is a business, the leading party receives more funding, and humans are driven by a greed for money. Therefore, if the survival of the opposition party is put under threat by another, then they would resort to whichever means that would allow them to rise back up. The most recent example is the Indian National Congress, we can observe that the party has now reduced to discrediting individuals of the opposition party more often than their actions. We are swayed to believe that Narendra Modi’s current status is of no value, rather we must focus on the fact that he was once a “chai wala” (tea server) which immediately demerits him. Thus a fine example of Ad Hominem politics, Congress’s survival is in question and therefore they resort to devalue the opposition leader thru fallacies and illogical debate. The worst part is that the youth is swayed towards this kind of thinking. If the prime minister were to be demerited based on their beliefs for example setting the notion that Demonitization is the panacea which can cure India of all ills, it would constitute as righteous debate; however, the resort to Ad Hominem argumentation has had a detrimental effect. A paradigm shift in the youth and forthcoming generations to believe that a “chai wala” isn’t fit to lead because of the fact that he is a “Chai Wala”. Such was the case with Obama, with the lasting effects of decades of institutional racism that still exists to this day, often times his opposition would resort to the argument that he is unfit to lead due to his race. Not due to his actions or beliefs but his race.
It is imperative that we steer clear of such debate tactics, and stay wary of those who participate in such. Not only does it pave the way for the youth into believing that it is a normalised form of debate, but it breaks down the very foundation of meritocracy and breeds discrimination.
The Candid Contrarian 