Politicians and the art of the apology

The art of the apology is nothing new to politicians in India. For as long we can remember, politicians from all parties have stated something utterly objectionable, allowed the Opposition and media hype to build up to a crescendo, and then watched the reactions.

This was the case with Union minister of state Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti who uttered expletives during a rally in Delhi; this was the case with Samajwadi Party (SP) president Mulayam Singh Yadav in his infamous “boys will be boys,” remarks when talking about rape; and this was the case when Trinamool Congress member Tapas Pal spoke out against the rival CPM (Communist Party of India) – Marxist: “I will ask our boys to go and rape CPM women if needed”.

In two of the three cases – Pal’s and Jyoti’s – apologies have been offered and issued, but so far the respective parties have stood by their man, or in Jyoti’s case, woman. Clearly, as far as their respective parties are concerned, the people concerned have said “sorry” and so the matter is closed.

The danger of the apology cannot be overstated. Indeed, it must be said that the media, social groups and even the Opposition have backed off after a politician has said sorry. Why? For a couple of reasons. First, saying sorry means the issue is no longer “news” and hence most media drop the matter. Second, saying sorry or even a simple namaste matters a great deal in our society. It is common to hear the phrase in different variants in all parts of the country: “He’s said sorry so just let it go”.

This Indian tradition of immediate forgiveness (post-a sorry) is something that politicians have played on time and again. The results have been dangerous. If one notices in the above cases, the political statements have escalated – from excusing rape, to inciting rape, to openly looking to divide society on the basis of “Ramzaadon and hara*****n.” These are not fringe groups or lumpen elements, these are elected representatives.

Clearly, politicians who find that no subsequent action is being taken against them are pushing the envelope further and further. This has worrying implications – especially in a wired world where messages can be transmitted to all corners of the country in seconds. Yes, the politician has said sorry but is that ever on a channel or in public view? Hardly ever! The result is that the statement – whether one agrees with it or not – stays with us, building up a “strong image” of a politician – who will say things others are scared to say. This image stays true as far as the politician’s supporters are concerned.

So what do we as a society do about it? Do we ignore such statements entirely? No, statements by our elected representatives must be reported, otherwise how else are we to know where they stand. But our strategy of combating the statement must change. It’s time to avoid easy options of individually condemning the statement with a few words on new media in the hope that our sentiments go viral. No, powerful as new or even traditional media is, they will not help in this case. Lodging a complaint in court will not help either, because few people will queue up to file a criminal case against a politician.

The answer begins by refuting the apology in the first place. If enough members of society, online or otherwise, refuse to accept the apology, then everything is neither forgiven nor forgotten. The issue remains alive, the context in which it was said remains alive, and the minister and his or her party are forced to deal with it, rather than drop the matter, as they are doing now. Yes, it will not result in any action against ministers; yes it will not stop them (legally) of making such statements in the future. But the fact that politicians start to know their statements will not be immediately forgiven or forgotten by people, may give some of them pause for thought. It’s not the ideal solution, it will not fix everything, but it is a beginning…