December 15, 2022
We hope you enjoy our articles. Please note, we may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page. Thank you if you use our links, we really appreciate it!
Differences among political rivals are natural as politics has in its core managing differences, but in recent years political debates have become increasingly acrimonious. While earlier the debates were not much open to public due to the lack of modern communication technology, in recent years the reach, or rather overreach, of mass media to people’s living rooms have made the public aware of the hideous side of political debates – as if political leaders taking part in the debates reflect appropriately the human nature as depicted by political philosopher Thomas Hobbes. For Hobbes, the individual by nature is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. The Hobbesian political leaders no more hesitate to use foul language or sexist and misogynist remarks against opponents.
While some political leaders regard violent communication as a new way to get closer to voters and win their support, society has suffered due to this moral degeneration, emerging mainly from the lack of empathy and compassion. One could see a radical departure in this approach of current leaders from the leaders just aftermath of the independence who, despite differences, never descended so low to gain publicity. Apparently, the current leaders are worried about their immediate gains and losses without any regard to their long-term legacy they would be leaving to future generations. Also, in our modern times, while competitive TV news channels are concerned about their TRP so that they can get more advertisements and money, oblivious of the fact that such debates in prime-time news hour have caused significant damage to the moral fabric of the society.
The problem is not with the politicization of debates, but the lack of public decency and social etiquette in political debates. The problem is also not with the increasing differences between political parties and use of social media, but with increasing moral depravity and loss of the sense of shame. A related matter of concern is moral exclusion. Opponents are excluded from the moral world, because of that they are dehumanized and subjected to violence. Every individual has biases and prejudices, including political, but it is more important how one conducts themselves in a debate, and more importantly how they are addressing differences. The proverbial wearing of the other’s shoe is lacking in political debates, in which one comes across words so gross which cannot be used here.
In this background, it is, hence, important to develop a culture of nonviolent communication. It needs emphasis that the idea of nonviolent communication is not something new. It has been emphasized since ancient times by great figures like Buddha, and modern leaders like Mahatma Gandhi. Stories from the life of Buddha such as his encounter with the notorious Angurimala in which the compassionate sage transformed the murderer into a champion of nonviolence are legendary. In modern times, Gandhi was one of the well-known figures who practiced nonviolence. He said famously, ‘hate the evil, not the evil doer’, as he believed that the evil doer could be reformed through the method of nonviolence.
The term nonviolent communication, however, was popularized by Marshall Rosenberg, who argued that it is an effective way to address conflicts. Drawing from his experience of working with riots and racial conflicts in the United States in the 1960s, Rosenberg argued that nonviolent communication is based on deep rooted understanding of human nature and human needs. It is based on the belief that by nature human beings are compassionate, and they can bring compassion to address differences towards fulfilling needs. This assumption of human nature as inherently good can be traced to philosopher John Locke who theorized that by nature individuals are characterized by mutual assistance, good will and preservation. Every individual has needs and conflicts arise when those needs are not met. And when these needs are addressed compassionately it is possible that peaceful pathways emerge to address those conflicts. Rosenberg conducted workshops in the United States and other parts of the world to promote this very simple but powerful method to address conflicts. He found that increasing use of nonviolent communication over a period of time helps address conflicts.
It is important that nonviolent communication is internalized by the political leaders. If politics is a means of public service, to help fellow people and ameliorate their suffering, then there should be no question of violence. And that was the spirit that shaped the action of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi. But the past few decades witnessed massive corruption and degeneration of politics. Instead of public service, politics now is used as a means to seize power. It does not matter whether those means are fair or foul. And sadly, as political leaders are popular in their communities, they are seen by their followers as models worth emulating.
The culture of degeneration and violent communication will not change overnight. But the process of change must start somewhere. Perhaps, as a starting point, political leaders take not a short-term view of politics but a long-term view – in which concerns for power and money are replaced by a compassionate craving for public service and sacrifice.
(A modified version of this article was published on my Times of India blog, Periscope: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/non-violent-communication-why-we-need-it-more-now/)
