Debates and Indian Elections

You have to give in to the American system sometimes, even though the calls to despise it are overwhelming. This time, it was the Presidential Debate in Denver, where Mitt Romney and Barack Obama fought over their own disparate views about the same goals and in Obama's words, how the difference of budget choices demonstrates differences in personalities. Critics of both, Obama and Romney, as well as the moderator, Jim Lehrer, are now judging their performances and pointing out the fallacies in their models, in their claims, and their allegations. Surprisingly, the whole time all I could think about was how different this point to point and factual representation of views was from the platitudes of abstract statements that our own politicians make when they stand up for elections. Everytime elections come up, auto rickshaws fitted with megaphones that should have been obsolete by now, makes round of residential colonies announcing that the Government has promoted Gunda-Raj, and all their policies are aimed at securing profits for big industries and their own commissions  if they are the opposition, or how the government has benefitted the poor, and made the middle class grow, and provided new industries and jobs, if they are the government. One would think such claims would be bolstered by facts in the many rallies the candidates have. Instead, the candidates focus on personal vendettas besides reiterating these claims again. A modicum of facts are presented, and much like the show with the chair presented by Clint Eastwood at the Republican National Convention, almost everything is aimed at entertaining crowd at the expense of the opponent. Humor is surely a good thing when addressing people but a trifle overview of your own plans would always be welcome along with it. In the few times that debates were actually held by news channels, the candidates sent their representatives instead of themselves, and the direct personal allegations again obviate the needs of facts. The best and perhaps the only informative "discussion" happens when the candidates are interviewed separately by news channels. Though we get a small look at the respective policies, these interviews are neither impartial, nor structured to allow for a fair review of the options presented before us. If Obama would be contesting in India, he would spend the entire debate on foreign policy, while Romney would spend it entirely on the present economy. I don't think I have ever seen equal weights given to Sonia Gandhi's views on development as well as her views on the secular credentials of Narendra Modi. Similar is the case for Modi, he would repeat again and again the 'Amul' model that was in place and succeeding even before him, but not comment on the recent conviction of his party members in sedition case. The fact that the only source of information on these candidates is these personal interviews, choosing one among them is far more difficult than I had hoped for. Each candidate here claims to be the better choice, but all we are presented with as evidence are bits to sniff.

I have been over the voting age for three years now, but this could be the first time I get to vote, come 2013. I wouldn't want my vote to go just on these obscured facts presented by the candidates. We have a system in place, that has been running for far too long. We also have a system that seems a better alternative. Is it so hard to make a choice?

The video of the Obama-Romney debate is shared. See for yourself, how stark the contrast between the two different approaches at campaigning are!