Avoid negative campaigning

I was born in Sikkim and spent a considerable part of my life there. Many consider it to be a mini-Switzerland, for the extraordinary natural beauty of the region can take anyone’s breath away. For those not well versed in geography, Sikkim is the second-smallest state in India, surrounded by precipitous mountain walls, the meandering river Teesta, and the majestic Mount Kanchenjunga.

However, the more interesting news within this region besides the Korean BTS band sweeping Sikkim’s younger folks has been the changing tides in the political scenario and the mud-slinging and attack ads that the various parties have resorted to lately.

Negative campaigning and attack ads have been a part of political campaigns for ages.

Also Read | EC officials check chopper in which D K Shivakumar's family travelled to Dharmasthala

I think we have understood over the years that these are necessary evils and part of the political process. However, there are factions that see them as unethical and damaging to democracy, and we must question the ethics behind them. Such ads are also increasingly being used in the corporate world. Companies are using these tactics to gain an edge over their competitors, but at what cost?

Negative campaigning and attack ads, which influence public opinion, are strategies used by politicians to discredit their opponents. These ads can also undermine the public’s trust in the political process. The focus of the attack is often a person rather than policy issues, leading to a toxic political climate.

In the corporate world, negative campaigning takes many forms. For example, a company may launch a social media campaign that attacks the competitor’s reputation or business practices with the sole purpose of driving consumers away from the competitor and towards itself, but they can also have unintended consequences.

Likewise, negative campaigning has been a part of the Indian political landscape for decades. However, there is a fine line between legitimate criticism and personal attacks.

The Election Commission of India has implemented guidelines to regulate political advertising, but more needs to be done to ensure that these ads are ethical and truthful.

Negative campaigning and attack ads have been used in many elections globally. In the 2016 US Presidential Election, for example, both Trump and Hillary Clinton used negative ads to discredit each other. However, the level of negativity in the campaign was unprecedented, which led to concerns about its impact on American democracy.

In recent years, we have seen the rise of attack ads on social media platforms. These ads can target specific demographics, making them even more effective at swaying public opinion. However, this also raises concerns about the impact of misinformation and fake news on the political process.

While negative campaigning and attack ads may seem like an effective strategy for winning elections, they can erode public trust in the political process and contribute to a toxic political climate. As voters, we need to demand that our politicians engage in ethical campaigning, and we need to hold them accountable for their actions.

As we draw closer to the Karnataka and Mizoram elections in 2023, four state elections, and the Lok Sabha elections in 2024, as a responsible citizen, I urge all parties to follow ethical guidelines recommended by the Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics to control negative campaigning and attack ads:

Avoid name-calling, innuendo, or stereotyping.

Attack ads that may be truthful should not be released late in a campaign so that the opponent has an insufficient chance to respond.

The opponent’s private life should not come within the limits of ethical campaigning.

Campaigns should be guided by ethical principles, including honesty, fairness, respect, and responsibility.

Negative campaigning and attack ads can create a zero-sum game where one competes not on the basis of his own strengths but on his ability to tear down competitors. This can lead to a race to the bottom, where the focus is on destroying each other rather than creating value for society.

It can also contribute to a culture of polarisation, where people are more focused on attacking their opponents than finding common ground and working together to solve problems.

(The writer is the COO of a consulting firm.)