Pursuits: Why are American politicians different from ours?

It’s easy to make fun of American politicians with their glad-handing and their phony sincerity.

Certainly, I’ve never missed an opportunity to make fun of them.      But I’m now beginning to wonder if perhaps there is

something to be said for the American political style. While I do not dispute that much of their apparent warmth is feigned and that their ostensible sincerity can be bogus, all this may well be better than the lofty contempt with which Indian politicians treat their people.

 

   I first began to question my position nine years ago when I went to the White House for Bill Clinton’s last banquet as President. I was part of Prime Minister Vajpayee’s media party and at the end of the dinner Vajpayee and his delegation departed because the special aircraft was leaving for India that night itself. I was staying on in Washington for a couple of days so I decided to remain at the banquet.

 

   At most Indian state dinners, guests get up and leave once the meal is over. At the White House, guests are encouraged to remain and mingle informally after the coffee cups have been cleared. I hung around the White House and bumped into Clinton and his wife Hillary, who was then fighting an election to become the Junior Senator from New York. Clinton had no idea who I was but stopped to chat anyway.

 

   I made the most of the opportunity and asked him how he thought Hillary’s senate race was going. We discussed a debate she had participated in against her Republican opponent and by the time Hillary joined us, we had decided that the campaign was going well. Hillary was less sure and said that she thought that the debate had been less of a victory than we believed.

 

   The conversation was meaningless. The Clintons probably forgot what I had said and who I was within seconds. But it struck me then that no stranger could have had a similar conversation with an Indian Prime Minister. Our politicians really aren’t interested in what ordinary people have to say.

 

   Last week, at the Hindustan Times Summit, I got a chance to see Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, in action. I am no admirer of Bush’s politics and have said so several times in print. But I have to say that I am now an admirer of his style.

 

   When he entered the Summit party, he went out of his way to speak to people, was warm, patted guests on the back and punched them playfully while making a point. He talked easily about everything from his love of Texas chilli to the difficulty in adjusting to commercial airliners after so many years on Air Force One.

 

   Once again, it was small talk of no great significance but it had the effect of putting whoever he spoke to entirely at ease. He also engaged people in conversations about their own lives. I introduced him to Hemant Oberoi, the chef who had overseen the meal. Most people would have said something like ‘great food’ and turned away. Bush, on the other hand, asked Hemant about the number of hotels he looked after, about his experiences at The Pierre in New York, which the Taj Group now runs, and when he discovered how much Hemant travelled joked “Ask the Tatas to give you a private plane”.

 

"Politicians are used to treating voters with a lofty disdain, refusing to acknowledge them as equals. They are happiest accepting the adulation of the fawning masses."

   At our session the next day, he told me that he would answer every single question. And so, I asked him all the things that we’ve all wanted to ask him: wasn’t America conned by Pakistan into treating it as an ally in the so-called war on terror? Hadn’t he screwed up the post-invasion planning for Iraq? Hadn’t he radicalized the world’s Muslims by invading Iraq? Was Osama Bin Laden still alive? Did he accept responsibility for the lack of regulation that led to the Wall Street crisis? And so on.

 

   Indian politicians would have bristled at the questions. Bush answered each one of them with candour and humour. At the end of the session, he got a standing ovation, one of the few times this has happened at an HT Summit.

 

   I was struck by his openness and was impressed by his manners. Shortly after he left, his staff handed over two hand-written letters to Shobhana Bhartia, chairperson of the HT, and myself. They were personal notes addressed to each of us, saying how much he had enjoyed being in Delhi but also including little individual touches (he enjoyed the session, he liked meeting my son, etc.).

 

   No Indian politician would ever have done this.

 

   So, why are American politicians different from ours?

 

   My theory is that it has to do with the nature of our democracies. The middle class runs America. When an American politician meets somebody like you or me, he is dealing with potential voters and opinion-formers.

 

   In India, the middle class has virtually no relevance to the electoral process. Our numbers are so small that we count for almost nothing. And most voters don’t bother to read our editorials.

 

   So, politicians are used to treating voters with a lofty disdain, refusing to acknowledge them as equals. They are happiest accepting the adulation of the fawning masses. And to be fair, the middle-class does not make it difficult for politicians to look down on us.

 

   Just watch a captain of industry (who is more privileged than us mere middle-class mortals) interacting with a minister, let alone the Prime Minister. The whole manner is sycophantic and ingratiating. We don’t even refer to the minister by name. He is always ‘the honourable minister’ even when we know that the minister in question is one of the most dishonourable men in India.

 

   This is why Indian politicians don’t bother with manners and this is why they make no attempt to put anyone at ease. They enjoy the sycophancy and they don’t like being questioned.

 

   So, at least in terms of style and openness, I’ll take America’s politicians over ours any day.

 

(Image attributed to Wikimedia Commons)