This can perhaps happen only in Delhi, a continuous display of political spectacle in which governance, opposition and social media appear to be competing for the best camera angle. The latest episode began with an opposition MLA posting a video claiming that material could be peeled off the sides of a newly laid, temporary road.
The minister concerned took umbrage and invited the MLA for a joint inspection. The invitation itself came through a video. The MLA arrived, accompanied by supporters and, naturally, cameras. What followed was less an exercise in examining the quality of a road than a carefully documented political encounter.
There was a time when a minister inviting an opposition legislator to inspect a public work together would have been seen as an encouraging sign of democratic accountability. Today, however, almost every such encounter comes with a camera attached. The inspection becomes content, the disagreement becomes a reel, and governance risks becoming the backdrop to a political performance.
Delhi’s infrastructure certainly needs attention. There is little dispute that several roads and public assets deteriorated during the decade of AAP rule. The BJP government has embarked on road construction and repair across the city and the scale of the infrastructure challenge it has inherited is substantial.
How effective the BJP government has ultimately been in addressing that challenge is a matter that can and should be debated on measurable outcomes. But there is little doubt that infrastructure has been placed prominently on its governance agenda. The problem is that intent alone does not constitute governance. Nor does good work automatically translate into public trust.
The AAP government demonstrated the extraordinary political power of narrative, symbolism, direct communication and welfare politics. Critics may argue that the model placed greater emphasis on political messaging and freebies than on long-term institutional and infrastructural capacity. Whatever one’s assessment, it cannot be denied that AAP understood the grammar of contemporary political communication. The BJP cannot afford to ignore that grammar.
The late Arun Jaitley had made an insightful observation at a discussion organised by the Centre for Reforms, Development and Justice many years ago: “Camera likes sad pictures,” he had said. The remark came at a time when the Anna Hazare movement and the emerging power of social media were beginning to alter political communication. Today, that transformation is complete.
This is not an argument for suppressing criticism. Opposition scrutiny is an essential part of democratic governance. If an opposition MLA alleges that a public road is defective, the government should welcome the opportunity to establish the facts. But the response needs to be institutional rather than theatrical. An inspection should produce an inspection report, not merely competing videos.
The BJP government faces a communication challenge that cannot be solved simply by hiring more consultants. Consultants can provide strategies, talking points, media interactions and administrative protocols, but communication maturity cannot be outsourced. There is no textbook for handling every political situation; it comes from the maturity of political leadership and the example it sets for the administrative machinery.
A government that responds to every political provocation risks allowing the opposition to determine its communication agenda. Every accusation does not require a counter-accusation. Every video does not require another video. Sometimes the most effective response is simply to fix the problem and publish the facts.
There is another problem confronting the Rekha Gupta government that is of communication clutter. Different offices sometimes appear to be communicating about the same policy independently about a single initiative. The result is paradoxical. At a time when governments have more communication tools than ever before, the government’s message has become less clear.
The government has to establish a culture of evidence-based communication of fewer claims, clearer responsibility, measurable outcomes and one coherent institutional voice. It must also learn the difference between visibility and credibility. Visibility can be manufactured. Credibility has to be accumulated.
Sidharth Mishra
Author and president, Centre for Reforms, Development & Justice
