At my first job at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, a colleague used to often say that when reason fails, people turn to intimidation. Even after three decades, this simple yet immensely clarifying thought has stayed with me. Each time I see people increasing their decibel label in conversation, that word of wisdom from my former colleague echoes a timeless truth: when people fail to win through ideas, they try to dominate through hectoring and violence.
We seem to have forgotten that in a decent society and a deliberative democracy, persuasion is won through reason, evidence, and thoughtful exchange of ideas. Increasingly, we have devolved into a society where force and intimidation have come to supplant reason and logic. The shift from reasoned debate to confrontational rhetoric is not just a failure of civility, it also marks the erosion of intellectual engagement itself. When arguments are no longer grounded in facts or ethical reasoning, and instead hinge on personal attacks, outrage, or coercion, the entire fabric of democratic conversation begins to unravel.
Age of Unreason
In a decent society and healthy democracy, political leadership is expected to be rooted in deliberation, critical engagement, and an openness to consensus in the face of complexity. However, the increasing tendency of political leaders to derive rhetoric, strategies, and even policy positions from the volatile ecosystem of social media threatens the foundational ideals of democratic governance and civilisational values. The algorithms that drive social media platforms are designed to create echo chambers and amplify polarising content. When political leaders align themselves with such content, knowingly or otherwise, they risk deepening social divisions, delegitimising dissent, and crowding out marginalised voices. The public sphere, ideally a space for reasoned contestation of ideas, becomes instead a battlefield of binary choices and emotional misuse.
At its core, democracy is meant to be slow, deliberate, and dialogic. It thrives on institutional debates, public reasoning, policy scrutiny, and the patient building of consensus. Social media, by contrast, rewards immediacy, emotion, and amplification. Algorithms favour sensationalism, not subtlety, outrage, not nuance, sound, and not substance. In such a terrain, public discourse often devolves into a contest of who can shout the loudest or trend the fastest, rather than who can lead with wisdom and integrity.
When discourses on any public platform are shaped by such dynamics, it becomes reactive rather than reflective. Quick takes, outrage-driven trends, and polarising soundbites replace thoughtful debate, informed policymaking, and reasoned dialogue. In the process, democratic discourse gets reduced to viral content, eroding the space for critical thinking. Leaders who pick up trending hashtags, memes, or outrage-inducing posts often bypass institutional mechanisms of consultation, debate, and scrutiny. This not only accelerates the trivialisation of serious public issues but also encourages populist posturing over meaningful policymaking and demonising the ‘other', who are, essentially, part of us. As a result, both public reason and democracy stand to lose.
Closing of Spaces
The civil society space is not any different. Drawing on Thomas Blom Hansen and Neera Chandhoke, the capture of civil society in India reflects a complex process whereby autonomous civic spaces have become increasingly subordinated to state power and hegemonic political projects. Chandhoke reveals how the state exercises control not merely through direct coercion but through more subtle mechanisms that co-opt and neutralise civil society organisations. Hansen's work on India's illiberal democracy complements this by showing how supposedly democratic deepening has actually facilitated the capture of civic institutions by exclusionary forces. This capture manifests in a divided and hierarchical civil society that has denied the marginalised their voice, while privileged sections of civil society become complicit in maintaining existing power structures. The result is a civil society that appears vibrant on the surface but has lost much of its transformative potential, functioning more as an auxiliary to state power than as a genuine space for democratic contestation and social change.
The approach even in the political community is to shout down the opposition rather than good faith engagement. The united opposition has shown at many instances, most recently and prominently in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, that it wants to work with the government in a constructive manner. However, these overtures are often met with dismissive rhetoric and partisan attacks that prioritise scoring political points over addressing substantive policy concerns. This pattern of response not only undermines the democratic process but also squanders opportunities for bipartisan collaboration that could lead to more effective governance and better outcomes for citizens.
In such an environment, democratic institutions are weakened, civic trust is battered, and the very idea of democratic maturity is cast aside in favour of populism. The dangers emanate from the fact that in an age of digital immediacy, where attention spans are short and outrage trends by the hour, people's perceptions are increasingly shaped by the volatile ecosystem of social media platforms.
Digital Distancing
The proliferation of apps, dashboards, and digital interfaces creates distance between people and meaningful political engagement. As governance increasingly moves online through various service delivery platforms, citizens are subtly recast as customers rather than participants in a democratic process. This shift becomes especially clear when digital systems fail or exclude certain populations and instead of mobilising politically to demand accountability, affected individuals file complaints or seek alternative service providers, much like dissatisfied consumers. Digital distancing represents a fundamental shift in how citizens relate to governance and politics.
For a diverse democracy like India, this digital distancing poses existential risks to social cohesion and constitutional governance. In these algorithmically-curated spaces, genuine dialogue gives way to performative derision, legitimate dissent is branded as disloyalty, and politics devolves into a theatre of perpetual conflict. The platforms' reward systems prioritise provocative content over informative discourse, fundamentally altering the rhythm of political engagement. They replace the deliberative tempo of constitutional responsibility with the frenetic pace of viral content cycles. This transformation undermines the quality of democratic discourse while distancing citizens from the patient, collaborative work of building a pluralistic society. Citizens become passive consumers of political spectacle rather than active participants in democratic governance.
Social media companies, driven by profit maximisation through engagement algorithms, have demonstrated their enthusiasm to sacrifice democratic health for advertising revenue, as evidenced by their delayed and often inadequate responses to misinformation campaigns across multiple democracies. A toxic and exclusionary public sphere may initially benefit the ruling party by amplifying their messaging while silencing dissent, creating an illusion of popular consensus and making opposition voices appear marginal or illegitimate. However, this degraded discourse ultimately weakens the whole nation. Polarised societies, as has always been the case, struggle with social unrest, brain drain, and the unpredictability that comes with governance driven by viral trends rather than consistent policy frameworks.
Despite the bleakness, all is not lost. I am not advocating for censorship, but platforms must be held accountable. Social media companies cannot pretend neutrality while their algorithms amplify hate and outrage. Ethical design, transparent moderation, and the promotion of credible sources should be non-negotiable. To reclaim the democratic promise, it is imperative that political leaders as well as civil society resist the lure of transient digital trends and recommit themselves to the long, often difficult, processes of dialogue, inclusion, and principled decision-making. It is time to restore grace to disagreement, and depth to dialogue. Decent conversation is not a luxury, it is a democratic obligation, necessary today more than ever.
(The author is a Professor and Rajya Sabha Member from the Rashtriya Janata Dal)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
