GOP & its Technology Challenge
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 8th June 2016 One of the chief funtime in commercial news media is discussion about the GOP, how it has scattered or the challenges and principles or how would it revive. It seems that the independent commercial news media is missing a lot of fun which it may have had in past with leaders of the group. This is because center of attention is only some colourful people who were part and parcel of the group rather the public cause/s the group stood for; at least that's the sense one gets from the discussions since even secularism word is generally missing in these discussion or the left of centre stance or for that matter scientific progress thereunder amongst other things.Some commentators would go at great length espousing that GOP was about grass-root leadership, something that would even shame Statistics (since even it can't justify the statement by evaluating central leadership data in last 25 years). As a political grouping, it seems unable to even diagnose issues afflicting it and which speaks volumes in itself about its current state. This is even as it continues to nurture "leaders" who have stuck to the group for few generations even if some of them leave or break away.
An analysis of first generation "leaders" as central attractions (not coming from money) vis-a-vis rest would perhaps be tweaked to suit some new justifications and new fun for the journos. Although this author has never claimed even an ordinary knowledge of history, however GOP in denial about either problems or huge structural problems would not help. It however would need to be open to different assessments and perspectives about the problems afflicting it which is cumulating into its inner explosion.
While many a learned analysts with years of experience about dealing with the groups and its leaders are having loads of fun in dicing and slicing implications of various events in the journey of the group. What is definitely interesting is the quantum of "outside" support/supporters, the group is able to attract and has preserved when it is well understood that if such leadership were not so visibly available to masses, then perhaps quite a few supporters/workers for the group could have been available to political group (due to ideological leanings of supporters). Right now there seems to be more leaders than workers in the party and question might be who these leaders are leading, and who all are being led and in what direction. As mentioned there seems to be a dearth of public cause being pursued (as far as news goes) but only attempts to sell face/s or now with a cocktail of small victories like in local civic bodies amongst others.
The article though is not about what commercial news media does best which is above paras. It's about sharing analysis which the commercial news media will be shy to put on their show. You see 'Hawa mein lathi ghumai hai, par jor se parti hai'. Basically this analysis is about technology level amongst public and how it seems to have impacted the political group. But first an outside in view of the group.
The group rested on four wheels. .
The first wheel pertained to people who were somewhat more strongly connected to ground. These would raise issues which could rally a significant cross section of masses by championing such causes publicly and could be seen fighting these causes with the administration.If such people had a significant mass base with necessary political savviness/inclination, then they got co-opted and could have been considered to represent an area/constituency with support from party machinery though such 'leaders' would have needed to establish their credentials amongst 'workers' (who were same as these, but show inclination to be 'led' and groomed under the leadership). The associated intellectual, financial and operational challenge were needed to be overcome by such people themselves, before local party structure would come to the support of such leaders. The party would then have worked to gleam up such 'leaders' which implied that the span of their work would be expanded to include issues, they may not have an opinion on their own but would be groomed aboutThis also included seasoning on managing personal affairs while in public life in a discreet manner. Steadily such people would be seen with senior and more established leaders and cited in media which would allow them to carry on their 'work' much more prominently and improve winnability. .
The second wheel was about global direction/opportunities whereby which people with some international achievements through their work in any field would be nurtured and may be co-opted if such people had a significant network with who's who in other countries. Necessary political savviness/inclination would help them represent constituencies where local representatives may not be deemed to be strong enough and the 'workers' seem ready to be led by person with international fame. Again such 'leaders' would have needed to establish their credentials amongst 'workers' (who were same as these, but show inclination to be 'led' and groomed under the leadership). The associated intellectual, financial and operational challenge were needed to be overcome by such people themselves, before local party structure would come to the support of such leaders.
Then comes the group consisting of senior bureaucrats, lawyers, senior journalists, noted academicians, cultural/sports/film icons etc. who would espouse the cause of party and provided intellectual ammunition. This would basically fill up media and allowed such people to pursue their pursuits and enjoy the glamour of politics. This group would basically get political backing for their interests like suitable postings/transfers/projects, some government funds for social causes. The political appointments within bureaucratic structures would be the forte. Very few of such people may be co-opted to represent people and this would be subjected to local representatives may not be deemed to be strong enough and the 'workers' seem ready to be led by person with some fame.
Last was a group of leaders who would maintain the core values of the party. This constituted of older netas or their progeny who would generally not be associated with any local issues directly or could boast of some international achievements. They would however co-opt to work with select such people from the above groups and in return get some positions in party or places where they do not need to directly seek to represent masses. Either they had past association with media or slowly such associations could be established ad their ranks in hierarchy would grow. The associated intellectual, financial and operational challenge were needed to be overcome by such people themselves, and they could draw from their connections with other leaders in above groupings.
The party leadership was expected to maintain a balance perhaps a healthy mix amongst the grouping and to shift political pressure (read political power as well) to people who seem most capable to meet them. The other "workers" were supposed to toe the line since command & control of the support structure rested with the leadership. The technology seems to have changed this equation and is a cause of current drift although seasoned leaders would blame caste or religion or even fall in the value system of masses.
With the rise of internet and explosion of information, it has become easier to "master" issues and to spread about oneself. Mastering here is about mugging up arguments and to quip them wisely during discussions which only requires basic understanding and information. While earlier this required intellectual merit to gather information and to structure this in a relevant manner, however now such information is rather easily available. What is now required is wisdom to apply this information and being correct on most occasion and to establish credential amongst a section of people.
This seems to have been given a miss and therefore there seems to be too much competition for the first two groupings and no clear leaders. The "Real" people seems to have fallen off as loyal leaders with internet info. sitting in policy discussions who bring little ground level connect. The other major challenge is ability of the last two groups to easily challenge people in the first two category. This easily tarnishes reputation and ordinary people who could have been in party from initial two sections are shunning to join politics/party. What is left is "leaders" who claim loyalty to leadership rather than association with some specific issues or local or international achievement.
Accordingly the leadership seems to be dominated by senior bureaucrats, lawyers, senior journalists, noted academicians, cultural/sports/film icons etc. or older netas, their progeny. These set claim strong association and handle on ground level issues through mug up technique or also claim international fame by pushing their luck in international media and cultivation networks through business interest or being part of socialite networks. While their might be some traces of the yesteryears still visible but this is largely the situation and solution seems to be amiss.