Government Leadership candidatures and India
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 17th Nov. 2015
Now there seem to be a rising tide of various politicians or sub-groupings in the ring for the position of leadership in government in India. Incidentally almost all seem to be relying on the glib talk of putting others failure in front. We really do not get any proposals either for improving infra like "building new cities from scratch" or new railways anymore. While that may be understandable since the onus of these lie where, is somewhat clear, however there seem to be no proposal to improve municipal governance by introducing e-governance tools or improving Development authorities using the same tools, which is curious. We do get to hear advertorials promising improved governance at village panchayats though. However such measures seldom get covered by media, which seem to have no interests in improvement of panchayats or panchayati-raj.
This is even as it goes after Khaps or other quasi-social gangs establishing their own order. It is this role of media to which challenges such social order but refuses to promote alternative improved versions/directions is also in question (since such efforts usually seem to get restricted to promoting one to two Annas only, mostly because of political reasons, while all Khaps generally remain at receiving end).It is also curious that till such time these discussions remain at improving the "top", say for example the apex level judiciary, the discussions remain open ended and slugfest continues. However the moment such discussion are taken to improvement on ground or bottom, clear winners start to emerge and that happens irrespective of what someone has to say.
Even charges coming from high authorities who should be basically focussed on fixing responsibilities rather, often go in vain and that's all proven. This has potential to propel even novice political leaders and parties in electorally aware state. However in spite of such clear phenomenon, still political leaderships remain glued to "changes" at top and that too basis glib talk. While it is true that institutional response to such issues take time to conceive and then further more for development to be felt at the bottom. However, such planning which should have been part and parcel of governance, had not been taking place because of lack or political priorities.
Neither is the same taking place presently, since such initiation of such planning activity would ensure that many service provider would suddenly become very active and vocal about pushing their wares as well as superior terms of "sales". This by itself would have ensured media focus on "development" rather than non-governance factors being play up, as is being alleged. The "development" debate has clearly shown that the challengers also have equal opportunity to "win" the development debate via "superior delivery".
That would of course require some of the "plans" to reach the ground for people to be convinced about focus being at correct place. A point commercial news media may have missed to elaborate in its analysis of the elections that passed recently was that the incumbent had little by the way of large projects to show and whatever large projects were there, had mostly central stamp. So it was execution on ground of centrally sponsored schemes or small business/construction growth; that basically tilted the tide against anti-incumbency, besides socio-cultural mix and associated factors. It is further reiterated that some smart campaign or a generic appeal towards maintenance of law and order related factors might also have been there although that may be debateable at this stage.
While may be tempted to reject the new economic theory about development of new opportunities and stick to re-distribution related economics in this regard, however it may be noted that such old economics had been already rejected nationally and so pushing the envelope may not be much helpful in the newly emerging scenario. So its more going to go towards find niche segments of opportunity for the people of the state to be developed and increasing the overall opportunity spectrum and let existing re-distribution mechanisms to do their bit. Focus on improving the level playing field for the under-privileged may be additional arena of focus. However the media and political leaders may still continue to go gung-ho in search of their victory formula.
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 17th Nov. 2015
Now there seem to be a rising tide of various politicians or sub-groupings in the ring for the position of leadership in government in India. Incidentally almost all seem to be relying on the glib talk of putting others failure in front. We really do not get any proposals either for improving infra like "building new cities from scratch" or new railways anymore. While that may be understandable since the onus of these lie where, is somewhat clear, however there seem to be no proposal to improve municipal governance by introducing e-governance tools or improving Development authorities using the same tools, which is curious. We do get to hear advertorials promising improved governance at village panchayats though. However such measures seldom get covered by media, which seem to have no interests in improvement of panchayats or panchayati-raj.
This is even as it goes after Khaps or other quasi-social gangs establishing their own order. It is this role of media to which challenges such social order but refuses to promote alternative improved versions/directions is also in question (since such efforts usually seem to get restricted to promoting one to two Annas only, mostly because of political reasons, while all Khaps generally remain at receiving end).It is also curious that till such time these discussions remain at improving the "top", say for example the apex level judiciary, the discussions remain open ended and slugfest continues. However the moment such discussion are taken to improvement on ground or bottom, clear winners start to emerge and that happens irrespective of what someone has to say.
Even charges coming from high authorities who should be basically focussed on fixing responsibilities rather, often go in vain and that's all proven. This has potential to propel even novice political leaders and parties in electorally aware state. However in spite of such clear phenomenon, still political leaderships remain glued to "changes" at top and that too basis glib talk. While it is true that institutional response to such issues take time to conceive and then further more for development to be felt at the bottom. However, such planning which should have been part and parcel of governance, had not been taking place because of lack or political priorities.
Neither is the same taking place presently, since such initiation of such planning activity would ensure that many service provider would suddenly become very active and vocal about pushing their wares as well as superior terms of "sales". This by itself would have ensured media focus on "development" rather than non-governance factors being play up, as is being alleged. The "development" debate has clearly shown that the challengers also have equal opportunity to "win" the development debate via "superior delivery".
That would of course require some of the "plans" to reach the ground for people to be convinced about focus being at correct place. A point commercial news media may have missed to elaborate in its analysis of the elections that passed recently was that the incumbent had little by the way of large projects to show and whatever large projects were there, had mostly central stamp. So it was execution on ground of centrally sponsored schemes or small business/construction growth; that basically tilted the tide against anti-incumbency, besides socio-cultural mix and associated factors. It is further reiterated that some smart campaign or a generic appeal towards maintenance of law and order related factors might also have been there although that may be debateable at this stage.
While may be tempted to reject the new economic theory about development of new opportunities and stick to re-distribution related economics in this regard, however it may be noted that such old economics had been already rejected nationally and so pushing the envelope may not be much helpful in the newly emerging scenario. So its more going to go towards find niche segments of opportunity for the people of the state to be developed and increasing the overall opportunity spectrum and let existing re-distribution mechanisms to do their bit. Focus on improving the level playing field for the under-privileged may be additional arena of focus. However the media and political leaders may still continue to go gung-ho in search of their victory formula.