India 2013/4 – an Election sans Leader… Let popular leadership emerge

India 2013/4 – an Election sans Leader… Let popular leadership emerge

Date 11th April 2013 By Amit Bhushan

The country is steadily slipping into election mode. All seasoned observers are showing uneasy giddiness, a rather strong signal of an early arrival of the electoral monsoon. Predictably, the stakeholders and pressure groups (such as large & small business groups, media barons, legal eagles and petty political groups as well as fringe interest groups of ‘sector experts’ including senior bureaucrats) are re-aligning themselves to strike bargain relationship with all those leaders who would still have weight in policy making. A notable highlight of the ensuing elections is that there are no clear leaders, either in the existing ruling dispensation or amongst the principal opposition grouping. The old warriors in both political groups are busy in finding their path stumbling through the rocky terrain which has gathered moss at a few places making it extremely slippery and also have shrapnel at some other areas raising the level of freight.

So, in the Grand old party people have selected to hide their personal ambition behind the traditional ruling façade/imagery of a family (a hallmark for decades for the party leaders and the ruling core) whose only two members are visible i.e. a widow & a young mascot. While the offer of the family members as well as the Prime Minister to lead the party members as hustling is a welcome relief for many a leaders rattled under the debris of colorful allegations of corruption/gross neglect including incompetence/dereliction of duty/strictures from constitutional bodies such as courts/CAG; also the economic slowdown that has robbed chances of any showcasing of performance even by crooked and cooked up story telling. Allies are naturally flexing muscles looking for an ever bigger payoff for continuance of support or to join alongside ruling dispensation for electoral battle. The stakeholders and pressure groups here are working overtime to assemble a likely winnable combine of political leaders.

The action of such interest groups is hotting up at the principal opposition group as well. The stakeholders and pressure group here are working overtime to force a leadership of their liking in anticipation of cultivating a friendly winning leadership team. The cold calculation of stakeholders at both political combinations is that that the margin of win for any combination will be/should be negligible and therefore they should latch on to be in good books of ‘all’ possible kingmakers or the fringe political parties with enough ‘seats’ to make a significant impact on ruling dispensation whosoever that may be. The seasoned political observers are aware of the fact and are therefore rather openly flexing muscles in varied form and in a variety of ways. Businesses are trying to cut deals with banks/development agencies for finance/projects; media barons/legal luminaries/experts are posing for advantageous positioning/case references/inside information; small political groups are piling pressure for a ‘larger than life’ role/profile. The party management in both dispensations, howsoever small in stature is eagerly playing to gallery to show that their stamp matters the most in deciding of India’s leadership. This is evident from the maddening frenzy of ‘who vs who’ debate being dished out on primetime to gullible viewers, a concocted nexus of business/media/political managements.

It is apparent that all ‘who’ is question are yet to prove their relevance to voters in current situation and convince them that they can steer them to some better position. The media barons feel all charged with the debate of this ‘who’ since India loves to talk about ‘Idols’ rather than principles/policies or formulas. For the ‘netas’, it keeps them in limelight who is often taken as a barometer for ‘popularity’. In practice, most seasoned political observers know that in most constituencies almost 50 % of the votes polled are ‘floating’ in nature with fickle loyalties and a ‘real’ leader is the one who can catch some 1/6th to 1/4th of such votes to make a significant impact on the chances of win of serious contender in the constituency.

Keeping this in mind and considering India’s diversity, a ‘real leader’ should not be difficult to select basis formula rather than ‘who vs who’ debate on media. It could be proposed that a Prime ministerial contender should have backing of at least 20 elected members; not more than 10 from a single state should be taken from a single state. Such leaders must have support of atleast 5 members of politically crucial states (in order that these leader focus on winning seats in politically crucial states). The parties can decide states crucial for them which could be from UP, Maharastra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and possibly Bihar/Orissa/W.Bengal. Once such formalities are detailed including operating procedure, it can then be dished out to allies giving them notice to decide within a timeframe to get into a pre-electoral tie-up (instead of taking sermons). The leadership from allies that fits the bill should also be considered in final polling by elected LS members for Prime Ministership. If such formulas are debated, it would serve the population in a better way as entire leadership will be constrained to look at a diverse set of people rather than fringe interest groups. All leaders who matter can have a ‘role’ in governance in order of ‘merit’ in relation to the time we all live in rather than submitting meekly to powerbrokers in a self belief that ‘I’ lead the country.

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

In the lead-up to the 2013-2014 Indian general elections, the political landscape was marked by a unique phenomenon: the absence of a clear, overarching national leader. Unlike previous election cycles, where towering figures like Indira Gandhi or Atal Bihari Vajpayee dominated the discourse, the 2013-2014 polls were characterized by a more fragmented leadership scenario. This period saw the rise of regional and state-level leaders who, in many ways, filled the void left by the lack of a single, unifying national figure. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), for instance, was initially hesitant to anoint a formal prime ministerial candidate, allowing for a broader base of support to coalesce around various state leaders and their local agendas. Similarly, the Indian National Congress (INC), despite having a dynastic legacy, struggled to project a strong, charismatic leader to galvanize the electorate. This situation inadvertently led to a more democratic and participatory election process, where the people were encouraged to engage with the issues and candidates on a more grassroots level. The absence of a singular leader also meant that the election discourse was less about personality and more about policies and local concerns, potentially fostering a more mature and issue-based political culture. As the election neared, however, the BJP’s strategic nomination of Narendra Modi as their prime ministerial candidate began to reshape the narrative, marking a significant shift in the campaign dynamics. Nonetheless, the initial phase of the election, characterized by the emergence of popular leadership from the ground up, underscored the resilience and adaptability of India’s democratic system, highlighting how leadership can organically arise to meet the needs and aspirations of a diverse and dynamic electorate.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

India 2013/4 – an Election sans Leader… Let popular leadership emerge

Date 11th April 2013 By Amit Bhushan

The country is steadily slipping into election mode. All seasoned observers are showing uneasy giddiness, a rather strong signal of an early arrival of the electoral monsoon. Predictably, the stakeholders and pressure groups (such as large & small business groups, media barons, legal eagles and petty political groups as well as fringe interest groups of ‘sector experts’ including senior bureaucrats) are re-aligning themselves to strike bargain relationship with all those leaders who would still have weight in policy making. A notable highlight of the ensuing elections is that there are no clear leaders, either in the existing ruling dispensation or amongst the principal opposition grouping. The old warriors in both political groups are busy in finding their path stumbling through the rocky terrain which has gathered moss at a few places making it extremely slippery and also have shrapnel at some other areas raising the level of freight.

So, in the Grand old party people have selected to hide their personal ambition behind the traditional ruling façade/imagery of a family (a hallmark for decades for the party leaders and the ruling core) whose only two members are visible i.e. a widow & a young mascot. While the offer of the family members as well as the Prime Minister to lead the party members as hustling is a welcome relief for many a leaders rattled under the debris of colorful allegations of corruption/gross neglect including incompetence/dereliction of duty/strictures from constitutional bodies such as courts/CAG; also the economic slowdown that has robbed chances of any showcasing of performance even by crooked and cooked up story telling. Allies are naturally flexing muscles looking for an ever bigger payoff for continuance of support or to join alongside ruling dispensation for electoral battle. The stakeholders and pressure groups here are working overtime to assemble a likely winnable combine of political leaders.

The action of such interest groups is hotting up at the principal opposition group as well. The stakeholders and pressure group here are working overtime to force a leadership of their liking in anticipation of cultivating a friendly winning leadership team. The cold calculation of stakeholders at both political combinations is that that the margin of win for any combination will be/should be negligible and therefore they should latch on to be in good books of ‘all’ possible kingmakers or the fringe political parties with enough ‘seats’ to make a significant impact on ruling dispensation whosoever that may be. The seasoned political observers are aware of the fact and are therefore rather openly flexing muscles in varied form and in a variety of ways. Businesses are trying to cut deals with banks/development agencies for finance/projects; media barons/legal luminaries/experts are posing for advantageous positioning/case references/inside information; small political groups are piling pressure for a ‘larger than life’ role/profile. The party management in both dispensations, howsoever small in stature is eagerly playing to gallery to show that their stamp matters the most in deciding of India’s leadership. This is evident from the maddening frenzy of ‘who vs who’ debate being dished out on primetime to gullible viewers, a concocted nexus of business/media/political managements.

It is apparent that all ‘who’ is question are yet to prove their relevance to voters in current situation and convince them that they can steer them to some better position. The media barons feel all charged with the debate of this ‘who’ since India loves to talk about ‘Idols’ rather than principles/policies or formulas. For the ‘netas’, it keeps them in limelight who is often taken as a barometer for ‘popularity’. In practice, most seasoned political observers know that in most constituencies almost 50 % of the votes polled are ‘floating’ in nature with fickle loyalties and a ‘real’ leader is the one who can catch some 1/6th to 1/4th of such votes to make a significant impact on the chances of win of serious contender in the constituency.

Keeping this in mind and considering India’s diversity, a ‘real leader’ should not be difficult to select basis formula rather than ‘who vs who’ debate on media. It could be proposed that a Prime ministerial contender should have backing of at least 20 elected members; not more than 10 from a single state should be taken from a single state. Such leaders must have support of atleast 5 members of politically crucial states (in order that these leader focus on winning seats in politically crucial states). The parties can decide states crucial for them which could be from UP, Maharastra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and possibly Bihar/Orissa/W.Bengal. Once such formalities are detailed including operating procedure, it can then be dished out to allies giving them notice to decide within a timeframe to get into a pre-electoral tie-up (instead of taking sermons). The leadership from allies that fits the bill should also be considered in final polling by elected LS members for Prime Ministership. If such formulas are debated, it would serve the population in a better way as entire leadership will be constrained to look at a diverse set of people rather than fringe interest groups. All leaders who matter can have a ‘role’ in governance in order of ‘merit’ in relation to the time we all live in rather than submitting meekly to powerbrokers in a self belief that ‘I’ lead the country.

This piece bears the unmistakable mark of a truly skilled writer. The writing style is captivating, characterized by its vibrant energy and articulate prose that transforms information into an absorbing narrative. It speaks directly to the reader, fostering a deep connection with the content. The structure is a masterclass in organization, leading you through the article's insights with a natural rhythm and sequence that makes comprehension a breeze. This thoughtful arrangement allows for optimal absorption of knowledge. Finally, the clarity throughout is simply outstanding. Each concept is illuminated with such lucidity that understanding is immediate, profound, and entirely unambiguous.