Political Competition & analysis of reward points

Political Competition & analysis of reward points

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 7thJuly 2014

Seldom is the need for the leaders to analyze political scenarios in totality higher in India than present. We are treading in an era of change and witness to several fragile political careers being laid to rest at political hustling. Several arguments and analysis are being forwarded by respective interest groups through mass media about their views and what is right for the ‘nation’. The level of quarrel seems to be rising on issues regarding position and treatment of elected representatives to public concern issues of price rise, unemployment and ‘development’. The ‘leaders’ seem distraught about public neglecting various claims to top while rewarding a particular party while neglecting their own claim. They seem to be in mood to employ the same vigorous boycott, shout and smear tactic at discussion tables as was employed by the party currently in governance. What is being ignored that the party’s was rewarded possibly because of the performance delivered at the state level which were acknowledged by the then national government as well as people residing or travelling to those states. This resulted in the profile of CM being raised and a CM moving to take on a higher role than what central level politicians envisage. Of course this should actually bring the position of CM in greater limelight though media is yet to take the cue.

The present ‘hungama’ seems to be developing without consideration of the ‘state level parameter’ and taking cue of the facts that suit only the central elected reps and not the people. Actually we are passing through the difficult phase of political struggle where ‘changing politics’ seem to be putting a lot of pressure on all politicians whether in government or outside. Those in government want to avoid any avoidable additional pressure points while those outside do not want to be seen as giving up too quickly (because of fragile political careers). The mass media continues to capture and depict the imagery while arguing the cases as per the political leanings of the journo. Also, we seem to be in a phase of ‘reap as you sow’; where the erstwhile rulers seem to be struggling with their strategy to wrest ‘positions’ by putting arguments in media because ‘set precedents and courts’ will only work to keep them away from such positions for longer they may want due to ‘interpretation and procedure issues’ of respective decision making bodies. The party in power is off course reaping rewards for its blockage politics and dalliance with religion related bodies. The ‘change’ phase where India decides to agree orchestrating new rules is still some distance away. What is also being ignored is that there is still room for forceful arguments in Indian politics as depicted by surge of a newbie party in a state and therefore alternative to ‘shouting’ is not altogether non-existent. Off course this to had elements of agitation and shout but that was outside legislature and was depicted as a ‘media’ event. The public still is waiting news of ‘changes’ in states very little of which is trickling through the mass media.

Basically, the system of ‘democratic feudalism’ in India has ensured that mass media and its power to manipulate public opinion is managed centrally rather than distributed. The main line mass still continues to follow the unwritten directive and therefore almost gross neglect of legislative/ bureaucratic endeavours and achievements (unless something like a dramatic calamity or non-political achievement is to be reported). The under-reporting of state efforts like those to cut cost of medicine distribution and improve irrigation through check dams etc.; also have political costs is forgotten by the leaders. If centralization of polity is seen to be so important then the same could have been achieved by having central leaders actively involved with state and local minutiae so that their stamp on development is not lost. The state level political outfits also seem to be in a bind since they feel a great need to protect state from prying central parties especially the one in government (the situation would not have been much different if another central party were to be in power). The fact that India has voted a party delivering a very basic level of governance in a comparatively better manner to center (so it seems due to data output of previous government and state job market conditions) and this can be easily overridden is forgotten in a hurry. We thus continue to have leaders depicting political snapshots of each other that suit their interests (& pulling other’s leg) rather than wholesome understanding and grasp of situation to ensure their own win ability. That a win demands performance at different levels is being forgotten in a hurry to gain media attention by leaders and subsequently may be blamed on politicians least prepared to take the beating.

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

Political competition plays a crucial role in modern democratic societies, serving as a mechanism to ensure that a variety of perspectives and policies are considered and that the electorate has the opportunity to choose leaders who best represent their interests. In the context of political parties and candidates vying for public support, the concept of "reward points" can be metaphorically applied to understand the various strategies and attributes that candidates use to gain an advantage. These "reward points" encompass a range of factors, including policy proposals, public speaking skills, media presence, and party loyalty, which collectively influence voter perception and choice.

Policy proposals, for instance, are a significant source of reward points in political competition. Voters are often swayed by the practicality and appeal of a candidate's plans, especially those that address immediate concerns such as economic stability, healthcare, and education. A well-articulated and feasible policy can earn a candidate substantial points among the electorate, as it demonstrates a clear vision and a commitment to addressing real issues. Conversely, vague or unrealistic promises can detract from a candidate's credibility, reducing their reward points.

Public speaking skills and media presence are also critical in the accumulation of reward points. A candidate who can effectively communicate their ideas and connect with the public through speeches and media appearances is more likely to resonate with voters and gain their trust. Media coverage, whether positive or negative, can significantly impact a candidate's visibility and reputation, thereby influencing the number of reward points they accumulate. Effective use of social media and other digital platforms can further enhance a candidate's reach and engagement, providing additional points in the political game.

Party loyalty and alignment with the party's values and base can also serve as reward points in political competition. In many cases, a candidate's success is tied to their ability to mobilize the party's existing support base, which often depends on their loyalty and representation of party ideals. However, this can sometimes be a double-edged sword, as overly rigid adherence to party lines might alienate moderate voters or those seeking fresh perspectives. Balancing party loyalty with an independent stance on key issues can be a strategic way to maximize reward points.

Ultimately, the accumulation of these reward points through various strategies and attributes is what differentiates successful candidates from those who do not fare as well in political competition. Understanding and effectively leveraging these points can be crucial for a candidate's campaign, influencing not only the primary process but also the general election and, ultimately, the governance of the country.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Political Competition & analysis of reward points

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 7thJuly 2014

Seldom is the need for the leaders to analyze political scenarios in totality higher in India than present. We are treading in an era of change and witness to several fragile political careers being laid to rest at political hustling. Several arguments and analysis are being forwarded by respective interest groups through mass media about their views and what is right for the ‘nation’. The level of quarrel seems to be rising on issues regarding position and treatment of elected representatives to public concern issues of price rise, unemployment and ‘development’. The ‘leaders’ seem distraught about public neglecting various claims to top while rewarding a particular party while neglecting their own claim. They seem to be in mood to employ the same vigorous boycott, shout and smear tactic at discussion tables as was employed by the party currently in governance. What is being ignored that the party’s was rewarded possibly because of the performance delivered at the state level which were acknowledged by the then national government as well as people residing or travelling to those states. This resulted in the profile of CM being raised and a CM moving to take on a higher role than what central level politicians envisage. Of course this should actually bring the position of CM in greater limelight though media is yet to take the cue.

The present ‘hungama’ seems to be developing without consideration of the ‘state level parameter’ and taking cue of the facts that suit only the central elected reps and not the people. Actually we are passing through the difficult phase of political struggle where ‘changing politics’ seem to be putting a lot of pressure on all politicians whether in government or outside. Those in government want to avoid any avoidable additional pressure points while those outside do not want to be seen as giving up too quickly (because of fragile political careers). The mass media continues to capture and depict the imagery while arguing the cases as per the political leanings of the journo. Also, we seem to be in a phase of ‘reap as you sow’; where the erstwhile rulers seem to be struggling with their strategy to wrest ‘positions’ by putting arguments in media because ‘set precedents and courts’ will only work to keep them away from such positions for longer they may want due to ‘interpretation and procedure issues’ of respective decision making bodies. The party in power is off course reaping rewards for its blockage politics and dalliance with religion related bodies. The ‘change’ phase where India decides to agree orchestrating new rules is still some distance away. What is also being ignored is that there is still room for forceful arguments in Indian politics as depicted by surge of a newbie party in a state and therefore alternative to ‘shouting’ is not altogether non-existent. Off course this to had elements of agitation and shout but that was outside legislature and was depicted as a ‘media’ event. The public still is waiting news of ‘changes’ in states very little of which is trickling through the mass media.

Basically, the system of ‘democratic feudalism’ in India has ensured that mass media and its power to manipulate public opinion is managed centrally rather than distributed. The main line mass still continues to follow the unwritten directive and therefore almost gross neglect of legislative/ bureaucratic endeavours and achievements (unless something like a dramatic calamity or non-political achievement is to be reported). The under-reporting of state efforts like those to cut cost of medicine distribution and improve irrigation through check dams etc.; also have political costs is forgotten by the leaders. If centralization of polity is seen to be so important then the same could have been achieved by having central leaders actively involved with state and local minutiae so that their stamp on development is not lost. The state level political outfits also seem to be in a bind since they feel a great need to protect state from prying central parties especially the one in government (the situation would not have been much different if another central party were to be in power). The fact that India has voted a party delivering a very basic level of governance in a comparatively better manner to center (so it seems due to data output of previous government and state job market conditions) and this can be easily overridden is forgotten in a hurry. We thus continue to have leaders depicting political snapshots of each other that suit their interests (& pulling other’s leg) rather than wholesome understanding and grasp of situation to ensure their own win ability. That a win demands performance at different levels is being forgotten in a hurry to gain media attention by leaders and subsequently may be blamed on politicians least prepared to take the beating.

This political article is a masterclass in persuasive communication. The writer's writing style is remarkably incisive and authoritative, cutting through complex issues with clarity and conviction. There's a palpable sense of purpose in every sentence, driving the argument forward with intellectual rigor. The structure of the piece is strategically designed to build a compelling case, carefully introducing evidence and counterpoints in a way that maximizes their impact. Each section contributes meaningfully to the overall narrative, leading the reader towards a well-reasoned conclusion. Critically, the clarity with which the political landscape and proposed solutions are articulated is exemplary, leaving no ambiguity about the writer's stance or the implications of their analysis. This is not just reporting; it's a powerful and accessible contribution to public discourse.