Reading Elections & Economy
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 27th Oct. 2015
We have commentators in commercial news media who depending upon political affiliations are busy interpreting the results of a state, already. Such criticism comes boldly as failure of X or Y leaders, non-appeasement of the commentators or their favourite buddy, or lack of support for certain pet 'people friendly' projects. Most of this is centred on what is not done or done wrongly rather than what should be done and what's wrong and this is exactly the recipe that slows down decision making further.
It seems defeating Television anchors has become new past time of such commentators with their rich vocabulary, high degree of command on 'issues' (this one indeed seems better) and excellent mix of slogans and rhetoric to nullify any anticipated pushback, in advance. And with all ingredients to ensure that reediness to resolve the differences in opinions is well understood. As a result the no. 1 ads seem withdrawn, although the analysis of rhetoric/s continue. The commercial news media is of course not meant for serious policy research or discussions.So I thought I should pen my own (or public's own) version putting the 'public or voter' point of view, though this surely may not be a representative view.
This is surely going to be different then the win-all, loose-all that are presented by such commentators and is reflective of voter. This is because for the man in fray at hustling, such win-all, loose-all scenarios may make sense but to voter who is not in fray, what makes sense is that the eggs in his basket are divided in a balanced manner to take care of his own concerns, for him to 'win'. Of course every person's 'balance' might be different and bringing people to a common view is a herculean task where even mass media fails regularly, and that's about the only thing political leaders and public may have a consensus. Huge differences exist in area where public believes that they should be at centre of argument while the Netas are sure that arguments are almost always to be centred on them or their progeny/benefactors, since they are the chosen one's. And this is true about leaders on 'all' sides, rather than any specific side.
Challenge for the voters is that they are many and each has just one vote and is to be exercised basis one's own judgement.As far as economy or economic activity is concerned is gets managed by a mix of policy actions by powerful player such as governments which is both central & state and the 'moods' in the markets. It is therefore a change in public discourse, which is a better way to 'fix it'; and elections, since they set the tone, capture this mood and convey the market sentiments.
The hope here is that the players winning or losing will understand this and act accordingly for the fray. So the ability to 'listen' to voters and act in accordance is the key at hustling, this or next or any other, and the principle seems to be establish/gaining ground. That winning of a leader or party will make or break economy as pointed by commercial news media is a myth as we can engineer the turnaround without much policy action turning into ground level action and the growth rate, used as the barometer by political pundits is already beating the trend.
The politicians who were giving excuses of global situation seem in need to introspect as well as those who make tall claims of turning around the economy, as there impact (of decisions made already) is yet to take effect and most economist will agree with the author, though commercial news media will keep this away from public. Now regards the outcome, what I feel is that the state leaders should have an incentive to go along with public mood the same way as the leaders at centre. In fact mapping themselves (by leaders) more closely is where the incentive of "game" should lie. As long as this hope is reflected in the results, the problems in economic management should get sorted in the process.
The vigilante media should therefore focus on the violations of this principle and bring it out to the notice of public and this should go beyond analysis of rhetoric, but with focus on policy-making and its implementation.
~ : END : ~
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 27th Oct. 2015
We have commentators in commercial news media who depending upon political affiliations are busy interpreting the results of a state, already. Such criticism comes boldly as failure of X or Y leaders, non-appeasement of the commentators or their favourite buddy, or lack of support for certain pet 'people friendly' projects. Most of this is centred on what is not done or done wrongly rather than what should be done and what's wrong and this is exactly the recipe that slows down decision making further.
It seems defeating Television anchors has become new past time of such commentators with their rich vocabulary, high degree of command on 'issues' (this one indeed seems better) and excellent mix of slogans and rhetoric to nullify any anticipated pushback, in advance. And with all ingredients to ensure that reediness to resolve the differences in opinions is well understood. As a result the no. 1 ads seem withdrawn, although the analysis of rhetoric/s continue. The commercial news media is of course not meant for serious policy research or discussions.So I thought I should pen my own (or public's own) version putting the 'public or voter' point of view, though this surely may not be a representative view.
This is surely going to be different then the win-all, loose-all that are presented by such commentators and is reflective of voter. This is because for the man in fray at hustling, such win-all, loose-all scenarios may make sense but to voter who is not in fray, what makes sense is that the eggs in his basket are divided in a balanced manner to take care of his own concerns, for him to 'win'. Of course every person's 'balance' might be different and bringing people to a common view is a herculean task where even mass media fails regularly, and that's about the only thing political leaders and public may have a consensus. Huge differences exist in area where public believes that they should be at centre of argument while the Netas are sure that arguments are almost always to be centred on them or their progeny/benefactors, since they are the chosen one's. And this is true about leaders on 'all' sides, rather than any specific side.
Challenge for the voters is that they are many and each has just one vote and is to be exercised basis one's own judgement.As far as economy or economic activity is concerned is gets managed by a mix of policy actions by powerful player such as governments which is both central & state and the 'moods' in the markets. It is therefore a change in public discourse, which is a better way to 'fix it'; and elections, since they set the tone, capture this mood and convey the market sentiments.
The hope here is that the players winning or losing will understand this and act accordingly for the fray. So the ability to 'listen' to voters and act in accordance is the key at hustling, this or next or any other, and the principle seems to be establish/gaining ground. That winning of a leader or party will make or break economy as pointed by commercial news media is a myth as we can engineer the turnaround without much policy action turning into ground level action and the growth rate, used as the barometer by political pundits is already beating the trend.
The politicians who were giving excuses of global situation seem in need to introspect as well as those who make tall claims of turning around the economy, as there impact (of decisions made already) is yet to take effect and most economist will agree with the author, though commercial news media will keep this away from public. Now regards the outcome, what I feel is that the state leaders should have an incentive to go along with public mood the same way as the leaders at centre. In fact mapping themselves (by leaders) more closely is where the incentive of "game" should lie. As long as this hope is reflected in the results, the problems in economic management should get sorted in the process.
The vigilante media should therefore focus on the violations of this principle and bring it out to the notice of public and this should go beyond analysis of rhetoric, but with focus on policy-making and its implementation.
~ : END : ~