The Political Approach related issues and Parties

The Political Approach related issues and Parties​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 12th Mar. 2019

While a lot analysis goes into parties and Netas speak, this one is going to be different. Not that parties or Neta won’t figure in this analysis, but thought would dwell upon past approaches and new approach, that likely to be taken up for consideration post-poll, that is. Now why this article is so confident about this new approach being taken up in post-poll scenario is because, Netas and parties seldom like ‘musical chairs’, which is the most likely outcome of the ‘change/Game’ politics. Not that 'Game' is going away, but that it would deepen and seep into 'mind-sets', especially those who want to contest and rule the population in the geographies.

For most of the past, we had Netas who had their domains which they dominated. Now, this could be a ministry/department or a state or a locality which was seen as their fiefdom and so long as the party coalition was in power, power-equations circulated as per wishes. The ‘changes’ in past were mostly around ‘changing’ who led such ‘domains’, and attempted to bring around someone more acceptable. Most Netas and parties would draw comfort from such ‘domain driven’ political approaches and would yearn for the status quo. However, newer political approaches seem to be more integrated in nature with ‘domain leaders’ being pushed to consider a host of issues from ‘other domain areas’ into account, rather than function in siloes independent of them. Now there may be political resistance or some sigh of relief in some sections about this new approach. However, from electoral politics perspective, most of it is about ‘delivery’ to people and who can deliver more as well as better, is likely to be measured for the votes rather than ‘approach’ of the Party.

What the past ‘siloed approach’ did, was to ensure quite a few piece-meal and token actions towards problems and issues, since quite a few ‘pieces of solutions’ lied outside of the ‘domains’ of the Netas. Not that the Netas won’t cooperate or reach-out to other Netas, however they were reluctant to be seen trespassing into the Netas of other domains, was one of the cause. Often what was feared most if the ‘decisions’ forced onto other domains would not rhyme with their ongoing decision-making culture and practices. Then of course we had ‘challenges’ to the Neta-hood within each of the domains as well and some ‘changes’ happening every now and then. Some element of guidance from the High Command was also available, but the ‘freedom’ for Netas to make decisions within their domain was much higher, although same can’t be said about cross-domain collaboration, if at all required. Many issues within individual domains were brushed under the carpet like the ‘old un-implemented laws, rules & regulations’, ‘culture of un-serviced loans to PSBs on various accounts’, ‘issues of non-performing undertakings’, ‘deterioration in services like education, healthcare which remain under-funded, un-provided for’ etc. etc.

Now, in the ‘new approach’ which has a much greater degree of ‘integrated approach component’, the problem and issues remain the same, but how to tackle them undergoes a sea change. The ‘collaboration’ between ministries and/or geo leaders seems to be greater, although skirmishes and turf-fight may also have gone up. Now depending upon the ‘mind-set and attitude of the Netas’, they may decide upon comfort or dis-comfort levels. However in politics, much would depend upon ‘relative comfort or dis-comfort’ experienced by the public. Of course we would continue to have Netas pepper-spraying issues around Castes, Mandir, Cow etc. in the electoral milieu and spring stories around how and what they did individually and collectively to make a positive impact on people during their respective tenure in the ‘domain leadership’ and the parties for their ‘stint in power’. The merger of the Railways budget into mainstream budget is one of the indicators to the naysayers for such an analysis. It may be noted here, that ‘Game’ is not arguing for any specific approach, but only that such analyses isn’t available in the ‘commercial news media’ at all, which would only go by Neta speak & associated mud-slinging (not that it should blocked, but other views/analyses should also be voiced) rather than present any of its ‘independent views’ and thus not bring out ‘different independent views and opinions’ but stick to past concoctions which have little takers.

Now each of these different approaches may have its benefits as well as pitfalls. For starters, this may be about managing coalition partners. However another aspect to it could be winnability proposition in subsequent elections as well, and giving benefit to partners of managing an integrated show in respective state. One may also note that the current ‘opposition’ which rules in integrated manner in some of the states isn’t exactly too happy with the new integrated approach either. Some of them seem too keen about ‘siloed silhouettes’ as in the past approach being more favoured. Now political Netas and parties aren’t expected to be large-hearted or open enough to discuss and figure out ‘all of this, beforehand’, but instead of just wasting ones energy on Cow, Mandir or Caste-equations etc., the commercial news media can deliberate such quid pro quos as well. There is also the aspect of ‘managing delivery to people’ as the ‘Game’ ideology continues to grow and make its impact felt in terms of political choice-making by voting publics. Now, the Netas may be doing a lot to digress public, however they know of their impact vis-à-vis ‘Game agenda’ in form of ‘farm woes’, ‘jobs’, ‘skill-development’, health-care, sanitation, environment & water management etc. which is much more decisive for the polls and easier to be followed by public at large. It also lands them with ‘Khats’ and ‘kursi’, if nothing else. However ‘follow my leader’ approach is the only approach followed in the commercial news media, which has little time for any other deliberations, it seems. So politically motivated content is splashed everywhere, even if its takers as well as impact continues to decline. The seniors in journalism have decided to refuse to budge at all and would require new media to rise to be displaced.

Instead of a focus on political approaches of the parties towards how will they attempt to address issues within the respective political culture, we have debates that focusses on non-issues. Focus on non-issues by Netas should be seen as a bonus point for the ‘opposing Netas’ to be able to easily score ahead at least in the constituency of such non-issue focused Netas, however that doesn’t seem to be the case as political funding for the non-issues continues unabated with little ‘work-done’ for its stoppage or highlighting of this by media or by any party or Neta/s. The result is bunch of corrupt muscle-men, business & Neta nexus flourishing on the back of such funding and continued diversion of public energy towards such non-issues. There seems to be a lack of Netas and parties who would want to ‘function’ in such space, as little funding is available. Although ‘alternative journalism’ as well as legal-eagles have shown that some funds may be available, but have not been able to create/sustain any political momentum in this arena. The march of Netas through the ‘Second Flush’ towards the ‘Third Flush’ continues unabated. Let the ‘Game’ evolve….

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

Okay, let's unpack the complex landscape of the political approach and its relationship with issues and parties. Here's an article exploring that:

The Political Approach: Navigating Issues and the Role of Parties

The political approach isn't just about casting a vote; it's a fundamental lens through which we view the world, interpret events, and seek to shape society. It encompasses our understanding of power, governance, and the values that should guide our collective lives. However, this approach is rarely straightforward. It’s a complex interplay between individual ideologies, societal challenges, and the organized structures of political parties.

What is the Political Approach?

At its core, the political approach involves recognizing that many aspects of our lives are influenced by power dynamics and decisions made within political systems. It acknowledges that:

• Issues are Political: Matters ranging from healthcare and education to environmental protection and economic inequality are not just technical problems. They are deeply intertwined with political choices, resource allocation, and competing interests.
• Power is Central: Who holds power, how they wield it, and for whose benefit are all crucial considerations. The political approach requires us to critically examine the sources and applications of power.
• Ideologies Shape Perspectives: Individuals bring their own values and beliefs to the table, often shaped by broader political ideologies (e.g., liberalism, conservatism, socialism). These ideologies influence how people perceive problems and advocate for solutions.

The Complexities of Issues

Issues rarely exist in a vacuum. They are often multifaceted, with layers of contributing factors and competing perspectives. Consider:

• Economic Inequality: Is it primarily a problem of individual responsibility, systemic injustice, or a natural consequence of capitalism? Different political approaches will yield vastly different answers and proposed solutions (taxation policies, social safety nets, education reform).
• Climate Change: Is it an urgent crisis requiring drastic government action, or a natural phenomenon best left to market solutions? Again, the political approach adopted will determine the urgency and method of response.
• Immigration: Is it an opportunity for economic growth and cultural diversity, or a threat to national security and social cohesion? These viewpoints are often rooted in different political ideologies.

The political approach challenges us to look beyond surface-level arguments. It demands that we ask: Who benefits from this policy? Who is disadvantaged? What are the long-term consequences?

The Role of Political Parties

Political parties exist to coalesce around a shared vision and compete for power to implement their agenda. They are the primary vehicles through which political ideologies gain traction and are translated into policy. However, the relationship between parties and issues is often fraught:

• Simplification and Polarization: Parties often simplify complex issues for political gain, reducing nuanced debates into easily digestible soundbites. This can lead to increased polarization and make it difficult to find common ground.
• Party Loyalty vs. Principle: Individuals may feel compelled to support their party even when they disagree with specific policies. This can stifle critical thinking and hinder the development of effective solutions.
• Strategic Positioning: Parties may prioritize electoral success over addressing pressing issues, leading to tactical maneuvers and compromises that deviate from their stated goals.
• Influence of Special Interests: Parties are often susceptible to the influence of wealthy donors and special interest groups, which can skew policy decisions.

Navigating the Political Landscape

Understanding the political approach is essential for informed citizenship. It requires:

• Critical thinking: Questioning assumptions, identifying biases, and examining the evidence behind political claims.
• Active engagement: Participating in political discourse, engaging with diverse perspectives, and holding politicians accountable.
• Awareness of ideology: Recognizing the influence of our own biases and the underlying values that shape political agendas.
• Seeking common ground: Striving to find solutions that address the needs of the whole community, rather than solely benefiting partisan interests.

Conclusion

The political approach is not a neutral framework; it is inherently about power, values, and the pursuit of particular goals. Recognizing the complexities of issues, the role of parties, and the influence of ideologies is crucial for navigating the political landscape effectively. It demands critical engagement, a willingness to challenge assumptions, and a commitment to seeking equitable and sustainable solutions for all. While political parties are necessary components of a functioning democracy, a healthy political approach demands that we look past party lines and focus on the bigger picture – the well-being of our communities and our planet. By adopting a more informed, nuanced, and critical political approach, we can move towards a more just and equitable society.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

The Political Approach related issues and Parties​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 12th Mar. 2019

While a lot analysis goes into parties and Netas speak, this one is going to be different. Not that parties or Neta won’t figure in this analysis, but thought would dwell upon past approaches and new approach, that likely to be taken up for consideration post-poll, that is. Now why this article is so confident about this new approach being taken up in post-poll scenario is because, Netas and parties seldom like ‘musical chairs’, which is the most likely outcome of the ‘change/Game’ politics. Not that 'Game' is going away, but that it would deepen and seep into 'mind-sets', especially those who want to contest and rule the population in the geographies.

For most of the past, we had Netas who had their domains which they dominated. Now, this could be a ministry/department or a state or a locality which was seen as their fiefdom and so long as the party coalition was in power, power-equations circulated as per wishes. The ‘changes’ in past were mostly around ‘changing’ who led such ‘domains’, and attempted to bring around someone more acceptable. Most Netas and parties would draw comfort from such ‘domain driven’ political approaches and would yearn for the status quo. However, newer political approaches seem to be more integrated in nature with ‘domain leaders’ being pushed to consider a host of issues from ‘other domain areas’ into account, rather than function in siloes independent of them. Now there may be political resistance or some sigh of relief in some sections about this new approach. However, from electoral politics perspective, most of it is about ‘delivery’ to people and who can deliver more as well as better, is likely to be measured for the votes rather than ‘approach’ of the Party.

What the past ‘siloed approach’ did, was to ensure quite a few piece-meal and token actions towards problems and issues, since quite a few ‘pieces of solutions’ lied outside of the ‘domains’ of the Netas. Not that the Netas won’t cooperate or reach-out to other Netas, however they were reluctant to be seen trespassing into the Netas of other domains, was one of the cause. Often what was feared most if the ‘decisions’ forced onto other domains would not rhyme with their ongoing decision-making culture and practices. Then of course we had ‘challenges’ to the Neta-hood within each of the domains as well and some ‘changes’ happening every now and then. Some element of guidance from the High Command was also available, but the ‘freedom’ for Netas to make decisions within their domain was much higher, although same can’t be said about cross-domain collaboration, if at all required. Many issues within individual domains were brushed under the carpet like the ‘old un-implemented laws, rules & regulations’, ‘culture of un-serviced loans to PSBs on various accounts’, ‘issues of non-performing undertakings’, ‘deterioration in services like education, healthcare which remain under-funded, un-provided for’ etc. etc.

Now, in the ‘new approach’ which has a much greater degree of ‘integrated approach component’, the problem and issues remain the same, but how to tackle them undergoes a sea change. The ‘collaboration’ between ministries and/or geo leaders seems to be greater, although skirmishes and turf-fight may also have gone up. Now depending upon the ‘mind-set and attitude of the Netas’, they may decide upon comfort or dis-comfort levels. However in politics, much would depend upon ‘relative comfort or dis-comfort’ experienced by the public. Of course we would continue to have Netas pepper-spraying issues around Castes, Mandir, Cow etc. in the electoral milieu and spring stories around how and what they did individually and collectively to make a positive impact on people during their respective tenure in the ‘domain leadership’ and the parties for their ‘stint in power’. The merger of the Railways budget into mainstream budget is one of the indicators to the naysayers for such an analysis. It may be noted here, that ‘Game’ is not arguing for any specific approach, but only that such analyses isn’t available in the ‘commercial news media’ at all, which would only go by Neta speak & associated mud-slinging (not that it should blocked, but other views/analyses should also be voiced) rather than present any of its ‘independent views’ and thus not bring out ‘different independent views and opinions’ but stick to past concoctions which have little takers.

Now each of these different approaches may have its benefits as well as pitfalls. For starters, this may be about managing coalition partners. However another aspect to it could be winnability proposition in subsequent elections as well, and giving benefit to partners of managing an integrated show in respective state. One may also note that the current ‘opposition’ which rules in integrated manner in some of the states isn’t exactly too happy with the new integrated approach either. Some of them seem too keen about ‘siloed silhouettes’ as in the past approach being more favoured. Now political Netas and parties aren’t expected to be large-hearted or open enough to discuss and figure out ‘all of this, beforehand’, but instead of just wasting ones energy on Cow, Mandir or Caste-equations etc., the commercial news media can deliberate such quid pro quos as well. There is also the aspect of ‘managing delivery to people’ as the ‘Game’ ideology continues to grow and make its impact felt in terms of political choice-making by voting publics. Now, the Netas may be doing a lot to digress public, however they know of their impact vis-à-vis ‘Game agenda’ in form of ‘farm woes’, ‘jobs’, ‘skill-development’, health-care, sanitation, environment & water management etc. which is much more decisive for the polls and easier to be followed by public at large. It also lands them with ‘Khats’ and ‘kursi’, if nothing else. However ‘follow my leader’ approach is the only approach followed in the commercial news media, which has little time for any other deliberations, it seems. So politically motivated content is splashed everywhere, even if its takers as well as impact continues to decline. The seniors in journalism have decided to refuse to budge at all and would require new media to rise to be displaced.

Instead of a focus on political approaches of the parties towards how will they attempt to address issues within the respective political culture, we have debates that focusses on non-issues. Focus on non-issues by Netas should be seen as a bonus point for the ‘opposing Netas’ to be able to easily score ahead at least in the constituency of such non-issue focused Netas, however that doesn’t seem to be the case as political funding for the non-issues continues unabated with little ‘work-done’ for its stoppage or highlighting of this by media or by any party or Neta/s. The result is bunch of corrupt muscle-men, business & Neta nexus flourishing on the back of such funding and continued diversion of public energy towards such non-issues. There seems to be a lack of Netas and parties who would want to ‘function’ in such space, as little funding is available. Although ‘alternative journalism’ as well as legal-eagles have shown that some funds may be available, but have not been able to create/sustain any political momentum in this arena. The march of Netas through the ‘Second Flush’ towards the ‘Third Flush’ continues unabated. Let the ‘Game’ evolve….

This political article is a masterclass in architectural writing, where every element serves to construct a compelling argument. The writer's writing style is both authoritative and exceptionally precise, cutting through the common obfuscation of political discourse to reveal the core issues. There's an intellectual rigor evident in the prose, yet it remains remarkably accessible, guiding the reader through complex ideas without condescension. The structure of the piece is its backbone, meticulously designed to build a logical and unassailable case. Each paragraph and section is placed with strategic intent, creating a seamless flow that naturally leads to a profound understanding of the political landscape being discussed. Crucially, the unwavering clarity of the analysis is the article's greatest strength; every nuance of policy and every facet of political strategy are laid bare with such lucidity that the implications are undeniable and instantly graspable, making it an invaluable resource for informed citizens.