The Secularized Politics- Is it going to get back
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 29th May 2015
One of the core reasons for the ‘failure’ of secularist leaders to fail in their attempt to garner votes was the failure to address ‘corruption’ by streamlining policies and procedures. Not that there were no attempts; in fact the like UIDAI and DBT were initiated however those were too few on coverage and too late. Then of course was policy issues pertaining to choices being exercised on behalf of public like on ‘distribution structure’ adopted for limited LPG or neglect of river and near-shore travel and transportation, issues pertaining to banking and credit supplies/management amongst others. In the going clumsy environment, the rush to pile up future subsidy commitments to befool voters rather than focusing to make the system work by fixing government schools, ration shops, roads/sanitation works, primary health centers or power supply; the leadership went about new laws with no ideas to implement the same. The result became too apparent even before the votes were cast. Nearly the same thing happened in elections in Capital state where leaders were unprepared to discuss ‘development’ and wanted to ‘sell’ rhetoric when pitted against a ‘fresh party’.
I agree that most such visible government measures may not be in the hands of central leadership but in states and have therefore already pointed to increased role of the state chiefs as opposed to central ministers, though commercial news media for its own convenience/cost reasons remains glued to them. So the political power went to those leaders (in states) who were ‘seen’ as committing to deliver at least some of these if not all, although ‘promise’ is to deliver much more. The central stats of comparative scores of the states and jurisprudence also played their role in convincing voters towards a particular decision. Once again the secularists combine instead of focusing on governance related issues and fixing problems in the states governed by them are busy tearing down the government rhetoric. There are no comparative data of better run schools, power supply, logistics or transparency of subsidy transfers in the states but counter rhetoric. What perhaps is an exception is a small state with a new party which has just started functioning and at least seems more glued to fixing the school education, with piecemeal attempts on anti-corruption (again with a lot of tall claims, besides confused verbosity) the very least although the jury is yet to be out on that. There set of problems for delivery seems to be mounting though.
The GOP seems to have decided that it will have very limited responsibilities in states that too perhaps in conjunction with local parties/leaders who will continue to play apologist for lack of ‘services’ while it embarks on its project to get back at the center, a clear recipe for political disaster unlikely to succeed with the people. The numbers including comparatives performance of states are left to perception while the rhetoric is about ‘pride’ rather than ‘performance’ from the leadership on the ruling side. This is countered by perceptive questions/arguments from ‘opposition’ much like the ones raised by these articles in Management Paradise, rather than a data backed study, which points to ideological bankruptcy since ‘political leaders’ even in opposition are supposed to have command on numbers. While simple questions are easy to understand and ‘sell’ and their use in politics is encouraged, however they need to be backed by some element of performance which is visible; and political elects cannot be allowed to escape from such question since they aren’t humble voters. Although I do not intend to make this article sound as though in support of the leaders in ruling dispensation, however it must be pointed out that the changing nature of political competition will ensure that people move towards ‘newer’ option which doesn’t have negative image of corruption or the lack of performance, rather than remaining struck to the messiahs of the yore (irrespective of party lines), who in any case have already been rejected once.
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 29th May 2015
One of the core reasons for the ‘failure’ of secularist leaders to fail in their attempt to garner votes was the failure to address ‘corruption’ by streamlining policies and procedures. Not that there were no attempts; in fact the like UIDAI and DBT were initiated however those were too few on coverage and too late. Then of course was policy issues pertaining to choices being exercised on behalf of public like on ‘distribution structure’ adopted for limited LPG or neglect of river and near-shore travel and transportation, issues pertaining to banking and credit supplies/management amongst others. In the going clumsy environment, the rush to pile up future subsidy commitments to befool voters rather than focusing to make the system work by fixing government schools, ration shops, roads/sanitation works, primary health centers or power supply; the leadership went about new laws with no ideas to implement the same. The result became too apparent even before the votes were cast. Nearly the same thing happened in elections in Capital state where leaders were unprepared to discuss ‘development’ and wanted to ‘sell’ rhetoric when pitted against a ‘fresh party’.
I agree that most such visible government measures may not be in the hands of central leadership but in states and have therefore already pointed to increased role of the state chiefs as opposed to central ministers, though commercial news media for its own convenience/cost reasons remains glued to them. So the political power went to those leaders (in states) who were ‘seen’ as committing to deliver at least some of these if not all, although ‘promise’ is to deliver much more. The central stats of comparative scores of the states and jurisprudence also played their role in convincing voters towards a particular decision. Once again the secularists combine instead of focusing on governance related issues and fixing problems in the states governed by them are busy tearing down the government rhetoric. There are no comparative data of better run schools, power supply, logistics or transparency of subsidy transfers in the states but counter rhetoric. What perhaps is an exception is a small state with a new party which has just started functioning and at least seems more glued to fixing the school education, with piecemeal attempts on anti-corruption (again with a lot of tall claims, besides confused verbosity) the very least although the jury is yet to be out on that. There set of problems for delivery seems to be mounting though.
The GOP seems to have decided that it will have very limited responsibilities in states that too perhaps in conjunction with local parties/leaders who will continue to play apologist for lack of ‘services’ while it embarks on its project to get back at the center, a clear recipe for political disaster unlikely to succeed with the people. The numbers including comparatives performance of states are left to perception while the rhetoric is about ‘pride’ rather than ‘performance’ from the leadership on the ruling side. This is countered by perceptive questions/arguments from ‘opposition’ much like the ones raised by these articles in Management Paradise, rather than a data backed study, which points to ideological bankruptcy since ‘political leaders’ even in opposition are supposed to have command on numbers. While simple questions are easy to understand and ‘sell’ and their use in politics is encouraged, however they need to be backed by some element of performance which is visible; and political elects cannot be allowed to escape from such question since they aren’t humble voters. Although I do not intend to make this article sound as though in support of the leaders in ruling dispensation, however it must be pointed out that the changing nature of political competition will ensure that people move towards ‘newer’ option which doesn’t have negative image of corruption or the lack of performance, rather than remaining struck to the messiahs of the yore (irrespective of party lines), who in any case have already been rejected once.