Friday, November 30, 2012

Gujrat Election- Again Modi (Prediction)


Elections process in on in Gujart. Who will come with flying colors is a big question. Modi will repeat with majority. Just predicted USA election and it came true.
http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2012/11/prediction-election-usa-2012.html
Reasons for repetition:
1.He is blame less.
2. Good political marketing manager and management with demanded political products.
3 A proven model of development, which is much in demand
4. Main opposition is weak not matching his management.
5. Able to lessen communal blame by different steps
6. His PM candidate perception/environment will help a lot to consolidate floating voters on plea to have a PM from Gujrat-Gujrat Pride. 
7. A proven administrator and political executive.
Heera Lal ( Views are personal and based on different sources)

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Barack: Democracy Promotion Champion

      Barack loves democracy and promotes it.  He championed democracy promotion. Obama supported to those seeking democracy. He opposed dictators, anti-democracy and military rulers.  Rhetoric was converted into action during presidency. He took this position as an opportunity for democracy promotion. So, he flagged it as the most important agenda of his administration and foreign policy. This he made clear in his inaugural address on January 20, 2009.

     
      President Barack said in his inaugural, “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense.  And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken–you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
   
      Dating back to about 500 B.C.E., democracies existed in both Greece and Italy.
The term democracy comes from the Greek words demos, the people, and craits, to rule. Today, democracy is an abstract term that is difficult to define and can have different meanings, depending on the speaker and context. In the most common understanding, democracy generally refers to a political system with certain minimum elements: effective participation by the people (either directly or through representation) under a constitution, respect for human rights, and political equality before the law for both minorities and the majority.

      The lack of a clear definition of democracy and a comprehensive understanding
of its basic elements may have created multiple problems for U.S. policy making, according to some. Arguably, the lack of clear definition has hampered the formulation of democracy promotion policy and effective prioritizing of democracy promotion activities over the years. Also the lack of definition can complicate coordination of democracy programs and the assessment of U.S. government activities and funding. Further, without a consensus on the definition of democracy, what criteria will determine when a country has attained an acceptable level of democratic reform and no longer needs American assistance?

     9/11 attack jolted USA from inside. It was a historical turning point. The effects of the 9/11 attacks have been profound. The attacks had an extensive economic impact for the United States of America. The US government gave New York City US $20 billion as costs for the cleanup and another US $5 billion was given to the families of the victims. In addition to this, the ensuring ‘War on Terror’ has cost the US government approximately $3 trillion as Economist Josepn Stiglitz stated in 2008.
     
     In 2007, the Pew Institute’s Global Attitudes polls showed that the US was viewed unfavourably by majorities in Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil, most Western European countries and all Muslim Middle Eastern countries except for Kuwait. This poll alone shows just how much anti-US sentiment exists around the world and a large majority of the negative sentiment stemmed from the US’ reaction to the 9/11 attacks in 2001.
     
      Attack awarded Osama Bin laden public enemy No. 1. Terror and terrorist activities got the highest importance in USA priorities. Overnight counterterrorism became one of the main agenda of the administration. Prior to this, it was not. When U.S. administrations encouraged democratic reform, they have claimed that benefits for the country, its neighbours, the United States, and the world will result. Many experts believe that extending democracy can reduce terrorism while encouraging global political stability and economic prosperity.
     
      President Bush, in his second inaugural address, on January 20, 2005 said “There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in the entire world. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”
       
       In its 2006 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, the Bush Administration cites democracy promotion as a long-term solution for winning the War on Terror. The ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007, or, by its more cumbersome title, the Advance Democratic Values, Address Nondemocratic Countries, and Enhance Democracy Act of 2007,was passed in August 2007 as Title XXI of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
      
       The ADVANCE Act was the culminating moment in a struggle extending back at least three years to institutionalize democracy promotion within the Bush administration.   Nonetheless, in the area of democracy promotion the Bush administration has bequeathed to the Obama administration a legacy worth building upon and extending.
     
       Delivering a speech in UN general assembly on September 25, 2012, President Obama spoke “It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring.  And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that’s taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change. We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator” 
     
     Barack further said “We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen. We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin.”
      He continues “These are not simply American values or Western values -- they are universal values. I am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world.”
       So let us remember that this is a season of progress.  For the first time in decades, Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans voted for new leaders in elections that were credible, competitive, and fair. This democratic spirit has not been restricted to the Arab world. 
      Over the past year, we’ve seen peaceful transitions of power in Malawi and Senegal, and a new President in Somalia.  In Burma, a President has freed political prisoners and opened a closed society, a courageous dissident has been elected to parliament, and people look forward to further reform.  Around the globe, people are making their voices heard, insisting on their innate dignity, and the right to determine their future.
       In recent, on November 17, 2012, US President Barack Obama’s visited to both Thailand and Myanmar went symbolically well. He did all the right things in Thailand and in spite of all the reservations about Obama’s Myanmar visit, he may have sent all the right messages, particularly through the way the visit was orchestrated and his speech at Rangoon University where he talked strongly about inclusiveness. Local news reports in local papers warmly reported the visit. 

        In a briefing for reporters, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said the White House sees the Asia Pacific as critical “to the future of the United States, both economically and in terms of our political and security objectives in the world.”  By this visit with Hillary, Barack wanted to accelerate and expedite promotion of democratic reforms in the region. 
         America is a nation composed almost entirely of immigrants. Immigrants began arriving in the Americas since at least 1492 and in what is today the United States since the early 1500s; immigrants continue to arrive five hundred and fifteen years later.
         
         Foreign policy is one yardstick among many to measure the performance of a president. Barack made democracy promotion an integral part and priorities it at top of his foreign policy. He practices it rigorously. As a result, many dictators and military rulers got mixed in dust and penalized. He proved his intention of democracy promotion on ground. Hence, he developed this issue as political product.
        
         He won third debate which was based on foreign policy. USA being an immigrant’s country, his this result-oriented effort made him popular among these voters inside the country. Outside he became liking of people and countries because he developed and sold this political product of democracy promotion. This product of democracy system is liked by mostly worldwide.
         
         Barack utilized presidency as an opportunity to become democracy promotion champion. This he developed as a political product for himself to sell. He sold it in 2012 reelection- in third debate. Obama mustered more esteem worldwide as a real democrat than before presidency. He proved it in practice. His promotional efforts helped him a lot in building election environment all around world in his favor. And finally these democracy promotional efforts brought him flying colors.

Heera Lal (Views are personal and based on different sources)

Ref:
10.                        http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/archivesum07/loupe.pdf


Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Why Mitt lost?


                               Political Marketing
1.      In political marketing, two factors matter the most in an elections.
a)    Management.
b)   Strategy.
2.      Throughout his campaign, MittRomney (MR) managed his election particularly well. It was comparable to that of Barack Obama(BO), but he failed in his strategic planning. In organising election, MR did even better, in the light of being out of power.  Jim Messina campaign manager for BO acknowledged this from his twitter account just after the result. He congratulated campaign manager Matt Rhoades and team Romney for a campaign hard fought.Naturally, the sittingpresident has grip over resources. Thus, he is having upperedge over all   other candidates. To run for an election, candidates need money to accomplish its processes,practices and procedures smoothly.
3.      There are two vital parts of Election management, mainly
i)             Fund raising and
ii)            Electioneering/campaigning
4.      The rich and corporate supported in bulk to MR. Romney campaign’s fundraising was handled by a pair of limited-liability corporations, SJZ and Victory Group, both controlled by finance chairman Spencer J. Zwick. The campaign paid the companies more than $22 million over the course of the race; the person familiar with campaign operations said the money included “compensation to over 60 finance consultants.” On fund collection front, MR was comfortable, There was no single news during the election that money dearth was hampering his election.The US just spent $7 billion in the latest election cycle, up from $5 billion in 2008, equally divided between the presidential and Congressional elections. Romney got corporate billions, Obama raised just asmuch through small contributions.
5.      A dictionary defines electioneering as political campaigning and trying to persuade people to vote for you. Corporate favoured Romney. So many wealthy donors swarmed to Romney’s pre-election party in Boston in private jets that they caused an aerial traffic jam! They contributed to organizations called super-PACs.The biggest super-PAC, controlled by Republican Karl Rove, spent $450 million on harnessing the best brains in advertising and marketing to attack Obama with TV ads. So, in campaign management process, he hired the best brains for electioneering. That’s why; there was no news on any lapses of election related management. He did if not better than not less also than BO’ electioneering.
6.      Election strategy and its planning accordingly is backbone of dicey election games.
The result of 2008 looks simple like any earlier, but it was NOT. The impression that mis-governance of Bush and dreamy proposition of change of Obama elected him in 2008 is false. Here, politicians and political parties were required to read between the lines. The Democrat read but the Republican failed to read it and get it. As a result, they lost 2012 because of their strategic failure being not able to get it.In reality, 2008 election was a turning point in American history; this is not because a white was not chosen. There is still a wrong impression in masses on this count. 2008 result was an invisible symbol of social and economic change. As visionary democrats in general and BO in particular have sensed it while republicans not. Visible issues in 2008 were bad governance of Bush and dreamy agenda of BO. While invisible issue was social and economic changes.
7.      America’s market oriented economy has increased the inequality in the society. This inequality is driving this change. Therefore, USA is changing socially and economically. This change got a more fertile ground in 2008 to derive required inputs to grow and sustain.
8.      Nobel Laureate Joseph Stglitz has written a book “The Price of Inequality”.This Columbia University Professor argues that economic inequality leads to instability. He argues that an equal society is more efficient and productive and how does inequality destroy productivity and create instability. Inequality is bad for economy, democracy and society. Much of the inequality in the US arises out of rent-seeking -monopoly, exploitive practices by banks and corporate exploitation of public resources. Economic inequality created Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS). OWS aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.
9.      Demographic and voter landscapes changed over the years. White voters are shrinking. Migrated setter’s voters are growing. Increasing economic inequality enhances social inequality based on ethnicity and races. The combined effect of these two has made the impact intense. These inequalities enhance insecure and unsafe feelings. It develops missions to fight it back to finish by tooth and nail. As a result, settlers are uniting on different forums like OWS to decrease inequalities and uncomfortable feelings. Any party ignoring these feeling and sentiments of public will meet an accident. And this is what happened with Mitt.
10.  Obama got it as visionary in his result of 2008. Hence he crafted his line of action accordingly during his presidency. He planned and practiced to care for these feelings and sentiments of his voters. And result is in his favour in spite of all big odds from all corners. Credit goes his election management and strategy.On strategy part, Obama was better than Mitt. His well calculated and strategized move brought him flying colors  For this, he avoided photography secession and dinning in White house with rich. He broke this tradition of White house.  He showed the door to lobbyist and this system. Tacitly, he promoted OWS movement by endorsing this. These presidential acts annoyed rich. But it was a part of his strategy.
11.  He proved to his voters that fattening social and economic inequality is very much in his agenda. And he is trying his best to do away with it. Finally, he succeeded in getting their Votes and Notes ($ counterpart in India).
12.  Strategically, to win, there are three demarcated areas where a candidate or party can play.
a)    Accomplishments by the candidates or his party.
b)   Digging out faults of challenger.
c)    Bright plans and policies propositions to make voters dreaming?
13.  Mitt can’t play in first field of accomplishment. He was in opposition. His party republican didn't have any such acts which could be sold as political product. Albeit, annoying acts of Bush are still is active memory of public. Hence, there was no scope for MR to play in this field.
14.  During elections, blame game is another popular field. BO tried and kept himself blameless. Public, after getting convinced about misdeeds of Bush, voted him in 2008. He tried his best to tell demanding voters that he is trying his best to fulfill the dream, he promised. But the rotten conditions, he inherited from Bush needs more time to cure. In his efforts, he took help of modern tools, technology, and marketing to keep the masses well informed about the on-going actions and activities in his first tenure. MR focused in blame game areas to discredit BO. But, he failed to prove any blame on him. Voters are convinced that all pains are created by Bush with which they are suffering from. They are convinced BO tried to reduce it. Thus, MR failed to arouse any negative feelings against him.
15.  In Third debate, MR couldn't prove himself better than BO. He congratulated him on Osama killing issue. He couldn't give any better proposal of policy to bring the country from present mess. This was the field where, he could have done better than BO. In this area MR has scope to overpower BO, but he wasted energy is blame game field and was at fiasco.
16.  Mitt lost because of poor strategic planning and lack of vision. But his fundraising and electioneering was comparable to Barack. The visible issue of ailing economy, high employment etc. were not vote catchers in 2012. Invisible issue of social and economic inequality fetched votes to BO which never figured in whole election process. But BO sensed it 2008 and started working just after taking over as president. This foresighted strategy gave him four more years.

Heera Lal
(Views are personal based on different sources)

Ref:
13. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-occupy-wall-street-we-are-their-side_598251.html



Friday, November 9, 2012

Prediction- Election- USA- 2012

My contribution in USA election from the outset.

I had got the nerve of the issue and strategy of BO. Evaluated and found working. By political marketing tool tried to help BO from my place in private capacity as his fan. I grade BO as power house of knowledge.
My good wishes are with him for his bright future. No doubt future is difficult.
regards.
 Thanks and Regards