Saturday, May 31, 2014

How To Deliver

 For delivery, a mix of energy and experince is requred. This is true and applicable for public actors,Politicians and Beaurocracy. Here energy refers to a young chap and experience to an old man.
A Young lacking experience and an Old without required energy can not deliver as expected. Hence, a well caliberated balance and mix of two are required to get the desired results. 

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Historic-Indian-Election- 2014: 3D Modi

                         Historic-Indian-Election- 2014       
               Modi, Three-In-One: In Triple Role
           Indian elections' result 2014 crated history. It fetched a landslide victory to Bhartiya Janta Party(BJP). But more than this, it added two more feathers to India's well-established democracy. One, it strengthened the institution of Indian democracy more than BJP, which is yet to be noticed by our voters. Two, it transformed our age-old democracy into a two-party system from single-party system in practice. Though, India has multi-party-system. Still, this peculiarity is invisible, under the cover of magnetic flux of  Charismatic Modi. 
          Indian representative democracy is based on a multi-party-system in theory. This looks good on paper but not in reality. There are four types of contesters in any election, namely national party, regional party, registered party and independents. In national elections the effective players are national parties as compared to three  others.
          To be a national party, a political party requires to secure at least six per cent of the total votes polled in any four or more states and win four seats from any state or states in Lok Sabha. Another criterion for a national party is that it must secure a  minimum two per cent seats(11) of total (543) Lok Sabha seats.  These eleven members  must be elected from at least three different states. Based on these criteria parties like BSP, CPI(M) having influence in a few states, are national parties.
          Like many national parties, BSP has a strong hold in UP. It could not taste power anywhere except UP. But, it enjoys national party stature. Technically it fulfils the criteria.  Theoretically, it appears appealing. But practically, it does not discharge the duties of a national party in true sense like putting candidates across the country to make elections tougher, better and more representative. Similar conditions are with  many other national parties.
          After independence, our country has predominantly single-party-system in practice till 2014.The Congress was exclusively single party which put candidates in most of the states across the country. For the  first time, BJP behaved like Congress in putting candidates. AAP tried the same without national tag but failed miserably. None other party put candidates on national scale in true spirit of  being a national party.
          In fact, if we focus on ground reality, we find two-party-system in our democracy in practice. Before 2014 election, it was predominantly  single-party system with Congress in sight practically. Even though, we have multi-party system in theory.  Two and multi party systems have their inherent merits and demerits. Single-party system is also in practice. America has two-party system while China has single-party system.
          We select genius through competitions and try to elect genuine and reasonable candidates  in elections. Tough and multi-cornered competitions  with national players provide a better opportunity to select more meritorious candidates. In Indian elections, all the four types of candidates testify their genuineness to be selected as MPs. It would be better and healthier for the democratic system that if in national elections, most of the candidates are from national parties rather than regional and independents.
          Generally, independents dominate the list of candidates. National parties' candidates are few in numbers and most of them are from name-sake national parties.  Such parties qualify technically and theoretically, but don't exist across the country and have influence only in few states. Ideal situation is that in national elections maximum candidates  be from national parties- excluding name-sake national parties. But ground reality is opposite. Hence, contest in election is skewed and not as healthy as expected.
          In such situation, we are not electing our representatives as our constitution  dreams and desires. In national elections to parliament, a national player is fighting either with name-sake national candidates, regional players or independents. This does not provide healthy and sound contest for making our democracy stronger.
          In national game, national player should be in majority and it should be among themselves. But ground reality is opposite in our national electoral games. Contests are among a real national, name-sake national, regional and independent. This makes whole election process skewed and against the spirit as envisaged in our constitution. This does not seem healthy practice  and conducive for our democracy.
          There are many name-sake national parties. They put candidates in a few selected states of their regional influence. It is the Congress only that contests  in whole country barring a few seats. To put a tough and neck-to-neck competition against Congress, the BJP for the first time contested in true sense on national scale to prove itself to be a true national party in practice rather than in theory.  It came with flying colours too.
           The 2014 election transformed our  multi- party system into two- party system in reality. Now, Congress and BJP are two national parties in true sense and practice. Before this election, Congress was the only national party in practice on ground.
          BJP gave tough  fight to Congress and decimated it. Congress could not even get sufficient MPs to become recognised opposition party as per our constitutional  norms in  the Lok Sabha. In earlier elections, giant Cong  contested with name-sake national, weak regional and independents. As a result, Congress ruled India for most of the time. It was possible because Cong did not get tough competition from real national players- as they were on paper and  not on ground. As a single strong national player, Cong easily defeated name-sake nationals, regionals, and independents.
          In the absence of true national parties on ground across the country,  India witnessed single-party system in true sense till 2014-Cong only. The dream  and wish of our constitution is that our multi-party contest for healthy election and genuine representative pick, buy it could not take shape in reality and practice. Though, multi-party system is very much on paper and theoretically it sounds very attractive and  appealing.
           Modi played a triple role in 2014 election. Hence, he is three-In-One. Rest of them not performed even role of One-In-One. But, we are under-crediting Modi with only 33% on ground for bringing landslide victory to BJP. Rest of two roles are neither in discussion nor visible.
          First, Modi championed in elevating BJP as true national party on ground and in providing  majority to it. Additionally, he decorated his cap with two more feathers. Second, he strengthened democracy by strategically pushing our election to a tougher and sound competition on national scale. Third, he helped in transforming a single-party system into a two-party system in true sense and reality. Albeit, we talked of multi-party, which is more on paper than ground.
          Modi created history in 2014 election. He served the nation along with his party, BJP. His one of the three achievements is in discussion. His two achievements unnoticed by voters are namely-his national services for remodelling and enhancing party-system and strengthening of democratic system as well as process. These two great historic accomplishments are still not in limelight.
Reference:
1. http://eci.nic.in/archive/press/current/PN05122k.htm
2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/101760791/Merit-and-Demerits-of-Multiparty-System
3. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/A-truly-historic-win/articleshow/35527568.cms
4.



Friday, May 16, 2014

Indian Election-2014 Prediction: Modi, Obama OF India Proved True

I predicted by RESERACH that Modi of 2014 would repeat Like Obama of 2008. After counting of votes on May 16,2014, it proved true.
1. http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2014/05/indian-election-result-prediction-modi.html
2.http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2014/05/modi-2014-trails-obama-2008.html
3.http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2014/04/2014-election-proves-marketing-matters.html
4.http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2014/04/modi-unlike-most-politicians-modi-has.html
5. http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2014/04/political-markeing-personality-versus.html
6.http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2013/11/politics-of-change.html
7.http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2013/10/narendra-modi-3d-politician.html
8. http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2014/03/good-governance-chief-election-agenda.html
9.http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2012/12/3d-cm-aspiring-for-pm.html
10.http://heeralalpcs.blogspot.in/2012/12/congress-ensures-modis-win.html

Monday, May 12, 2014

Indian Election Result Prediction: Modi Led-NDA Will Form Government

                                                 Modi (2014) Trails Obama (2008)
                                      Indian Election: Modi, Obama of India
              History repeats itself. The ongoing Indian election 2014 to parliament has many similarities with 2008 American elections. There are many commonalities between Modi and Obama.  Both are having Leadership style, campaign management, ground situations, and result  prospects alike. Hence, Modi's election is trailing on Obama's first election pattern and repeating the global history of US election.
              Indian election appears three cornered. First is the Congress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA). Second is the Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) led National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Third and last may be the BJP or the Congress supported third front. Third front could not take proper shape before election. It is a dream on paper and its’ very existence is in question. But, in case of fractured mandate, it will be a potent option. Therefore, Election in reality is two-dimensional. Modi-primeministerial candidate of BJP is leading NDA and undeclared Rahul Gandhi of congress is leading UPA. Now, election has centred between Modi and Rahul rather than BJP versus Congress. It is just like election between Democrats and Republicans in US.
             In America, the republican Bush got two consecutive terms. The performance of first term gave him second term. But, Bush badly performed in his second innings. Likewise, Manmohan Singh got two terms in continuation. He did well in his first term. As a result, he repeated. But like Bush, he failed in performance in his second tenure. This proves Modi is facing same ground realities as Obama encounterd in 2008.
            There is a big question. Will Modi-of-2014  be able to prove a verbatim of Obama-of-2008?  There are many similarities between them in their style of functioning and marketing. One, both are well read and having in-depth knowledge of politics. Two, both are IT savvy. Three, both are authoritative and decisive. Four, both are good orators and famous for their effective speeches. Five, both are self-made. Six, both have lived poor life and seen hardships in their childhood. Seven, while Obama was the first to use internet, Modi is a 3D-innovative user in politics. Hence, both have comparable electo-political characteristics.
            The U.S. Federal Election Commission finds that 2014 general election in India is projected to cost about $5 billion, making it the costliest election ever in India and the second most expensive campaign in world history, behind only the 2012 U.S. presidential election, which cost some $7 billion.
The huge sum marks India’s entrance into big-time election expenditures as well as the emergence of sophisticated Western-style campaigning, fund-raising and the domination of social media in politics.  Narendra Modi, the visionary leader of the opposition BJP, is especially keen on the use of social media to attract young voters, while the incumbent Congress party has “started spending on digital, which it never did in 2009.”      
           Social media came in limelight in 2008 US election. It helped Obama in making him President. Though, all parties have realised its potential, but Modi is ahead among all in using it as selling tool. He copied Obama's social media model. As a result, this tool helped him a lot in building his image. Modi uses social media to connect and engage with high class gentry who are net savvy.
          He is making favourable opinion by social media. His social media usage is well calibrated and planned like Obama’s election of 2008. These two tools, social media and 3D are keeping him always ahead of other competitors in race. Both, Modi and Obama have same political marketing strategy and electoral logistics.
          A new  dimension has emerged in the 2014-election. Which one is bigger, Party or Personality? Abki baar Modi sarkar or Abki baar BJP sarkar. Reality is that Modi’s personality is hovering over the party BJP. There is nothing wrong in it. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Obama are two cases to prove this.
         Atal Bihari Vajpayee led a 16-party NDA to electoral triumph in the 1999 general elections. This was the saffron party's finest hour. Vajpayee's personal popularity was at its peak. The NDA led by him managed to cross the 300-seat mark in the Lok Sabha polls for the first time. The softer image and wider acceptability of Vajpayee are two significant differences between him and Modi.    
           Finance Minister P Chidambaram told a news channel in a press conference on Nov 5, 2013, “The BJP has projected a person larger than the party. They would realise their mistake, if not now, in the near future. You cannot project a person who is larger than the party in a parliamentary democracy,"
            The Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi On March 11, 2014 in Balasinor, Gujarat, addressing a rally, launched a blistering attack on BJP's PM nominee Narendra Modi on his home turf by comparing him with Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and also accused his government of "stealing" farmers' land at the behest of corporates.
           It appears Modi has full and free control over the election management. It is reflected that his personality is bigger than party BJP. On this ground, opposition is attacking him. This hard personality cult of politics of Modi over party politics is making many inside the party and outside the party uneasy. The slogan ‘Abki baar Modi sarkar’ over ‘Abki baar BJP sarkar’ is an evidence in inself to prove the case of personality cult of politics of Modi.
            Like Modi, Obama also invited criticism because of pursuing cult of personality. Few Americans feel that his personality is bigger than his Democratic Party because of his style of functioning.  Law professor Jonathan Turley at George Washington University said he's astonished by how passive Americans -- especially Democrats -- have been to President Obama's abuse of executive power, which he said has become so dangerous it's making the U.S. political system unstable. He told the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 3, 2013 that Obama is "becoming the very danger" the Constitution was designed to avoid.
           But Turley's a bit late to the party in noticing the Obama cult of personality that has turned the Democratic Party into a bunch of Soviet-style apparatchiks. The cult of Obama adoration has since become so unbearable the White House press corps revolted last year, denouncing the government-funded-propaganda that puts the president front and center into everything, even celebrations of pivotal historical events such as the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination. Therefore, it seems that both are doing politics on similar lines- personality politics rather than party politics.
           The salient factors which are responsible for meteoric rise of Modi and Obama are quite similar. Their social-cultural backgrounds are same. Both of them have impressive and powerful influence on their respective parties intellectually and politically. They have been dedicated and silent gross-root level field works of their respective parties before coming to national scene. Now, They have achieved a remarkable and unmatched  position in their parties on the grounds of individual personalities.
            On the basis of similar electo-political characteristics and electoral logistics,  Modi like Obama has kindled a ray of hope in the mind of people of his country at large . The comparative description of sequence of events reveals that same efforts will bring same results.
             In US, the minimum number required to form government is 270, while in India it is 272. Obama got 365 in 2008 election. This is 95 more above the bottom line. In 2012 election, he got 332. Now recent predictions are in Modi' s favor and depicts his bright future. The basic question is what will be the tally of NDA on May 16. Will Modi get similar result as Obama?
             Modi is following the same path of success on which Obama moved in 2008. On the grounds of logical reasoning, the result of Modi's election will be same as that of Obama's because he is making almost similar efforts as those of Obama. Therefore, it is obvious that Modi is going to be Obama of India. NDA will touch base line of 272 and its variations would be within plus-minus five percent.


References:
1. http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21601037-halfway-through-campaign-bjp-and-narendra-modi-look-strong-riding-wave
2. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/how-the-narendra-modi-wave-rose-in-april-lok-sabha-polls/1/357541.html
3. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/varanasi-proves-congs-worst-fears-modi-wave-not-a-myth-1496011.html
4.http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/bharatjoshi/3716/65096/is-modi-the-next-obama.html
5.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/22/sen_manchin_obama_doesnt_have_the_personality_to_work_with_people.html
6. http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/03/01/As-the-White-House-Turns
7. http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/4979
8.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/the-battle-within-the-democratic-party/282235/
9.http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-11-05/news/43697085_1_narendra-modi-rss-ideology-bjp-ideology
10. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rahul-Gandhi-compares-Narendra-Modi-to-Hitler/articleshow/31855067.cms
11. http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-modi-is-popular/
12. http://www.amazon.com/Change-We-Can-Believe-In/dp/0307460452
13. http://theweek.com/article/index/260324/why-narendra-modi-is-not-a-shoo-in-to-become-indias-next-prime-minister
14http://www.firstbiz.com/elections/4ps-modis-marketing-mix-working-congresss-82719.html


Sunday, May 11, 2014

AAP's Win In Defeat

                                         AAP Matters
          Mainline political parties are the biggest business houses in India. Once, people joined politics for public service, but now they do so to become rich. They move effortlessly from one party to another in search of profit, with no sense of guilt or taint. The CSDS says parties will spend Rs 30,000 crore on this election. Obviously, they will seek to recoup their outlay with interest. That means gigantic extortion.
          Even “honest” people in mainline parties say black money is a regrettable necessity. Manmohan Singh’s “coalition dharma” meant co-opting crooks to garner a Parliamentary majority. On the same logic, parties choose candidates with no principles but lots of money and muscle. There’s an unspoken conspiracy among parties to block police-judicial reforms aimed at quick convictions, for all parties have many skeletons in their cupboards.
          Every party accuses others of corruption, yet none ensures reforms that will quickly convict crooks. We get a plethora of allegations but nothing concrete. Courts verdicts take forever, so influential crooks generally die of old age before being convicted beyond all appeals. This system gives crooked politicians and businessmen a clear advantage over honest ones, and in time entrenches corruption in all politics and business.
          By resigning from the Delhi government, the AAP has spoiled its short-term prospects. It may win just a few seats in Parliament. No matter: it can enliven the opposition. If it establishes itself as a thorn in the flesh of mainline parties, keeping up the pressure for police-judicial reform, then that will be a worthwhile achievement.
          AAP entered into politics not to win, but to change it. AAP says it is not for doing politics but to revolutionise it. It is important that the AAP's experiment continue for it injects a vital element that has been missing in Indian politics. The AAP is attempting to redefine the very idea of democracy by making it a more participative practice. It restores to politics the notion of idealism, something no other political formation is even attempting. 
          AAP says that it is the system that has become very corrupt and needs to be changed immediately. Its aim in entering politics is not to come to power; AAP has entered politics to change the current corrupt and self-serving system of politics forever. So that no matter who comes to power in the future, the system is strong enough to withstand corruption at any level of governance.
          So far AAP is successful in achieving its mission and vision for which it is founded. BJP is contesting 427 seats. AAP is contesting  434. And Congress is contesting  462. Bringing into politics and choosing 434 good reputation candidates to contest  within  a year of party formation is a big achievement.      
        There are many other old national and regional parties with Chief Minister seats to their side. But they did not contest like newly AAP on national level. This is an indicator of  change in politics as AAP claims. AAP is not contesting 2014 election to ride power or to have many MPs in parliament. It is contesting to enhance its catchment area of social and corruption cleaning services. In this, it has achieved great success.
          It has forced other political parties to follow the policy of AAP. Its spill over effect compelled others to initiate amendments in order to survive. This is changing the Indian political landscape.
          In politics Niyat, Niti of  a Neta (intention, policy of a leader) matters. If with this  good intention (Niyat) a politician enters  into politics, based on his good Niyat, they frame  good Niti (policy).  
          It is AAP which opened door and built an atmosphere for good people to join politics.  For which they were averse before the birth of this party. This achievement is  no less than a political revolution which AAP professes  to achieve.
          Winning more seats in election is not basic aim as implied for AAP. Albeit they are not saying like this and as a political party can not say. Getting less number of MP seats on counting day, May 16, do not imply defeat. Rather, it is win as it is achieving its basic purpose of spreading social serving catchment area and strengthening the party at national level. This is the hidden agenda and an open secret.
           AAP is moving in right direction with well calculated plan. Though people perceive a big sag in its progress. But reality is otherwise. Its first and foremost aim is to make it a national party in which AAP seems to get desired success.
         
ref:
1. http://liveblogs.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/even-in-defeat-aam-aadmi-party-still-matters/
2. http://liveblogs.indiatimes.com/Citycitybangbang/aap-what-now/
3. http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/complete-candidate-list-2014-elections
4.   http://www.bjp.org/images/pdf_2014/const_name_no_candidate_name_26.04.2014.pdf
5. http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/complete-candidate-list-2014-elections
6.




Saturday, May 10, 2014

Irony In Indian Politics: Election 2014- Blame Game.

                                
          What is governance and how to measure it accurately? There is no universally accepted  concept or formula.   Development agencies, international organizations and academic institutions define governance in different ways.
          UNDP defines governance " It is a system of values, policies and institutions by which a society manages its economic, political and social affairs through interactions within and among state, civil society and private sector ".
          The Governance  is the way a society organises itself  to make and implement decisions- achieving mutual understanding, agreement, and  action. It comprises the mechanisms and processes for the citizens and groups  to articulate their interests, mediate their differences, and exercise their legal right and obligations.
          The governance is the rules, institutions and practices that set limits and provide incentives  for individuals and organisations and firms. Governance  including its social, political, and economic dimensions, operates at every level of human enterprise, be it a household, village, municipality, nation, region or globe.
          The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) are produced by a project. This project has three partners: one, Revenue Watch and Brookings Institution; two, World Bank (WB) Development Research Group; three, WB Institute.
          WGI research project reports aggregate and individual governance indicators for 215 economies over the period 1996-2012, six dimensions of governance: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption.
          WGI are available till 2012. UPA-2 government formed in 2009. A comparative study of all six dimensions of 2009 and 2012 reveals some facts which match with the prevailing situations and ground realities. This verifies the validity of indicators.
          The percentile ranking of the India on voice and accountability has come down from 60.19 (2009) to 58.29 (2012). Position slided down by just by 1.9 in said period. Change is just noticeable. Political stability, absence of violence/ terrorism indicator improved from 10.90 (2009) to 11.85 (2012).  During this period political situation of the country was stable and it didn't witness any violence.
          Governance effectiveness slided from 55.19 (2009) to 47.37 (2012). This down fall is alarming. This fact is felt by citizens. This brought bad name to UPA-2. It is costing dearly to ruling party Congress at center.
          Likewise, indicator regulatory quality falls from 42.98 (2009) to33.97 (2012) and rule of law decreases from 54.98(2009) to 52.61 (2012).  And indicator control of corruption falls from 38.76(2009) to 34.93 (2012). A minute study tells that only one indicator increased and five decreased.
          Three WGI governance effectiveness, regulatory quality and control of corruption fell fast. Economic slowdown and gradual falling of GDP proves and are in tune with the fall of first two inidcators. Revelations of different scams in a series in said period justify the fall of control of corruption indicator.  
          Governance deficit of UPA-2 created a strong anti-incumbency atmosphere for ruling party- Congress. This factor alone crippled the prospect for congress in ongoing election 2014.
          Ruling party Congress is contesting election under the implied leadership of its vice-precedent Rahul Gandhi(RG). He is working hard to position himself at the helm of the party since last ten years.
          He did not join government and is not part of it. No news appeared about his interventions in government working. He mainly confined himself to party organisational work. No such serious and proven blame came into light by oppositions too. Plainly speaking, he is not responsible for governance deficit directly or indirectly.
          Blame of running government from behind the curtian is on his mother who is party president and Chairperson of National Development Council (NDC).  Recently a book by Sanjaya Baru who was media advisor in UPA-1 to Manmohan Singh proves this.  His book ' The Accidental Prime Minister(PM): The making and unmaking of Manmohan Singh' says that Manmohan Singh was a cipher, especially in UPA-2.
          Book further describes that the halo that PM built around himself with his tough stand on the Indo-US nuclear deal in 2008 disappeared in UPA-2 when the congress party's victory with 206 seats shifted to Dynasty's priorities that is from government to projection of dynastic succession.
          Baru’s book takes the story forward and effectively paints Sonia Gandhi as almost directly controlling the PMO. The point it makes is the opposite of what was till recently received wisdom: the duality of power centres in UPA, one around the PM and his government, and another around Sonia Gandhi. Baru disabuses us of this notion by claiming that actually there was one power centre – and that power was not the PM.
          Files were being routinely shared by Sonia Gandhi through the Pulok Chatterjee route – making a mockery of the cabinet system and the oath of secrecy administered to the PM. How can someone not in government be privy to highly confidential files? Was the country’s interest compromised in any way by this illegitimate information sharing? This is what Baru’s book says: “Pulok, who was inducted into the Manmohan Singh PMO at the behest of Sonia Gandhi, had regular, almost daily, meetings with Sonia at which he was said to brief her on the key policy issues of the day and seek her instructions on important files to be cleared by the PM.”
         RG led Congress-election-campaign couldn't pick and galavonise to expected level. While Modi-led Bhartiya Janta Party(BJP) campaign kept up-track continuously. Among many reasons of failure of UPA- 2, the most effective and strong one is governance deficit.
          For non-performance in election campaign process, the natural blame is on RG for which he is not responsible. Its responsibilities lies on the leaders who led the UPA-2 directly or indirectly, from inside or outside. But irony is that RG has to take it,as situation depicts, being head of the campaign team.
          The poll result will be out on May,16. The general perceptions are gloomy for Congress. Modi led BJP has better prospect as many indictors say. Again for less number of MPs and non-performance of Congress who is to blame. The answer is simple-RG. But in reality and actually, he is not. Since time is not in his favour. Hence, situational blame goes again to his credit.
          Ironically, RG is paying, for what, he is not responsible at different stages of election process of 2014. Anti-incumbency due to mis-governance is main cause of failure. In the development of this cause, RG played no role as obvious. But it's bad result is credited to his account. And those who are real culprit are away from even discussion of blame game. This is the true face of our politics.
Heera Lal (Views are personal and based on different sources)

References:
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/democracy-index-2013-economist-intelligence-unit_n_2909619.html
2. http://democracyranking.org/3. http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
3. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home
4. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/BJPs-frontal-assault-on-EC-sets-a-bad-precedent/articleshow/34843691.cms
5. http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/democracy/elections.shtml
6. http://www.undg.org/docs/11652/UNDP-Governance-Indicators-Guide-(2007).pdf
7. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/pms-surrender-to-sonia-baru-proves-what-we-already-knew-1477069.html



Saturday, May 3, 2014

Modi (2014) Tracks And Trails Obama (2008)

                         A Logical Prediction:  Modi (2014) Trails Obama (2008)
                                      Indian Election: Modi, Obama of India
              History repeats itself. The ongoing Indian election 2014 to parliament has many similarities with 2008 American elections. There are many commonalities between Modi and Obama.  Both are having Leadership style, campaign management, ground situations, and result  prospects alike. Hence, Modi's election is trailing on Obama's first election pattern and repeating the global history of US election.
              Indian election appears three cornered. First is the Congress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA). Second is the Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) led National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Third and last may be the BJP or the Congress supported third front. Third front could not take proper shape before election. It is a dream on paper and its’ very existence is in question. But, in case of fractured mandate, it will be a potent option. Therefore, Election in reality is two-dimensional. Modi-primeministerial candidate of BJP is leading NDA and undeclared Rahul Gandhi of congress is leading UPA. Now, election has centred between Modi and Rahul rather than BJP versus Congress. It is just like election between Democrats and Republicans in US.
             In America, the republican Bush got two consecutive terms. The performance of first term gave him second term. But, Bush badly performed in his second innings. Likewise, Manmohan Singh got two terms in continuation. He did well in his first term. As a result, he repeated. But like Bush, he failed in performance in his second tenure. This proves Modi is facing same ground realities as Obama encounterd in 2008.
            There is a big question. Will Modi-of-2014  be able to prove a verbatim of Obama-of-2008?  There are many similarities between them in their style of functioning and marketing. One, both are well read and having in-depth knowledge of politics. Two, both are IT savvy. Three, both are authoritative and decisive. Four, both are good orators and famous for their effective speeches. Five, both are self-made. Six, both have lived poor life and seen hardships in their childhood. Seven, while Obama was the first to use internet, Modi is a 3D-innovative user in politics. Hence, both have comparable electo-political characteristics.
            The U.S. Federal Election Commission finds that 2014 general election in India is projected to cost about $5 billion, making it the costliest election ever in India and the second most expensive campaign in world history, behind only the 2012 U.S. presidential election, which cost some $7 billion.
The huge sum marks India’s entrance into big-time election expenditures as well as the emergence of sophisticated Western-style campaigning, fund-raising and the domination of social media in politics.  Narendra Modi, the visionary leader of the opposition BJP, is especially keen on the use of social media to attract young voters, while the incumbent Congress party has “started spending on digital, which it never did in 2009.”        
           Social media came in limelight in 2008 US election. It helped Obama in making him President. Though, all parties have realised its potential, but Modi is ahead among all in using it as selling tool. He copied Obama's social media model. As a result, this tool helped him a lot in building his image. Modi uses social media to connect and engage with high class gentry who are net savvy.
          He is making favourable opinion by social media. His social media usage is well calibrated and planned like Obama’s election of 2008. These two tools, social media and 3D are keeping him always ahead of other competitors in race. Both, Modi and Obama have same political marketing strategy and electoral logistics.
          A new  dimension has emerged in the 2014-election. Which one is bigger, Party or Personality? Abki baar Modi sarkar or Abki baar BJP sarkar. Reality is that Modi’s personality is hovering over the party BJP. There is nothing wrong in it. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Obama are two cases to prove this.
         Atal Bihari Vajpayee led a 16-party NDA to electoral triumph in the 1999 general elections. This was the saffron party's finest hour. Vajpayee's personal popularity was at its peak. The NDA led by him managed to cross the 300-seat mark in the Lok Sabha polls for the first time. The softer image and wider acceptability of Vajpayee are two significant differences between him and Modi.      
           Finance Minister P Chidambaram told a news channel in a press conference on Nov 5, 2013, “The BJP has projected a person larger than the party. They would realise their mistake, if not now, in the near future. You cannot project a person who is larger than the party in a parliamentary democracy,"
            The Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi On March 11, 2014 in Balasinor, Gujarat, addressing a rally, launched a blistering attack on BJP's PM nominee Narendra Modi on his home turf by comparing him with Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and also accused his government of "stealing" farmers' land at the behest of corporates.
           It appears Modi has full and free control over the election management. It is reflected that his personality is bigger than party BJP. On this ground, opposition is attacking him. This hard personality cult of politics of Modi over party politics is making many inside the party and outside the party uneasy. The slogan ‘Abki baar Modi sarkar’ over ‘Abki baar BJP sarkar’ is an evidence in inself to prove the case of personality cult of politics of Modi.
            Like Modi, Obama also invited criticism because of pursuing cult of personality. Few Americans feel that his personality is bigger than his Democratic Party because of his style of functioning.  Law professor Jonathan Turley at George Washington University said he's astonished by how passive Americans -- especially Democrats -- have been to President Obama's abuse of executive power, which he said has become so dangerous it's making the U.S. political system unstable. He told the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 3, 2013 that Obama is "becoming the very danger" the Constitution was designed to avoid.
           But Turley's a bit late to the party in noticing the Obama cult of personality that has turned the Democratic Party into a bunch of Soviet-style apparatchiks. The cult of Obama adoration has since become so unbearable the White House press corps revolted last year, denouncing the government-funded-propaganda that puts the president front and center into everything, even celebrations of pivotal historical events such as the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination. Therefore, it seems that both are doing politics on similar lines- personality politics rather than party politics.
           The salient factors which are responsible for meteoric rise of Modi and Obama are quite similar. Their social-cultural backgrounds are same. Both of them have impressive and powerful influence on their respective parties intellectually and politically. They have been dedicated and silent gross-root level field works of their respective parties before coming to national scene. Now, They have achieved a remarkable and unmatched  position in their parties on the grounds of individual personalities.
            On the basis of similar electo-political characteristics and electoral logistics,  Modi like Obama has kindled a ray of hope in the mind of people of his country at large . The comparative description of sequence of events reveals that same efforts will bring same results.
             In US, the minimum number required to form government is 270, while in India it is 272. Obama got 365 in 2008 election. This is 95 more above the bottom line. In 2012 election, he got 332. Now recent predictions are in Modi' s favor and depicts his bright future. The basic question is what will be the tally of NDA on May 16. Will Modi get similar result as Obama?
             Modi is following the same path of success on which Obama moved in 2008. On the grounds of logical reasoning, the result of Modi's election will be same as that of Obama's because he is making almost similar efforts as those of Obama. Therefore, it is obvious that Modi is going to be Obama of India.


References:
1. http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21601037-halfway-through-campaign-bjp-and-narendra-modi-look-strong-riding-wave
2. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/how-the-narendra-modi-wave-rose-in-april-lok-sabha-polls/1/357541.html
3. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/varanasi-proves-congs-worst-fears-modi-wave-not-a-myth-1496011.html
4.http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/bharatjoshi/3716/65096/is-modi-the-next-obama.html
5.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/22/sen_manchin_obama_doesnt_have_the_personality_to_work_with_people.html
6. http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/03/01/As-the-White-House-Turns
7. http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/4979
8.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/the-battle-within-the-democratic-party/282235/
9.http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-11-05/news/43697085_1_narendra-modi-rss-ideology-bjp-ideology
10. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rahul-Gandhi-compares-Narendra-Modi-to-Hitler/articleshow/31855067.cms
11. http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-modi-is-popular/
12. http://www.amazon.com/Change-We-Can-Believe-In/dp/0307460452
13. http://theweek.com/article/index/260324/why-narendra-modi-is-not-a-shoo-in-to-become-indias-next-prime-minister
14http://www.firstbiz.com/elections/4ps-modis-marketing-mix-working-congresss-82719.html