One of my friends with considerable experience in relevant fields and highly imaginative and analytical mind had prepared some notes on rating/ ranking of elected representatives in terms of performance against their own set goals. I have however felt that all politicians, their associations/ parties, all legislative and executive bodies of elected representatives as well as each elected representative and each official of any poltical party should be under continuous rating scan and such rating should not only cover performace against targets but also their record in honesty, moralty, educationsl standrds, association with goos and corrupt people, theit ethical standards and their living style and financial condition. That more and more Indians are thinking on similar lines for improving the quality of democracy augurs well for the utility and relevance of Indian democracy to the country’s future citizens...
If democracy has to be any meaning and purpose in this twenty-first century, there has to be an independent non-official market for at least four different types of political ratings:
(a) Rating of each Government: comparison of actual performance with three benchmarks: with promises/ goals, comparison with governments of other countries/ states/ regions/ localities, comparison with ideal standards.
(b) Rating of each political party on similar benchmarks as also over time for the same political party,
(c) Rating of each elected representative, and
(d) Rating of each legislative body like the Parliament or the Senate on a half-yearly rolling basis.
With regard to (d), it is necessary to point out that the institutions of legislative bodies or the Chief of State are definitely constitutionally sacrosanct, but no individual legislative body or individual Chief of the State or any individual government or any particular elected representative with given tenure is any more sacrosanct than the individual citizen. Even the Parliament's own performance and procedures should be subjected to independent rating without any fear of Parliamentary retaliation through resolution or action by the Parliament.
All the four ratings are equally important, even if they may be somewhat inter-related. Without these ranking systems in place, democracies, republics and communist regimes are actually inferior form of political system than monarchies of the medieval or ancient times.
My friend suggested that the rating of elected representatives be done under the aegis of the Election Commission. He was worried about how an independent rating agency could compel the people it rates to provide data. If the rating agency does not get data then how does it rate?
I would not like to rely merely on the Election Commission or Official Agencies. Such Rating should be done by one or more independent non-political bodies using experts who affirm that they do not either support or are against any political party, government or elected representative anywhere in the world. If there are multiple agencies doing the same job political ratings, this should be rather welcome. Transparent free market for providing rating services is what is required - no Govt., no elected representative, no political party can go to court against any such rating so long as the detailed process of rating is made transparent and worksheets are available to the public within 24 hours of any rating announcement.
It is better for the citizens to rely on the market development of credible rating. Initially, no political party or government would like to provide data. But there is lot of data available in the newspapers, electronic media, the election commission, the parliamentary/ legislative bodies' records, the party manifestoes, press releases, party newspapers and websites. These can be used in the rating model. For some parameters and variables, estimates can be used. and, for some other parameters, low scores would be used because of the non-cooperation of the parties in providing information despite requests made to them. Then the ratings are published along with complete partywise worksheets with notes on information/ estimates the rating model has used. Once these are published at regular intervals in newspapers and internet sites, some parties will contest the rankings on incorrect information and methodological issues. These criticisms have to be responded with revised ratings. Once the political parties get drawn into debates over rating, they would get trapped because they have to accept the information used or release correct information available to them. These become scrutinisable in the public domain. Politicians change parties and are also in power struggle within their parties. The confidants of such politicians may turn out to be a good source of information. Once these debates start, public will become more aware of political parties activities, secret trades, and other bad things. This will generate a pressure on parties to become transparent and give disclosures.
A well-thought out strategic game has to be there with the rating agencies: the release of information, use of estimates, the use of secret sources, moves to attract information, moves to create public pressure on releasing the True information, use of investigative journalists reports, the response to criticisms, the credibility of the model and its robustness (sensitivity) to small errors or large errors in information used, the credibility of experts of who make judgments on relative weights and analysis of the inconsistency between actions and policies of party as revealed through their speeches and behaviour, etc.
The task is not going to be easy in the beginning: but becomes easier and easier with time after the first few rounds of data collection, analysis, and estimation work are over.
Who will fund this? Any group of non –government voluntary agencies and Civil Society Foundations could provide funds. Or, retired, wealthy businessmen could provide funds. In an era of globalization, an international foundation operating from an advanced country can do this if it has resources. If Wall Street Journal can monitor what is happening in rural areas of emerging developing countries, organizing the development and implementation of such political ratings would be rather simple affair for an international association of newspapers and magazines as also universities.
If we were to do this by Law, it will not happen. If we want Government to do this it will be another mockery. In the US, some left-minded people ran a TV channel only on Democracy for a few hours in a day with donations - it probably did not survive beyond a year. On the other hand TV serials based on what goes on in the political parties: these channels get lot of public viewer ship and commercial advertisement s- of course they run the risk of sudden death because of the arm-twisting by the powers that be. But some succeed. But the ultimate test of political ratings would have to be the thousands, millions and billions of the citizens of different countries and localities.
Success does not come from mere ex-ante guarantees/ risk mitigation strategies: success comes through using such strategies, dynamically changing them to fight the obstacles.
This posting is a kind of lecture-bazi. But hopefully this posting will generate alternative ideas to the people who would like tyo keep their controls of legislative bodies, elected representatives, political parties and governments: on this Mahtma Gandhi Birthday, I may be incapable of making hard work, making sacrifice and practicing Satyagraha: but there may be millions who can practice what Gandhi preached to domesticate the wild animals that the philosophers of the World have created in the form of political parties so that people really control political party behaviour rather than become the victims of political party behaviour.
Oct 1, 2009
Ranking Political Parties against ideal becnchmarks
Political parties need to be rated against desirable attribute benchmarks, irrespective of whether they are in the ruling government or in the opposition and irrespective of whether they are national or provincial, regional or local parties or even banned/ underground parties.
Intellectuals should develop a broad range of criteria with sub-criteria. Political parties can submit information to the Rating agencies on all aspects of their mission, operations, support, base and performance. Even if they do not submit required by rating agencies the rating agency itself can collect required information as far as possible and rate them. Such rating should be done for base year and thereafter updated every month based on latest developments and information. Each criteria and each sub criteria will have appropriate weights and measured in a scale of 0 ( zero, the lowest) to 10 (the highest).
The broad criteria could include:
1. Objectives with sub-criteria as relevance of objectives to civilized society, clarity in expression of objectives, consistency among objectives and the relative priority of the objectives, quantification and measurable property of objectives (vague objectives could be given low points),
2. Organisational Strength: number of members, number of active members, educational background of the top 10 functionaries/ officials), the number of whole-time members and their emoluments and benefits, the quality of inner party democracy, etc
3. Leadership Capability & skills: educational and professional attainments of the top 10 or top 5% of the officials/ functionaries, the closeness and accessibility to the members and the public at large, quality of the written documents of the party available to the public in terms of content, clarity of content and effectiveness of communication, quality of public speaking of the top 10 leaders, the quality of debating and negotiating skills of the top 10 leaders, the gender composition of top leadership, the team spirit and co-ordination among top 10 leaders, etc.
4. Knowledge: The depth of knowledge of the top 10 leaders at each level in international political and economic relations, in economics and finance, in social and religious issues as also in general sciences and technology as relevant to the common citizens, competence in high school mathematics.
5. Societal Orientation: Exposure to and familiarity with the lives (style, habits, preferences, aspirations and difficulties / concerns) of the people of different economic and social strata among the top 10 leaders at national and local levels.
6. Negative Baggage: criminal record, record of failure in academic examinations, corruption, promotion of relations and loyal, loan servicing record, income tax records, connections with criminals/ Mafia,
illness record, abuse of power, law violations record - both for the 10 top leaders and the party functionaries at all levels in general.
7. Income - Expenditure and Assets and liabilities record of the Party - whether certified by competent auditors/ auditors report thereon, income and expenditure in cash and through bank cheques etc, etc.
8. Performance: in terms of protecting/ rescuing people under threat or actual oppression/ extortion, non-violent and non-disruptive campaigns conducted ( call of bandhs/ strikes/ processions with adverse effect on national production activities earning negative points), performance in terms of participation in debates and attendance in parliament/ legislative/ civic bodies, etc.
9. Electoral Performance: percentage of votes polled in national/ regional and local elections, percentage of seats won to percentage of seats contested, etc.
10. Use of technology: visitor-friendliness, content, updating, and responsiveness to inquiries in respect of websites, use of mobiles. emails and Internet in part-offices, use of audio-visual computer technology in party meetings, etc.
The above are just illustrative criteria and sub-criteria.
Let political parties demonstrate their knowledge, skills, apptitudes, intellect, governance standards, social responsibility, transparency standards, and civilized behaviour through scientific evaluation by independent rating agency. Let them compete to earn good rating instead of formng oligarchic cartels to exploit the people with mere lecture-bajis. Let them face the electorate continuously and not just durng election campaign elections in democracies.
Intellectuals should develop a broad range of criteria with sub-criteria. Political parties can submit information to the Rating agencies on all aspects of their mission, operations, support, base and performance. Even if they do not submit required by rating agencies the rating agency itself can collect required information as far as possible and rate them. Such rating should be done for base year and thereafter updated every month based on latest developments and information. Each criteria and each sub criteria will have appropriate weights and measured in a scale of 0 ( zero, the lowest) to 10 (the highest).
The broad criteria could include:
1. Objectives with sub-criteria as relevance of objectives to civilized society, clarity in expression of objectives, consistency among objectives and the relative priority of the objectives, quantification and measurable property of objectives (vague objectives could be given low points),
2. Organisational Strength: number of members, number of active members, educational background of the top 10 functionaries/ officials), the number of whole-time members and their emoluments and benefits, the quality of inner party democracy, etc
3. Leadership Capability & skills: educational and professional attainments of the top 10 or top 5% of the officials/ functionaries, the closeness and accessibility to the members and the public at large, quality of the written documents of the party available to the public in terms of content, clarity of content and effectiveness of communication, quality of public speaking of the top 10 leaders, the quality of debating and negotiating skills of the top 10 leaders, the gender composition of top leadership, the team spirit and co-ordination among top 10 leaders, etc.
4. Knowledge: The depth of knowledge of the top 10 leaders at each level in international political and economic relations, in economics and finance, in social and religious issues as also in general sciences and technology as relevant to the common citizens, competence in high school mathematics.
5. Societal Orientation: Exposure to and familiarity with the lives (style, habits, preferences, aspirations and difficulties / concerns) of the people of different economic and social strata among the top 10 leaders at national and local levels.
6. Negative Baggage: criminal record, record of failure in academic examinations, corruption, promotion of relations and loyal, loan servicing record, income tax records, connections with criminals/ Mafia,
illness record, abuse of power, law violations record - both for the 10 top leaders and the party functionaries at all levels in general.
7. Income - Expenditure and Assets and liabilities record of the Party - whether certified by competent auditors/ auditors report thereon, income and expenditure in cash and through bank cheques etc, etc.
8. Performance: in terms of protecting/ rescuing people under threat or actual oppression/ extortion, non-violent and non-disruptive campaigns conducted ( call of bandhs/ strikes/ processions with adverse effect on national production activities earning negative points), performance in terms of participation in debates and attendance in parliament/ legislative/ civic bodies, etc.
9. Electoral Performance: percentage of votes polled in national/ regional and local elections, percentage of seats won to percentage of seats contested, etc.
10. Use of technology: visitor-friendliness, content, updating, and responsiveness to inquiries in respect of websites, use of mobiles. emails and Internet in part-offices, use of audio-visual computer technology in party meetings, etc.
The above are just illustrative criteria and sub-criteria.
Let political parties demonstrate their knowledge, skills, apptitudes, intellect, governance standards, social responsibility, transparency standards, and civilized behaviour through scientific evaluation by independent rating agency. Let them compete to earn good rating instead of formng oligarchic cartels to exploit the people with mere lecture-bajis. Let them face the electorate continuously and not just durng election campaign elections in democracies.
Sep 30, 2009
Quality of Indian Democracy: Transparency, Accountability, Disclosure and Governance of Political Parties
India is the largest democracy in the world with long six decades of existence: Governments, corporations and individual citizens in the country are bound by laws and regulations which require them to follow practices that make them accountable for performance and transparency with lot of disclosures. India is also a country that takes justified pride in the use and development of information technology, especially software, mobile and the Internet. Her politicians are also technology savvy and media savvy. The use of SMS, e-mail, websites, blogs and mobiles is widespread among politicians. Many politicians enjoy participating in TV programs telecasting live or recorded debates, discussion and interviews on political, social and economic issues – local, national and international.
Yet, when we come to the individual political partie supposed to be pillars of democracy, the standards of content, up-dating, visitor-friendliness and transparency in web sites are extremely poor, though some are much better than others. I have observed the following:
1. Some even do not have contact us or feedback buttons for visitors.
2. Those which have feedback or contact us buttons may not bother to respond to comments or queries from visitors.
3. The content lacks any specific articulation of macro-economic management or economic activity structure (presumably, the parties do not have any such economy vision or do not have adequate knowledge of economics beyond some out-dated or fashionable economic terms.
4. There is no overall or indicator specific performance report of the party over decades and years: the party websites do not give performance targets in respect of the coming year/s.
5. There are no disclosures on compliance with laws and regulations.
6. There is no data on number of members of different categories: district-level/ local level secretaries of functionaries and their contact numbers or addresses.
7. There is absolutely no information on income, expenditure and assets / liabilities. No audited accounts are posted.
8. The highest level governing bodies of some parties with elected representatives mostly from one or two states have more members from States with zero elected representative seats in the Parliament. For example, in CPM Politburo the Bengali leaders with roots in West Bengal or Tripura, where the party has the overwhelmingly dominant support of the people and contribute to dominating share in the Party’s seats in the Parliament, are in absolute minority.
9. There is no information on women representation, minorities reservation, OBC Reservation in the party’s official hierarchy.
10. There is no information on the academic qualifications and experience of the party functionaries or the salaries, allowances and other benefits.
11. There is no information on inter-related party transactions.
12. For months there is no new posting on some of the party websites.
How do future citizens or even the current citizens, especially the senior citizens choose among parties? What are the accountability of the party’s and their managers? What quality of democracy can a country enjoy and be proud of in the 21st century of high technology, transparency, governance and accountability for performance and resource use even so many things are missing?
Some people interested in democracy, governance and civil society must find out the facts and the Truth before they comment on the political parties activities based merely on media reports and sporadic, impressionistic personal visit surveys in some pockets here and there.
Yet, when we come to the individual political partie supposed to be pillars of democracy, the standards of content, up-dating, visitor-friendliness and transparency in web sites are extremely poor, though some are much better than others. I have observed the following:
1. Some even do not have contact us or feedback buttons for visitors.
2. Those which have feedback or contact us buttons may not bother to respond to comments or queries from visitors.
3. The content lacks any specific articulation of macro-economic management or economic activity structure (presumably, the parties do not have any such economy vision or do not have adequate knowledge of economics beyond some out-dated or fashionable economic terms.
4. There is no overall or indicator specific performance report of the party over decades and years: the party websites do not give performance targets in respect of the coming year/s.
5. There are no disclosures on compliance with laws and regulations.
6. There is no data on number of members of different categories: district-level/ local level secretaries of functionaries and their contact numbers or addresses.
7. There is absolutely no information on income, expenditure and assets / liabilities. No audited accounts are posted.
8. The highest level governing bodies of some parties with elected representatives mostly from one or two states have more members from States with zero elected representative seats in the Parliament. For example, in CPM Politburo the Bengali leaders with roots in West Bengal or Tripura, where the party has the overwhelmingly dominant support of the people and contribute to dominating share in the Party’s seats in the Parliament, are in absolute minority.
9. There is no information on women representation, minorities reservation, OBC Reservation in the party’s official hierarchy.
10. There is no information on the academic qualifications and experience of the party functionaries or the salaries, allowances and other benefits.
11. There is no information on inter-related party transactions.
12. For months there is no new posting on some of the party websites.
How do future citizens or even the current citizens, especially the senior citizens choose among parties? What are the accountability of the party’s and their managers? What quality of democracy can a country enjoy and be proud of in the 21st century of high technology, transparency, governance and accountability for performance and resource use even so many things are missing?
Some people interested in democracy, governance and civil society must find out the facts and the Truth before they comment on the political parties activities based merely on media reports and sporadic, impressionistic personal visit surveys in some pockets here and there.
No Quality Pre-requisite for Democratic Rulers
Monarchies are the most despised form of political rule. The reason is nothing but primarily that the chances of a Monarch being good is very very low. Yet even in the zeroth millennium, or say in the Ramayana / Mahabharata days of the 3000-5000 BC, the intellectuals had developed various criteria for a Good Monarch from the point of view of the citizens/ society/ nation or mankind. Rama was called an ideal king because he satisfied the properties desired of a king. His kingdom was called Ram Rajya which means a kingdom that is the most sought by the citizens. The intention here is not to discuss the ideal properties or Ram's great characteristic as a ruling monarch. The point is that the common people knew what the desirable properties of an ideal king were and these were developed by intellectuals of those days 5,000-7,000 years ago. And the concept was applied to judge the monarchs. That is why Emperor Ashok was called a great monarch after the end of his war against the king og Kalinga. Even Emperor Akbar was called a Great king.
Rama, Ashok (transformed after Kalinga War) and Akbar offered honest, fair. non-corrupt and non-oppressive governance and administration.
Yet, after such great advances of civilization over the last three centuries, the great philosophers who have developed the concept of modern democracy has failed to develop any criteria of ideal democratic government. The euphoria over the idea of rulers being elected by the citizens had so obsessed the minds that no one thinks that democracy by itself does not yield good, non-oppressive, fair and honest governance. That is why not a single government in any of the World's democracies have earned the position of ideal or close to the ideal in the last three centuries. Even today if we look around so many democracies in the world, we would not find a government which satisfies most of the properties desired from an ideal ruler. Democracy, republic and communism seems to be desirable in themselves because monarch's are not there: even if democracies, republics and Communist governments are oppressive and corrupt, they seem to be still desirable. Monarch's could not fool people: people knew which monarch is good or bad. But citizens of democracies, republics and communism are forced to accept that any government that rules under these set-ups is ideal. There are indices/ ranking of countries in terms of GDP per person, quality of human life, economic freedom, political freedom, corruption, cricketing countries, tennis players, boxing champions and so on. But no ranking of Governments. There is extreme poverty of intellectual activity in this regard. Governments are like Gods - Almighty's that can be praised only.
: they are far above independent evaluation and ranking by experts.
Rama, Ashok (transformed after Kalinga War) and Akbar offered honest, fair. non-corrupt and non-oppressive governance and administration.
Yet, after such great advances of civilization over the last three centuries, the great philosophers who have developed the concept of modern democracy has failed to develop any criteria of ideal democratic government. The euphoria over the idea of rulers being elected by the citizens had so obsessed the minds that no one thinks that democracy by itself does not yield good, non-oppressive, fair and honest governance. That is why not a single government in any of the World's democracies have earned the position of ideal or close to the ideal in the last three centuries. Even today if we look around so many democracies in the world, we would not find a government which satisfies most of the properties desired from an ideal ruler. Democracy, republic and communism seems to be desirable in themselves because monarch's are not there: even if democracies, republics and Communist governments are oppressive and corrupt, they seem to be still desirable. Monarch's could not fool people: people knew which monarch is good or bad. But citizens of democracies, republics and communism are forced to accept that any government that rules under these set-ups is ideal. There are indices/ ranking of countries in terms of GDP per person, quality of human life, economic freedom, political freedom, corruption, cricketing countries, tennis players, boxing champions and so on. But no ranking of Governments. There is extreme poverty of intellectual activity in this regard. Governments are like Gods - Almighty's that can be praised only.
: they are far above independent evaluation and ranking by experts.
Jul 30, 2009
Wonderland of Experiment in Applied Communism
The province of West Bengal in India has long been the laboratory for applied experiments in communism. This wonderland has proved to be the most congenial enviornment for experiment in the application of various strands of communist ideologies discovered by great theoreticians from outside West Bengal. Marx and Engels were little known in Bengal till the Russian Revolution. A few relatively unknown, self-educated Bengali intellectual extremist freedom fighters, fed up with Indian Congress Party's struggle for Independence from the British Queen, developed a taste for communist ideas, especially as they needed to flee the country to escape arrest by the British rulers and landed into the attractive trap of the anti-British Germany and later into the trap of Lenin and Stalin seeking to spread the communist empire in India and Asia. The Communist Party of India (CPI) was set up abroad by Indian in exile as they contributed, with their knowledge of English picked up in British India, to develop the theories of applied armed revolution-centred communism in the heartland of Lenin-Stalin Russia. Bengalis, born since the late 19th century are good at developing ideological theories from half-baked ideas of foreigners who did not belong to the mainstream intellectual elite. Within a decade the founder of CPI had transformed into a radical congressman again. The CPI became a party controlled by good orators from Bengal and Kerala. In another three decades, the relatively less prominent intellectuals in the party ckecked out to form the CPI (Marxists), now referred to as CPM. Within a short period, the younger generation with stronger academic credentials formed their own extremist outfits as the Comunist Party Marxists Lennists and other parties who were collectively referred to as Naxalites or Maoists and who had once claimed that Chairman Mao of China was also their Chairman.
After being in action for the last ninety years, the communists in India has been successful enough to keep their influence largely limited to the three states of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura with the extremist Maoist communists operating from the hideouts in relatively inaccessible or tribal-inhabitated forest areas in parts of West Bengal, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. The communists polled about 7 % of the votes in recent Indian elections. The greatest achiement of the communist movement in India so far has been ruling the State of West Bengal for the last three decades and killing of thousands of people, mostly poor, unarmed policemen and wealthy rural oppressors. The dream of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat would continue to remain unfulfilled for the next few decades, if not for another century. And, after the loss of substantial strength in the National Pariament, the communist movement in India seems to be in quandary and lost in the labyrinth of their difficult-to-explain ideologies of clas struggle.
What would the communists do in the next few years?
After being in action for the last ninety years, the communists in India has been successful enough to keep their influence largely limited to the three states of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura with the extremist Maoist communists operating from the hideouts in relatively inaccessible or tribal-inhabitated forest areas in parts of West Bengal, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. The communists polled about 7 % of the votes in recent Indian elections. The greatest achiement of the communist movement in India so far has been ruling the State of West Bengal for the last three decades and killing of thousands of people, mostly poor, unarmed policemen and wealthy rural oppressors. The dream of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat would continue to remain unfulfilled for the next few decades, if not for another century. And, after the loss of substantial strength in the National Pariament, the communist movement in India seems to be in quandary and lost in the labyrinth of their difficult-to-explain ideologies of clas struggle.
What would the communists do in the next few years?
May 24, 2009
Indian Elections 2009
Media and the Electoral Process outwits Rigging Machinery
Electronic Media makes roaring business Monitoring Politicians
Images were not transmitted to the people merely by the parties themselves, their activities and by their struggles. The electronic and the print media played an important role in independent people forming their opinions based on facts rather than party campaigns. The electronic media sensed tremendous potential in TV channel business in West Bengal, especially given the CPM bullying of weaker elements. Covering the government and CPM with investigative and close monitoring would attract considerable viewer-ship to attract considerable advertisement revenue: Bengali channels mushroomed. Any event that would involve scandals, political violence, corruption, administrative inefficiency and police atrocities would have to be covered to attract viewers. About a score of Bengali channels would soon come up. As these would not always be sympathetic to the state government, the CPM reportedly bought shareholding in some channels to control content and coverage. In some cases, the cable operators being allowed to do business only with the patronage and protection of local CPM leaders, certain channels would be blocked in certain localities as they aired reports that adversely affected the image of the Govt. or the ruling party. But all this would not help: nothing could any longer be done in West Bengal that would remain outside public knowledge. TV coverage could make ministers and leaders exposed: one could try to become popular but also had to run the risk of revealing weaknesses, excesses, rash and rude behavior, inefficiency, inconsistency and other inadequacies that could be subject of public evaluation. One cannot just bully people secretly and go unnoticed. Such a media environment reduces the advantage a ruling party usually enjoyed over the opposition forces in the previous decades. Independent and politically unbiased opinions and reporting started weakening the force of Government propaganda and secrecy.
Election Commission makes Rigging Machinery Obsolete
Image and media exposure alone cannot determine actual voting in elections. Election management machinery of political parties had to keep pace with the administrative and technological advancements effected by the Election Commission. The party machinery to rig polls was being slowly made obsolete and useless by the Election Commission. The electoral rolls have been cleaned up considerably in the last few years. There are no more regular exodus illegal Bangladeshi immigrants that the political parties managed to convert into Indian citizens through inclusion of names in the electoral rolls. The fictitious entries in the electoral rolls have been considerably weeded out, though many non-CPM voters may still be outside the electoral list in traditional CPM stronghold areas. The phasing of elections on different dates helped the Commission control the deployment of officers, security forces and observers more effectively. The selection of officers to manage the work at the polling booths and their deployment and better coordination with the security forces, together with the alert electronic media helped reduced the incidence of booth capturing, false voting, and gaging of the EV machines. It had become difficult to rig elections. All this reduced the advantage of any ruling party over others. There was very little that the skilled machinery to rig elections could do now.
Given the improvements that the Election Commissions had made, the penetration and alertness of a highly competitive electronic media industry and the image the parties cultivated made the election outcomes more dependent on the preferences of the 5%-7% non-committed, independent voters. They were clearly not in favor of a BJP without integrated leadership, or in favor of the corrupt power hungry regional parties, or in favor of the obstructing and arrogant CPM and it left partners. They were sympathetic to the Congress that implemented pro-poor policies but were opposed by the BJP and the left in implementing economic reforms. In West Bengal they were not in favor of an arrogant, oppressive and opposition-demolishing CPM and in favor of the pro-poor role of Trinamul leader Mamata Banerjee’s as the only protector of the weak and the oppressed. And, these voters determined the outcome of the Elections in which INC and Trinamul showed a performance that beat the most optimistic forecasts of the opinion polls, political analysts and politicians.
So, what next? What would be the strategy of the Congress, the CPM, the BJP, the Regional Parties including the Trinamul Congress in future? We await later posts.
Electronic Media makes roaring business Monitoring Politicians
Images were not transmitted to the people merely by the parties themselves, their activities and by their struggles. The electronic and the print media played an important role in independent people forming their opinions based on facts rather than party campaigns. The electronic media sensed tremendous potential in TV channel business in West Bengal, especially given the CPM bullying of weaker elements. Covering the government and CPM with investigative and close monitoring would attract considerable viewer-ship to attract considerable advertisement revenue: Bengali channels mushroomed. Any event that would involve scandals, political violence, corruption, administrative inefficiency and police atrocities would have to be covered to attract viewers. About a score of Bengali channels would soon come up. As these would not always be sympathetic to the state government, the CPM reportedly bought shareholding in some channels to control content and coverage. In some cases, the cable operators being allowed to do business only with the patronage and protection of local CPM leaders, certain channels would be blocked in certain localities as they aired reports that adversely affected the image of the Govt. or the ruling party. But all this would not help: nothing could any longer be done in West Bengal that would remain outside public knowledge. TV coverage could make ministers and leaders exposed: one could try to become popular but also had to run the risk of revealing weaknesses, excesses, rash and rude behavior, inefficiency, inconsistency and other inadequacies that could be subject of public evaluation. One cannot just bully people secretly and go unnoticed. Such a media environment reduces the advantage a ruling party usually enjoyed over the opposition forces in the previous decades. Independent and politically unbiased opinions and reporting started weakening the force of Government propaganda and secrecy.
Election Commission makes Rigging Machinery Obsolete
Image and media exposure alone cannot determine actual voting in elections. Election management machinery of political parties had to keep pace with the administrative and technological advancements effected by the Election Commission. The party machinery to rig polls was being slowly made obsolete and useless by the Election Commission. The electoral rolls have been cleaned up considerably in the last few years. There are no more regular exodus illegal Bangladeshi immigrants that the political parties managed to convert into Indian citizens through inclusion of names in the electoral rolls. The fictitious entries in the electoral rolls have been considerably weeded out, though many non-CPM voters may still be outside the electoral list in traditional CPM stronghold areas. The phasing of elections on different dates helped the Commission control the deployment of officers, security forces and observers more effectively. The selection of officers to manage the work at the polling booths and their deployment and better coordination with the security forces, together with the alert electronic media helped reduced the incidence of booth capturing, false voting, and gaging of the EV machines. It had become difficult to rig elections. All this reduced the advantage of any ruling party over others. There was very little that the skilled machinery to rig elections could do now.
Given the improvements that the Election Commissions had made, the penetration and alertness of a highly competitive electronic media industry and the image the parties cultivated made the election outcomes more dependent on the preferences of the 5%-7% non-committed, independent voters. They were clearly not in favor of a BJP without integrated leadership, or in favor of the corrupt power hungry regional parties, or in favor of the obstructing and arrogant CPM and it left partners. They were sympathetic to the Congress that implemented pro-poor policies but were opposed by the BJP and the left in implementing economic reforms. In West Bengal they were not in favor of an arrogant, oppressive and opposition-demolishing CPM and in favor of the pro-poor role of Trinamul leader Mamata Banerjee’s as the only protector of the weak and the oppressed. And, these voters determined the outcome of the Elections in which INC and Trinamul showed a performance that beat the most optimistic forecasts of the opinion polls, political analysts and politicians.
So, what next? What would be the strategy of the Congress, the CPM, the BJP, the Regional Parties including the Trinamul Congress in future? We await later posts.
Trinamul's Image
Mamata’s Tantrums A Saviour of the Oppressed
In contrast to the valiant heroic image that the CPM sought to cultivate the Trinumul Congress led by Mamata Bannerjee cultivated an image of the striggling protector of the oppressed. All who suffered from the atrocities and displeasure of the CPM leadership found a sympathetic treatment from Trinamul. Whereever there was any incident of atrocities or violence against even an individual or group, even if they are not supporters of Trinamul, the Trinamil leaders rushed for help and protection. The pro-poor image, the protector image of the CPM was slowly but steadily shifting to Trinamul Congress and its leader Mamata. She along with only a few of her aides worked incessantly in agitating mood to rally around every person adversely affected by the State and CPM bullying and atrocities. Yes, Trinamul Congress and CPM supporters fought violent battles in different pockets. But the non-committed voters did not view this as Trinamul’s hooliganism against the CPM or the State as CPM had tried to make out. Rather, these incidents were seen as Government supported bullying of CPM over others, especially as the Chief Minister cam out as the distinction between “We” meaning the Govt and the CPM and “They” meaning all others in the State. Hardly surprising, even some smaller leftist parties had to come close to the Trinamul to have some unity against CPM onslaughts. The INC realized this later but very accurately when the left withdraw support from their UPA government: INC national leadership had the political maturity to foster an alliance with Mamata’s Trinamul. They well knew that if the BJP stands a threat, CPM and the left would again come to support to INC after the elections, but here was a chance to weaken the CPM strength in the Loksabha by supporting Mamata emerging strongly with an image of a protector of the people oppressed by the CPM. It released information that would show that the CPM government did much less to improve the conditions of the Muslim minority in West Bengal in comparison with other states. Mamata did create a problem for industrialization by supporting the agitation of a few hundred farmers who were reluctant to give up their lands to the Government of West Bengal for transfer to the Tata for the Nano car factory. But Mamata gained very positive image from this struggle. This was seen all over India as a struggle to protect the poor farmers. All of India recognizes the contribution Mamata has done through this struggle to stop Governments’ forced acquisition of farming land in any part of India anymore. Humanist from other states extended their support to Mamta’s agitation to protectr the poor and the oppressed in Nandigram and Singur and elsewhere. And, Mamata with great maturity maintained that she was pro-industrialisation but not anti-farmer and anti-agriculture. She offered a compromise that would still leave land for the nano factory. But the CPM could not work on the compromise to keep the Tata;s Nano factory in the State. While Mamata’s past image of an whimsical and immatured partner for any alliance still a disadvantage, there was no doubt of her honest struggle against oppression by the State and the CPM.
But images do not get projected on its own - it needs dissemination technology. See next post.
In contrast to the valiant heroic image that the CPM sought to cultivate the Trinumul Congress led by Mamata Bannerjee cultivated an image of the striggling protector of the oppressed. All who suffered from the atrocities and displeasure of the CPM leadership found a sympathetic treatment from Trinamul. Whereever there was any incident of atrocities or violence against even an individual or group, even if they are not supporters of Trinamul, the Trinamil leaders rushed for help and protection. The pro-poor image, the protector image of the CPM was slowly but steadily shifting to Trinamul Congress and its leader Mamata. She along with only a few of her aides worked incessantly in agitating mood to rally around every person adversely affected by the State and CPM bullying and atrocities. Yes, Trinamul Congress and CPM supporters fought violent battles in different pockets. But the non-committed voters did not view this as Trinamul’s hooliganism against the CPM or the State as CPM had tried to make out. Rather, these incidents were seen as Government supported bullying of CPM over others, especially as the Chief Minister cam out as the distinction between “We” meaning the Govt and the CPM and “They” meaning all others in the State. Hardly surprising, even some smaller leftist parties had to come close to the Trinamul to have some unity against CPM onslaughts. The INC realized this later but very accurately when the left withdraw support from their UPA government: INC national leadership had the political maturity to foster an alliance with Mamata’s Trinamul. They well knew that if the BJP stands a threat, CPM and the left would again come to support to INC after the elections, but here was a chance to weaken the CPM strength in the Loksabha by supporting Mamata emerging strongly with an image of a protector of the people oppressed by the CPM. It released information that would show that the CPM government did much less to improve the conditions of the Muslim minority in West Bengal in comparison with other states. Mamata did create a problem for industrialization by supporting the agitation of a few hundred farmers who were reluctant to give up their lands to the Government of West Bengal for transfer to the Tata for the Nano car factory. But Mamata gained very positive image from this struggle. This was seen all over India as a struggle to protect the poor farmers. All of India recognizes the contribution Mamata has done through this struggle to stop Governments’ forced acquisition of farming land in any part of India anymore. Humanist from other states extended their support to Mamta’s agitation to protectr the poor and the oppressed in Nandigram and Singur and elsewhere. And, Mamata with great maturity maintained that she was pro-industrialisation but not anti-farmer and anti-agriculture. She offered a compromise that would still leave land for the nano factory. But the CPM could not work on the compromise to keep the Tata;s Nano factory in the State. While Mamata’s past image of an whimsical and immatured partner for any alliance still a disadvantage, there was no doubt of her honest struggle against oppression by the State and the CPM.
But images do not get projected on its own - it needs dissemination technology. See next post.
CPM, the Fallen Hero
When the Hero Assumes a Villain Image
Now consider the performance and image of the leftists during the past five years. Among the communists and their sympathizers, the performance was very good. They have successfully been able to rein in the INC-led UPA Government from doing anything the leftists did not like. They continued to rule in the states of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura without virtually any effective opposition and crushing opposition wherever required with state force. The communist supporters enjoyed the State support in securing jobs, land, business orders/ contracts, in sports bodies, in cultural initiatives, in education – practically in every field. The image was one of a gallant, unbeatable hero. The CPM General Secretary with control over 60 Members of the 442-strong Loksabha seemed to the boss of the Prime Minister of India and poised to bring in the historic first Communist-led Third Front Government in India. This was a great image one can dream off before the 2009 Indian Elections. But the voters outside the three CPM-ruled states unfortunately did not share this image. They did not relish the image of CPM as the Crown Price of India. Rather, they feared that a third front of greedy, power-hungry regional party faction leaders shepherded by the CPM implied a great disaster to India. They would not vote for the parties joining hands with the CPM.
Within the CPM ruled states, Tripura with just two MP seats did not matter much to Government formation at the Center. What was CPM’s image in Kerala? It was one of two state leaders fighting for control in Kerala and with utter disregards to the all-India Keralite General Secretary of the CPM. Such an image was not so conducive to attract voters who cast their votes independently of ideology and winning elections and India’s most literate state voters did not have a large industrial trade union based cultivation of communist ideas. Over the years the number of families becoming rich with non-resident income inflows had increased dramatically and with increase in wealth many would start harboring political ambitions without any commitment to communist ideology and without having to go through the seniority system in CPM. They were searching for alternative opportunities to rise in the business of politics in India. INC was set to exploit these conditions in the state.
West Bengal with 42 Loksabha seats is the real stronghold of the CPM. But its pro-people, pro-West Bengal image was getting tarnished. It was fast developing an image of intolerant, arrogant ruler more proud of its three-decade rule in West Bengal rather than a party that is capable of re-establishing West Bengal’s premier status in the Indian economy. The people at large was increasingly realizing that the CPM Employees Union dominated State Government employees would never make the Chief Minister’s dream of efficient government services to the citizen’s a reality. The bloodbath in certain pockets of Midnapore districts and elsewhere between CPM and other parties might have been liked by the committed CPM supporters but painted CPM government as an oppressive ruler among voters who are independent and l;iked CPM for long. The Chief Ministers distinction of “Good” and “Evil” synanomous with “We (CPM and its supporters)” and “They” created an impression that the Government was not willing to protect the citizens unless they completely align themselves with the CPM and compete with others to seek the favor of the CPM leaders at different levels. The CPM bullying even upset the other left front partners. This gave rise to an impression that the leftist alliance is really a divided one and CPM is the only party that a citizen ha no option but commit to. The Chief Minister seemed more interested in protecting and rewarding the obliging, loyal bureaucrats even if they had committed mistakes and meted out injustice to the common people as in the case of tragic death of Rizanur, a poor young professionally qualified Muslim falling in love and getting legally married to a Hindu girl of a rich Marwari business family and where the State police leadership intervened to break the marriage at the instance of the rich Marwari father of the girl. The independent voters clearly did not enjoy the Chief Minister interfering with the lections of the State Cricket Association nor did they rejoice the distinction introduced by the Chief Minister and others between ‘ CPM intelligentsia of intellectuals, celebrities in art, culture and education” and “anti-CPM intelligentsia of such personalities” for state patronage.
The selection of Delhi-based Brinda Karat and Yehchuri to represent West Bengal in the Rajya Sabha of the Parliament might have been a necessity of the CPM but was not liked by independent voters with pro-Bengal sentiment. The Speaker of the last Parliament became a Bengali icon rather then enhancing his image as a CPM party leader: his removal from the CPM party was seen as a great insult to West Bengal and a meek submission to an arrogant Keralite CPM General Secretary by the State CPM leaders.
The growing image of the CPM state leadership as an arrogant, oppressive party out to destroy all opposition within West Bengal and yet so dependent on mere English-competent Delhi-based intellectuals without any connection with grassroots of politics would fail to enthuse the independent voters, especially the younger generations.
What happened to Mamata's Trinamul Congress? See the next post/
Now consider the performance and image of the leftists during the past five years. Among the communists and their sympathizers, the performance was very good. They have successfully been able to rein in the INC-led UPA Government from doing anything the leftists did not like. They continued to rule in the states of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura without virtually any effective opposition and crushing opposition wherever required with state force. The communist supporters enjoyed the State support in securing jobs, land, business orders/ contracts, in sports bodies, in cultural initiatives, in education – practically in every field. The image was one of a gallant, unbeatable hero. The CPM General Secretary with control over 60 Members of the 442-strong Loksabha seemed to the boss of the Prime Minister of India and poised to bring in the historic first Communist-led Third Front Government in India. This was a great image one can dream off before the 2009 Indian Elections. But the voters outside the three CPM-ruled states unfortunately did not share this image. They did not relish the image of CPM as the Crown Price of India. Rather, they feared that a third front of greedy, power-hungry regional party faction leaders shepherded by the CPM implied a great disaster to India. They would not vote for the parties joining hands with the CPM.
Within the CPM ruled states, Tripura with just two MP seats did not matter much to Government formation at the Center. What was CPM’s image in Kerala? It was one of two state leaders fighting for control in Kerala and with utter disregards to the all-India Keralite General Secretary of the CPM. Such an image was not so conducive to attract voters who cast their votes independently of ideology and winning elections and India’s most literate state voters did not have a large industrial trade union based cultivation of communist ideas. Over the years the number of families becoming rich with non-resident income inflows had increased dramatically and with increase in wealth many would start harboring political ambitions without any commitment to communist ideology and without having to go through the seniority system in CPM. They were searching for alternative opportunities to rise in the business of politics in India. INC was set to exploit these conditions in the state.
West Bengal with 42 Loksabha seats is the real stronghold of the CPM. But its pro-people, pro-West Bengal image was getting tarnished. It was fast developing an image of intolerant, arrogant ruler more proud of its three-decade rule in West Bengal rather than a party that is capable of re-establishing West Bengal’s premier status in the Indian economy. The people at large was increasingly realizing that the CPM Employees Union dominated State Government employees would never make the Chief Minister’s dream of efficient government services to the citizen’s a reality. The bloodbath in certain pockets of Midnapore districts and elsewhere between CPM and other parties might have been liked by the committed CPM supporters but painted CPM government as an oppressive ruler among voters who are independent and l;iked CPM for long. The Chief Ministers distinction of “Good” and “Evil” synanomous with “We (CPM and its supporters)” and “They” created an impression that the Government was not willing to protect the citizens unless they completely align themselves with the CPM and compete with others to seek the favor of the CPM leaders at different levels. The CPM bullying even upset the other left front partners. This gave rise to an impression that the leftist alliance is really a divided one and CPM is the only party that a citizen ha no option but commit to. The Chief Minister seemed more interested in protecting and rewarding the obliging, loyal bureaucrats even if they had committed mistakes and meted out injustice to the common people as in the case of tragic death of Rizanur, a poor young professionally qualified Muslim falling in love and getting legally married to a Hindu girl of a rich Marwari business family and where the State police leadership intervened to break the marriage at the instance of the rich Marwari father of the girl. The independent voters clearly did not enjoy the Chief Minister interfering with the lections of the State Cricket Association nor did they rejoice the distinction introduced by the Chief Minister and others between ‘ CPM intelligentsia of intellectuals, celebrities in art, culture and education” and “anti-CPM intelligentsia of such personalities” for state patronage.
The selection of Delhi-based Brinda Karat and Yehchuri to represent West Bengal in the Rajya Sabha of the Parliament might have been a necessity of the CPM but was not liked by independent voters with pro-Bengal sentiment. The Speaker of the last Parliament became a Bengali icon rather then enhancing his image as a CPM party leader: his removal from the CPM party was seen as a great insult to West Bengal and a meek submission to an arrogant Keralite CPM General Secretary by the State CPM leaders.
The growing image of the CPM state leadership as an arrogant, oppressive party out to destroy all opposition within West Bengal and yet so dependent on mere English-competent Delhi-based intellectuals without any connection with grassroots of politics would fail to enthuse the independent voters, especially the younger generations.
What happened to Mamata's Trinamul Congress? See the next post/
Opposition Bolsters Congress Image
Lack of Contructive Opposition Built Congress Image
Most politicians were all very busy in dreaming and scheming except the INC, the TMC in West Bengal, the BJD in Orissa and some others. There was considerable infighting going on about leadership and prominence in the BJP and the CPM in Kerala. The SP and BSP in Uttar Pradesh were preparing to fight among each other and against the BJP, ignoring that the Congress could still mobilize votes in UP a state whose citizens have suffered from the competitive corruption and fights between the SP and the BSP and their belligerent attitude to extract from the government at the Center. The BJP had a built up an image of a party that cares little for the people except doing high drama in the Parliament and supporting some Hindu’s past glory revivalists. The BJP did nothing constructive in the Parliament during the past five years. They seemed to be enjoying the plight of the leftist-oppression of the INC-led federal government and merely waiting for the fall of the Government so that they can get their turn. They not only did not seem to be a party with a cohesive leadership, they did not care to make the extra effort to keep their NDA-Alliance together. Such a passive, indifferent and disintegrated attitude did not help develop an attractive and vibrant image of BJP outside the state of Gujarat. Such an image was unlikely to enthuse voters to get attracted to them at the time of the elections.
On the other hand, the INC was concentrating on building up its organization in UP and other states, while at the same time pursuing alliances in regions where they cannot quickly strengthen the organization. Sonia and her son Rahul gave priority to strengthening the Congress organisation at the lowest levels, especially in Uttar Pradesh where the regional parties captured the Lok sabha seats,and Kerala where the Communists ruled and formed alliances with regional parties like DMK in Tamil Nadu and Trinamul Congress in West Bengal to weaken the strength of other regional parties with strong bases in these States.There was a very concerted endeavor to get higher number of seats in the Parliament so as to reduce its prevailing weakness of being black-mailed or brow-beaten by a handful of regional parties including the left that do not have much influence on the nation-wide electorate. It was at the same time consolidating the image of its pro-poor, secular policies by pursuing such policies that its leftist allies would never object. Whatever the goodwill benefits of the pro-poor policies they pursued with the support of or at the insistence of the leftist allies – all accrued to the INC for unlike their allies only the INC had a nationwide presence. On the other hand, the INC also fostered an image that being dependent on such always reform opposing allies like the leftists they were unable to deliver more benefits to the people at large, poor or the rich or the middle-class. This clearly projected an image of a part with good intentions and delivering results despite all odds from its own allies and constrained by unreasonable and corrupt regional elements. This is an image that would draw support to INC both from beneficiaries of pro-poor policies all over India (employment guarantee scheme, loan-waiver scheme and schemes directed at minorities and backward castes and classes) and from those adversely affected by the stalling of the economic reforms by the leftist allies. The blackmailing of the INC-led UPA government by the leftists on the issue of the nuclear deal with USA may have raised the leftist’s status of their heroism against the US among the anti-US voters in the intelligentsias largely concentrated in West Bengal and certain urban pockets, the large mass of the beneficiaries of economic reforms in business, skilled labor force in emerging sectors and professional all over India became more sympathetic to INC. During the months of CPM-led obstructions to the Union Govt. initiatives in the area of nuclear deal and reforms in banking and insurance, whenever I happened to meet business executives outside West Bengal in official meetings, they used to point out as if Bengalis like me from West Bengal are hurting national interest of India’s economic progress: my only answer was that all this was happening only because a Delhi-bred Keralite was in-charge of the communist battalion of the Bengalis. My friends outside West Bengal were reflecting the sympathy that the INC was drawing from voters outside the 6% or so communist-block voters in India. Clearly, the majority would not tolerate such miniscule minority obstructing what the non-communist majority thought as national interest.
About CPM and the leftists see later.
Most politicians were all very busy in dreaming and scheming except the INC, the TMC in West Bengal, the BJD in Orissa and some others. There was considerable infighting going on about leadership and prominence in the BJP and the CPM in Kerala. The SP and BSP in Uttar Pradesh were preparing to fight among each other and against the BJP, ignoring that the Congress could still mobilize votes in UP a state whose citizens have suffered from the competitive corruption and fights between the SP and the BSP and their belligerent attitude to extract from the government at the Center. The BJP had a built up an image of a party that cares little for the people except doing high drama in the Parliament and supporting some Hindu’s past glory revivalists. The BJP did nothing constructive in the Parliament during the past five years. They seemed to be enjoying the plight of the leftist-oppression of the INC-led federal government and merely waiting for the fall of the Government so that they can get their turn. They not only did not seem to be a party with a cohesive leadership, they did not care to make the extra effort to keep their NDA-Alliance together. Such a passive, indifferent and disintegrated attitude did not help develop an attractive and vibrant image of BJP outside the state of Gujarat. Such an image was unlikely to enthuse voters to get attracted to them at the time of the elections.
On the other hand, the INC was concentrating on building up its organization in UP and other states, while at the same time pursuing alliances in regions where they cannot quickly strengthen the organization. Sonia and her son Rahul gave priority to strengthening the Congress organisation at the lowest levels, especially in Uttar Pradesh where the regional parties captured the Lok sabha seats,and Kerala where the Communists ruled and formed alliances with regional parties like DMK in Tamil Nadu and Trinamul Congress in West Bengal to weaken the strength of other regional parties with strong bases in these States.There was a very concerted endeavor to get higher number of seats in the Parliament so as to reduce its prevailing weakness of being black-mailed or brow-beaten by a handful of regional parties including the left that do not have much influence on the nation-wide electorate. It was at the same time consolidating the image of its pro-poor, secular policies by pursuing such policies that its leftist allies would never object. Whatever the goodwill benefits of the pro-poor policies they pursued with the support of or at the insistence of the leftist allies – all accrued to the INC for unlike their allies only the INC had a nationwide presence. On the other hand, the INC also fostered an image that being dependent on such always reform opposing allies like the leftists they were unable to deliver more benefits to the people at large, poor or the rich or the middle-class. This clearly projected an image of a part with good intentions and delivering results despite all odds from its own allies and constrained by unreasonable and corrupt regional elements. This is an image that would draw support to INC both from beneficiaries of pro-poor policies all over India (employment guarantee scheme, loan-waiver scheme and schemes directed at minorities and backward castes and classes) and from those adversely affected by the stalling of the economic reforms by the leftist allies. The blackmailing of the INC-led UPA government by the leftists on the issue of the nuclear deal with USA may have raised the leftist’s status of their heroism against the US among the anti-US voters in the intelligentsias largely concentrated in West Bengal and certain urban pockets, the large mass of the beneficiaries of economic reforms in business, skilled labor force in emerging sectors and professional all over India became more sympathetic to INC. During the months of CPM-led obstructions to the Union Govt. initiatives in the area of nuclear deal and reforms in banking and insurance, whenever I happened to meet business executives outside West Bengal in official meetings, they used to point out as if Bengalis like me from West Bengal are hurting national interest of India’s economic progress: my only answer was that all this was happening only because a Delhi-bred Keralite was in-charge of the communist battalion of the Bengalis. My friends outside West Bengal were reflecting the sympathy that the INC was drawing from voters outside the 6% or so communist-block voters in India. Clearly, the majority would not tolerate such miniscule minority obstructing what the non-communist majority thought as national interest.
About CPM and the leftists see later.
Indian Elections 2009: Surprised Politicians
Independent Minority Voters Shift to Outwit Forecasters
The recent federal parliamentary (Loksabha, lower house of people’s representatives) elections prove the importance of independent voters. At the all-India level, no political party or analyst or exit polls or opinion survey could predict that the Indian National Congress (INC) would win more than 200 seats on it own, that the INC would need much support from other fronts or the left to rule, or the regional parties would lose their bargaining strength in the formation of the Govt. It is a new phenomenon that practically none of the regional parties could sweep the majority of the seats in their respective regions / provinces/ states. After more than two decades, voters in different regions/ provinces/ states have started showing varying preferences within their region insofar as the parliamentary elections. They may vote for a party at the federal elections that is different from the party they voted for in the State-level elections held earlier. This is happening because of the voters who shift their preferences according to their own assessment and will to exert their independent decision. As a result, the very few regional party is able to get a large chunk of the parliamentary seats in their provinces. This reduces the bargaining power of such parties in coalition formation unless two national parties get almost equal but far less than the number of seats required to form Govt. with very little or no support from alliances.
The second largest national party, BJP has seen a decline in its share of seats. The CPM has lost seats heavily in two of the three states in which it had traditionally been very strong. The SP and the BSP could not make any mark while the INC pulled off large number of seats in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The regional parties led byLalu Prasad and Ram Bikas Paswan lost out in Bihar. Sivsena, another regional party lost out in Maharashtra. The only regional party that made a remarkable come back was the TMC in West Bengal. In Tamil Nadu and Adhra Pradesh no single regional party swept the parliamentary seats in their states in their favor, weakening the bargaining power in the Central Government formation. In Orissa, the ruling regional party did well to get parliamentary seats even after breking out of their previous alliance with the BJP.
Why has all this happened this time that the shifting voters contributed to this kind of electoral outcomes that are very different from the past and all predictions became largely out of line with the actul election results? It may be interesting to explore this issue in the light of the developments during the last few years.
In West Bengal, the percentage of votes in favor of the dominant party ruling the State for over three decades without a break fell in 2009 elections by a few percentage points from the 2004 elections, correspondingly increasing the percentage of votes polled by TMC and INC who formed an alliance. But the result in terms of seats won changed dramatically. TMC increased its seats from 1 to 19. TMC- INC alliance got 25 out of the 42 seats while the CPM-led left alliance got 15 seats. The forecasts predicted 24-28 seats for the Left alliance after taking into account the brighter prospects of TMC and INC because of their nick of the time pre-poll alliance and the certain adverse events that put the ruling CPM-led Government in bad light in the media. What explains this surprise or unimaginable outcome in West Bengal. This has been explained by the leftists as the national wave in favor of the INC for stability of national government. But that is hardly any explanation as the national wave in favor of the INC itself was a surprise needing explanation especially as the CPM and other leftist parties were so sure of the possibility of forming a viable non-BJP, non-Congress third front that just two days before the election results were declared the CPM General Secretary Mr. Karat alleged that the US Ambassador to India was meeting various party leaders other than the leftists to lure them into supporting BJP or INC in government formation and ensure that the third front was not able to from a government. As an feeler to the INC the leftists even announced the INC the possibility of leftists’ support in the event that other regional parties rally around the BJP to scuttle the third front government initiative.
The recent federal parliamentary (Loksabha, lower house of people’s representatives) elections prove the importance of independent voters. At the all-India level, no political party or analyst or exit polls or opinion survey could predict that the Indian National Congress (INC) would win more than 200 seats on it own, that the INC would need much support from other fronts or the left to rule, or the regional parties would lose their bargaining strength in the formation of the Govt. It is a new phenomenon that practically none of the regional parties could sweep the majority of the seats in their respective regions / provinces/ states. After more than two decades, voters in different regions/ provinces/ states have started showing varying preferences within their region insofar as the parliamentary elections. They may vote for a party at the federal elections that is different from the party they voted for in the State-level elections held earlier. This is happening because of the voters who shift their preferences according to their own assessment and will to exert their independent decision. As a result, the very few regional party is able to get a large chunk of the parliamentary seats in their provinces. This reduces the bargaining power of such parties in coalition formation unless two national parties get almost equal but far less than the number of seats required to form Govt. with very little or no support from alliances.
The second largest national party, BJP has seen a decline in its share of seats. The CPM has lost seats heavily in two of the three states in which it had traditionally been very strong. The SP and the BSP could not make any mark while the INC pulled off large number of seats in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The regional parties led byLalu Prasad and Ram Bikas Paswan lost out in Bihar. Sivsena, another regional party lost out in Maharashtra. The only regional party that made a remarkable come back was the TMC in West Bengal. In Tamil Nadu and Adhra Pradesh no single regional party swept the parliamentary seats in their states in their favor, weakening the bargaining power in the Central Government formation. In Orissa, the ruling regional party did well to get parliamentary seats even after breking out of their previous alliance with the BJP.
Why has all this happened this time that the shifting voters contributed to this kind of electoral outcomes that are very different from the past and all predictions became largely out of line with the actul election results? It may be interesting to explore this issue in the light of the developments during the last few years.
In West Bengal, the percentage of votes in favor of the dominant party ruling the State for over three decades without a break fell in 2009 elections by a few percentage points from the 2004 elections, correspondingly increasing the percentage of votes polled by TMC and INC who formed an alliance. But the result in terms of seats won changed dramatically. TMC increased its seats from 1 to 19. TMC- INC alliance got 25 out of the 42 seats while the CPM-led left alliance got 15 seats. The forecasts predicted 24-28 seats for the Left alliance after taking into account the brighter prospects of TMC and INC because of their nick of the time pre-poll alliance and the certain adverse events that put the ruling CPM-led Government in bad light in the media. What explains this surprise or unimaginable outcome in West Bengal. This has been explained by the leftists as the national wave in favor of the INC for stability of national government. But that is hardly any explanation as the national wave in favor of the INC itself was a surprise needing explanation especially as the CPM and other leftist parties were so sure of the possibility of forming a viable non-BJP, non-Congress third front that just two days before the election results were declared the CPM General Secretary Mr. Karat alleged that the US Ambassador to India was meeting various party leaders other than the leftists to lure them into supporting BJP or INC in government formation and ensure that the third front was not able to from a government. As an feeler to the INC the leftists even announced the INC the possibility of leftists’ support in the event that other regional parties rally around the BJP to scuttle the third front government initiative.
Funny Democratic Number Games: Indian Case
Indian Elections 2009
In multi-party democracy, elections often produce funny arithmetic. In this number game sometimes, the powerless minority’s votes may assume great value. Here minority voters implies those who are prepared to shift their allegiance to particular parties for various reasons: generally, most voters get accustomed to casting their votes in favor of one party believing that the party each one of them votes for is better than or less evil than the other parties. If there were three parties (A, B and C), often one would find 5%-7% difference in the individual shares of votes of at least two of the parties, say A and B, claiming together 75% - 90% of the votes cast is only about 5% to 7% only. It is like A + B = 85 and A – B = 5 %, and, therefore, A = 45, B = 40 and C= 15. More strikingly, in most cases A will have more than 50% of the seats in the Parliament and rule the country or in the case of direct election of the Chief Ruler A becomes the President of the country having being discarded by the majority voters. In case of four or more parties, coalitions get formed so that two opposing coalitions have vote shares of 45% and 40% with the one with 45% rules the country
The other funny game is that the 5%-7% voters who are prone to shifting their allegiance raises the value of their votes as they can make A weaker and B stronger and B becomes the ruler. These voters shift not because they are not committed: they are independent-minded people who will not permanently commit their political thoughts and expressions in favor of a particular party for any reason whatsoever – whether ideological or practical or personal benefits. In extreme cases like political or social waves / turmoil, a larger percentage of voters may shift their preferences. But in general it is the 5%-7% voters who are more prone to shift their preferences for supporting a particular political party whom they start liking for reasons of the parties recent activities or voting against a particular party for reasons of disappointment with the recent activities of that party. But most such voters who shift their preference generally keep it extremely secret that they are shifting their preference and exit polls or opinion polls normally would not be able to track them in their samples. Yet, these voters who contribute to significant weakening of the predictive power or accuracy of exit poll and opinion poll based forecast of election outcomes. That is why after the elections, often political parties call the results as surprises or unimaginable.
In multi-party democracy, elections often produce funny arithmetic. In this number game sometimes, the powerless minority’s votes may assume great value. Here minority voters implies those who are prepared to shift their allegiance to particular parties for various reasons: generally, most voters get accustomed to casting their votes in favor of one party believing that the party each one of them votes for is better than or less evil than the other parties. If there were three parties (A, B and C), often one would find 5%-7% difference in the individual shares of votes of at least two of the parties, say A and B, claiming together 75% - 90% of the votes cast is only about 5% to 7% only. It is like A + B = 85 and A – B = 5 %, and, therefore, A = 45, B = 40 and C= 15. More strikingly, in most cases A will have more than 50% of the seats in the Parliament and rule the country or in the case of direct election of the Chief Ruler A becomes the President of the country having being discarded by the majority voters. In case of four or more parties, coalitions get formed so that two opposing coalitions have vote shares of 45% and 40% with the one with 45% rules the country
The other funny game is that the 5%-7% voters who are prone to shifting their allegiance raises the value of their votes as they can make A weaker and B stronger and B becomes the ruler. These voters shift not because they are not committed: they are independent-minded people who will not permanently commit their political thoughts and expressions in favor of a particular party for any reason whatsoever – whether ideological or practical or personal benefits. In extreme cases like political or social waves / turmoil, a larger percentage of voters may shift their preferences. But in general it is the 5%-7% voters who are more prone to shift their preferences for supporting a particular political party whom they start liking for reasons of the parties recent activities or voting against a particular party for reasons of disappointment with the recent activities of that party. But most such voters who shift their preference generally keep it extremely secret that they are shifting their preference and exit polls or opinion polls normally would not be able to track them in their samples. Yet, these voters who contribute to significant weakening of the predictive power or accuracy of exit poll and opinion poll based forecast of election outcomes. That is why after the elections, often political parties call the results as surprises or unimaginable.
May 12, 2009
Democratic Corporate Governance
Q: Why Corporate Governance is important?
A: Because Governance of countries are not corporatised.
Q: What do you mean?
A: Goverment is not organised as a corporation with shareholding distributed among the citizens equally.
Q: How can structure Govts. like publicly listed corporations?
A: Why, is there any problem. You can name the firm as National Democratic Corporation (NDC) with specified Vision, Mission, Chater of business activities, strategies, objectives, Plans and Performance Disclosures. The shares will be listed in the market. If the share price falls, it would mean the citizens are viewing the performance of the management of the Govt. as poor.
Q: So, the NDC's shares will be listed and publicly traded! But then the NDC's shares will be corned by the rich.
A: There will be two classes of shares. Class A shares will not be traded as each citizen is issued a share free of cost as soon as one is born and extinguished as soon as one dies. Class B shares are to be purchased by citizens if they wish to with money. Govt. can issue fresh shares at any time it requires money by issuing Class B shares at prices that will be accepted in the market. Class B shares will be traded in the market. The NDC can riase money by issuing bonds, debentures, certificate of deposits, etc. But that will be subject to a prudential leverage (debt-equity) ratio.
Q: What about voting rights?
A: Class A shares held by adults will enjoy political voting right only. Class B shares will have no such voting rights. But will be entitled to get dividend at the highest rate of dividend offered by any private company in the country or inflation rate plus 5%, whichever is higher. NDC can never be liquidated. If it defaults in payment to class B shareholders or to lenders/ creditors, the ministers and the entire set of lgislatures will be penalised as per the provisions of criminal law applicable to fraud or murder. The ministers and legislatures can go to court for justice but will autoimatically lose their positions ad fresh elections will be organized. Each candiate must hold a specified minimum number of class A shares to be eligible to become an election contestant. The elected legislatures and the ministers would have to deposit specified minimum class B shares to an independent custodian company till the time they hold office. During this period the class B shares deposited to the custodian cannot be withdrwan or traded. At the end of their term the legislatures can take back the shares.
Q: It is becoming increasingly complicated now.
A: But only complicated systems can ensure Corporate Governance. The legislators pass so many laws and appoint so many regulators to improve Corporate Governance. Now, they will make the same laws and regulators applicable to NDC and therefore to themselves. That will ensure that the legislators and ministers do not take irresponsible or imprudently risky decisions when making laws or policies or when implementing their decisions. It shouold be easy for democratic leaders.
Q; You mean Corporate Governance should begin at home - the political system and should be just the same as in corporations!
A: You are right. But that would be undemocratic. Democracy means different standards for legislators and ministers. They belong to Royal Class. So, you do not have to worry about Corporate Governance standards being imposed on the political parties or the Govt.
A: Because Governance of countries are not corporatised.
Q: What do you mean?
A: Goverment is not organised as a corporation with shareholding distributed among the citizens equally.
Q: How can structure Govts. like publicly listed corporations?
A: Why, is there any problem. You can name the firm as National Democratic Corporation (NDC) with specified Vision, Mission, Chater of business activities, strategies, objectives, Plans and Performance Disclosures. The shares will be listed in the market. If the share price falls, it would mean the citizens are viewing the performance of the management of the Govt. as poor.
Q: So, the NDC's shares will be listed and publicly traded! But then the NDC's shares will be corned by the rich.
A: There will be two classes of shares. Class A shares will not be traded as each citizen is issued a share free of cost as soon as one is born and extinguished as soon as one dies. Class B shares are to be purchased by citizens if they wish to with money. Govt. can issue fresh shares at any time it requires money by issuing Class B shares at prices that will be accepted in the market. Class B shares will be traded in the market. The NDC can riase money by issuing bonds, debentures, certificate of deposits, etc. But that will be subject to a prudential leverage (debt-equity) ratio.
Q: What about voting rights?
A: Class A shares held by adults will enjoy political voting right only. Class B shares will have no such voting rights. But will be entitled to get dividend at the highest rate of dividend offered by any private company in the country or inflation rate plus 5%, whichever is higher. NDC can never be liquidated. If it defaults in payment to class B shareholders or to lenders/ creditors, the ministers and the entire set of lgislatures will be penalised as per the provisions of criminal law applicable to fraud or murder. The ministers and legislatures can go to court for justice but will autoimatically lose their positions ad fresh elections will be organized. Each candiate must hold a specified minimum number of class A shares to be eligible to become an election contestant. The elected legislatures and the ministers would have to deposit specified minimum class B shares to an independent custodian company till the time they hold office. During this period the class B shares deposited to the custodian cannot be withdrwan or traded. At the end of their term the legislatures can take back the shares.
Q: It is becoming increasingly complicated now.
A: But only complicated systems can ensure Corporate Governance. The legislators pass so many laws and appoint so many regulators to improve Corporate Governance. Now, they will make the same laws and regulators applicable to NDC and therefore to themselves. That will ensure that the legislators and ministers do not take irresponsible or imprudently risky decisions when making laws or policies or when implementing their decisions. It shouold be easy for democratic leaders.
Q; You mean Corporate Governance should begin at home - the political system and should be just the same as in corporations!
A: You are right. But that would be undemocratic. Democracy means different standards for legislators and ministers. They belong to Royal Class. So, you do not have to worry about Corporate Governance standards being imposed on the political parties or the Govt.
May 11, 2009
Democratic Urge to Rule
Q: But, why do majority people want others, especially the rich to be taxed?
A: That is because modern democracy rules out the choice of zero taxes on all citizens. If you have a poll among the citizens where you ask each citizen whether he/ she would like the Govt. to withdraw all taxes on him/ her, everyone will vote for zero taxes.
Q: What if the question is: Tax others and not me'?
A: Everyone will vote Yes. But this cannot be implemented as it is impossible to leave each person without tax while making others pay taxes. You need a cut -off to satisfy jealousy. The poorer people would be allowed to be granted to effectively enjoy their choice based on jealousy. So the closest question one can try is : Tax only those richer than I am. Everyone will again vote YES. But you will get majority satisfied if you impose no taxes on the bottom 51% of income-earners.
Q: So, you mean to say that modern democracy is based on satisfaction of jealousy of the majority.
A: You are right. Assume there is no jealousy, all taxes will be rejected by referendum.
Q: That cannot be true. Many people will be willing to pay taxes to enable the Govt. to take care of national security, law and order, public health, education, public health.
A: Yes, most people would be agreeable to your view. But this is because of the assumption that the Govt. are not capable of running commercial businesses and making huge profits and not capable of doing philanthropy.
Q: What do you mean?
A: Assume that Govt can run the most efficient commercial business and make more money than the private corporations. Assume Govt. is philanthropic. The, a Govt. can earn as much money as it needs to meet all expenses is budgets for and the entire budget would be philanthropic efforts to provide national security, internal security, justice administration, education, health-care and infrastructure and science. Even the Govt. can seek donations from the people instead of taxing the people. Just like Bill Gates running Microsoft, Govt runs big businesses in competition with private corporations, makes huge money and uses the entire surplus profits to Govt. as donations to fund govt. expenditure. If Govts can make policies, guide and regulate companies, govts. may be well qualified to run businesses and do better than the private sector.
Q: Do you mean that 50% or more of the manufacturing and service sector companies/firms shall be owned and managed by the Govt.? That is nationalization ans socialism!
A: Whatever you choose to do you are going to aim at socialism only in modern democracy. You can have more of tax-dependent socialism or you can have more of tax-independent socialism. But. Govts. that are scared about controlling angry rebellious crowds of citizens generally rely more on tax-dependent socialism and call their countries liberal democracies. Those countries where Govs. have the muscle power to throttle opposition of any kind rely more on tax-independent socialism and call their countries people's democracy or republic. Which ever way one goes, democracy and republics will necessarily be a grand design of massive exploitation of the people by the Govts for the smart and mighty few.
Q: What is the solution then to end this extensive exploitation.
A: In the last millennium, the solution to the problem of exploitation of the people was found out by great philosophers time and again. As it turned out each of their solution (like monarchy to democracy, capitalism to socialism, multi-party electoral systems to single party dictatorship of the proletariat)have been successful in replacing exploitation of the people by another system of exploitation of the people.
Q: Philosophers and political thought leaders do not appear to be as smart, talented or gifted as the natural scientists or the actual politicians are. So long as one has the the strong urge to rule over others to make a worthwhile living, you have to curtail the freedom of others in exchange of impossible to keep promises to make others future brighter. One just will find ways to use theories and ideologies to innovate on how to exploit the others..
A: That is because modern democracy rules out the choice of zero taxes on all citizens. If you have a poll among the citizens where you ask each citizen whether he/ she would like the Govt. to withdraw all taxes on him/ her, everyone will vote for zero taxes.
Q: What if the question is: Tax others and not me'?
A: Everyone will vote Yes. But this cannot be implemented as it is impossible to leave each person without tax while making others pay taxes. You need a cut -off to satisfy jealousy. The poorer people would be allowed to be granted to effectively enjoy their choice based on jealousy. So the closest question one can try is : Tax only those richer than I am. Everyone will again vote YES. But you will get majority satisfied if you impose no taxes on the bottom 51% of income-earners.
Q: So, you mean to say that modern democracy is based on satisfaction of jealousy of the majority.
A: You are right. Assume there is no jealousy, all taxes will be rejected by referendum.
Q: That cannot be true. Many people will be willing to pay taxes to enable the Govt. to take care of national security, law and order, public health, education, public health.
A: Yes, most people would be agreeable to your view. But this is because of the assumption that the Govt. are not capable of running commercial businesses and making huge profits and not capable of doing philanthropy.
Q: What do you mean?
A: Assume that Govt can run the most efficient commercial business and make more money than the private corporations. Assume Govt. is philanthropic. The, a Govt. can earn as much money as it needs to meet all expenses is budgets for and the entire budget would be philanthropic efforts to provide national security, internal security, justice administration, education, health-care and infrastructure and science. Even the Govt. can seek donations from the people instead of taxing the people. Just like Bill Gates running Microsoft, Govt runs big businesses in competition with private corporations, makes huge money and uses the entire surplus profits to Govt. as donations to fund govt. expenditure. If Govts can make policies, guide and regulate companies, govts. may be well qualified to run businesses and do better than the private sector.
Q: Do you mean that 50% or more of the manufacturing and service sector companies/firms shall be owned and managed by the Govt.? That is nationalization ans socialism!
A: Whatever you choose to do you are going to aim at socialism only in modern democracy. You can have more of tax-dependent socialism or you can have more of tax-independent socialism. But. Govts. that are scared about controlling angry rebellious crowds of citizens generally rely more on tax-dependent socialism and call their countries liberal democracies. Those countries where Govs. have the muscle power to throttle opposition of any kind rely more on tax-independent socialism and call their countries people's democracy or republic. Which ever way one goes, democracy and republics will necessarily be a grand design of massive exploitation of the people by the Govts for the smart and mighty few.
Q: What is the solution then to end this extensive exploitation.
A: In the last millennium, the solution to the problem of exploitation of the people was found out by great philosophers time and again. As it turned out each of their solution (like monarchy to democracy, capitalism to socialism, multi-party electoral systems to single party dictatorship of the proletariat)have been successful in replacing exploitation of the people by another system of exploitation of the people.
Q: Philosophers and political thought leaders do not appear to be as smart, talented or gifted as the natural scientists or the actual politicians are. So long as one has the the strong urge to rule over others to make a worthwhile living, you have to curtail the freedom of others in exchange of impossible to keep promises to make others future brighter. One just will find ways to use theories and ideologies to innovate on how to exploit the others..
May 5, 2009
Tax away the Minority Rich
Q: The political leaders are against use of tax payers' money for bail out of private corporations whose executives acted irresponsibly and tooke away large sums of moneies as bonuses.
A: You are right. They also like corporations to pay more taxes.
Q: It means that corporations as a section of tax payers should contribute more money for bailing out corporates in difficulty.
A: That maybe one of looking at the issue. But corporates that need bailout now already contributed large amounts of taxes when they and the economy were doing good. The Govt. collected huge amount of taxes from the booming construction activity and financial services activity. Where did all these money go? Did the Govt. not save some of this taxes that could now be used for bail-outs? Bailouts do not help merely the bailed out companies but also the recession-afflicted economy in general.
Q: So where did the money go?
A: In democracy one does not go back to past: it is the current majority opinion on whom we like tomanage our future that matters.
Q: What is the majority opinion?
A: Tax the bad and the rich more and more of their incomes and wealth..
Q: Who are bad and who the rich are?
A: Corporate executives and the corporations, and of course the taxpayers in the top income bracket. Consider the US economy, the largest in the World. US population is a more than 300 million. Exclude the children, home-makers and the very poor who does not ean enough income to pay taxes, you get slightly less than 50% of the population who pays income tax. By majority rule, more than 50% do not pay tax. They could not have. Of those who pay tex, again by majority rule, 50% contribute only about 3.3% of taxes going to the Govt.This is good because they earn only 13.4 % of income of all tax payers. They are poor. It is better that these 50% of the tax payers do not pay taxes at all. Instead the top earning 5% tax payers whose share in all taxpayers' gross income is 33.4% and currently contribute 37% of the taxes collected by the Govt., pay just a little bit more,say 10 % more taxes (ie. contribute 40% of income tax revenues).
Q: That is a great solution. The top 5% contribute a little more and we reduce the number of tax payers' by half.
A: Yes, that is the appropriate application of the Goldebn Rule by Majority in modern democracy.
A: You are right. They also like corporations to pay more taxes.
Q: It means that corporations as a section of tax payers should contribute more money for bailing out corporates in difficulty.
A: That maybe one of looking at the issue. But corporates that need bailout now already contributed large amounts of taxes when they and the economy were doing good. The Govt. collected huge amount of taxes from the booming construction activity and financial services activity. Where did all these money go? Did the Govt. not save some of this taxes that could now be used for bail-outs? Bailouts do not help merely the bailed out companies but also the recession-afflicted economy in general.
Q: So where did the money go?
A: In democracy one does not go back to past: it is the current majority opinion on whom we like tomanage our future that matters.
Q: What is the majority opinion?
A: Tax the bad and the rich more and more of their incomes and wealth..
Q: Who are bad and who the rich are?
A: Corporate executives and the corporations, and of course the taxpayers in the top income bracket. Consider the US economy, the largest in the World. US population is a more than 300 million. Exclude the children, home-makers and the very poor who does not ean enough income to pay taxes, you get slightly less than 50% of the population who pays income tax. By majority rule, more than 50% do not pay tax. They could not have. Of those who pay tex, again by majority rule, 50% contribute only about 3.3% of taxes going to the Govt.This is good because they earn only 13.4 % of income of all tax payers. They are poor. It is better that these 50% of the tax payers do not pay taxes at all. Instead the top earning 5% tax payers whose share in all taxpayers' gross income is 33.4% and currently contribute 37% of the taxes collected by the Govt., pay just a little bit more,say 10 % more taxes (ie. contribute 40% of income tax revenues).
Q: That is a great solution. The top 5% contribute a little more and we reduce the number of tax payers' by half.
A: Yes, that is the appropriate application of the Goldebn Rule by Majority in modern democracy.
May 3, 2009
Democray Ruler is Always Right
Q: High tax regimes can cause problems of companies getting into trouble and individuals reducing work effort.
A: Yes, but the choice of level of taxation is democratic choice. If the highly taxed corporations suffer and are unable to create more and more employment directly or through linkage effects, the level of taxation may be reduced by a future Govt. through democratic choice. Both high and low taxes are good as and when the choice of high or low is made by governments chosen democratically. And in democracy, there is scope for opposite views: so the democratically chosen opposition party has the obligation to demand for lower taxes when ruling Govt. wants higher taxes and vice versa. In today's democracy, every policy is correct: so you apply the rule of majority to choose policy. That is the basic rationality. In earlier times, the choice was always wrong because the choice was not made by majority rule.
Q: But the high deficits financed by high debts are supposed to be bad.
A: Everything is Good in democracy since the choice is always made by democractically installed Govt. Truth depends on the majority opinion in democracy.
Q: But high debts incurred today will be a burden to the future generation. They are not fully participating in democratic choice.
A: You are right. But any debt created by Govt within the country by borrowing from its own citizens, is also an asset of the citizens. As the future generations bear the burden of repaying the debt, they also receive the proceeds of debt retired by Govt. in future. So, it is democratically fair.
Q: So we should not worry about high national debt?
A: Follow the majority rule and forget worries unless you are in the opposition whose task is to create worries over extant govt. policies.
Q: What about debt from other countries?
A: That is really the headache of foreign countries that give us loans.
Q: Why foriegn loans need not be repaid?
A: They have to be repaid. But such repayment is possible not by giving money. A foriegn loan taken is a purchasing power borrowed and is used to buy goods and services from abroad. Repayment of foreign loans will mean foreigners will have to paid by goods and services produced or owned by us. If the foreign country does not buy our goods and services, they cannot take back the loan.
Q: Then one day China has to buy up US goods and services to get repaid?
A: Yes.
Q: Then why does China give so much loans to America by supplying goods cheap to America.
A: Because China is a People's Republic. What their Govt. does is always correct.
A: Yes, but the choice of level of taxation is democratic choice. If the highly taxed corporations suffer and are unable to create more and more employment directly or through linkage effects, the level of taxation may be reduced by a future Govt. through democratic choice. Both high and low taxes are good as and when the choice of high or low is made by governments chosen democratically. And in democracy, there is scope for opposite views: so the democratically chosen opposition party has the obligation to demand for lower taxes when ruling Govt. wants higher taxes and vice versa. In today's democracy, every policy is correct: so you apply the rule of majority to choose policy. That is the basic rationality. In earlier times, the choice was always wrong because the choice was not made by majority rule.
Q: But the high deficits financed by high debts are supposed to be bad.
A: Everything is Good in democracy since the choice is always made by democractically installed Govt. Truth depends on the majority opinion in democracy.
Q: But high debts incurred today will be a burden to the future generation. They are not fully participating in democratic choice.
A: You are right. But any debt created by Govt within the country by borrowing from its own citizens, is also an asset of the citizens. As the future generations bear the burden of repaying the debt, they also receive the proceeds of debt retired by Govt. in future. So, it is democratically fair.
Q: So we should not worry about high national debt?
A: Follow the majority rule and forget worries unless you are in the opposition whose task is to create worries over extant govt. policies.
Q: What about debt from other countries?
A: That is really the headache of foreign countries that give us loans.
Q: Why foriegn loans need not be repaid?
A: They have to be repaid. But such repayment is possible not by giving money. A foriegn loan taken is a purchasing power borrowed and is used to buy goods and services from abroad. Repayment of foreign loans will mean foreigners will have to paid by goods and services produced or owned by us. If the foreign country does not buy our goods and services, they cannot take back the loan.
Q: Then one day China has to buy up US goods and services to get repaid?
A: Yes.
Q: Then why does China give so much loans to America by supplying goods cheap to America.
A: Because China is a People's Republic. What their Govt. does is always correct.
Apr 30, 2009
Tax Non-voting Citizens
Q: The question remained unanswered in the previous show: why does Government need higher and higher tax revenues?
A: Purpose of the Government is to spend as much as possible under any circumstance. The higher is the Government expenditure higher is the value and importance of the Govt. The number of problems afflicting the country is never going down. The Government must solve all these problems like new diseases, new religions, new types of marriages, movement of people across borders, promotion or saving of democracy elsewhere, aid to poor people globally, maintaining external diplomatic policy for alliances and international peace, maintain and grow establishments to regulate the behavior of human beings in so many different areas of their activities, promote education and health care, ensure adequate care for the babies, education for the children, health care for the poor, ensure adequate income for retired senior citizens, care for the mothers, care for the workers, care for the immigrants, care for the wild life, care for the drug addicts and smokers, care for the unemployed, care for the mentally and physically handicapped, care for the sports persons, care for the teachers, care for.. . Such a caring institutions like Govt. needs lots of money because care cannot come without cost. So Government requires increasing amounts of money.
Q: Why can't every one care for themselves?
A: First, many people do not have money to care for themselves. Like children or old people. Second, private care is costly to buy: Govt care comes almost free. Third, many people just do not care either for them or for others and so Government has to enter. Fourth, many people do not know how best to care: this is known only to Govt. because Govt. can buy the best knowledge wholesale at the cheapest cost and make available that knowledge virtually free to all. Finally, what happens when there is bad recession like the one we currently have? Govt. has to spend to raise demand and arrest recession and stop prices from falling to levels at which no producer or seller will be willing to produce and sell. And, when big banks are about to fall, Govt. has to save them by giving them money as otherwise many people will lose jobs and many persons savings with such banks may erode in value significantly. Govt. therefore needs money to bail out big firms and their employees.
Q: Where does the Govt. get all this increasing amount of money from? It just prints currencies?
A: Unfortunately printing currencies does not itself get Government purchasing power to finance its spending. If the Govt. prints double the amount of currency now available and starts using that currency, it results in higher demand for whatever govt. wants to purchase. Given the fixed supply of goods and services available at any point of time, higher demand results in higher prices. So Govt. may buy but some other individual and firm buyers have to be satisfied with lower quantity of purchases than before. Yes, through inflation other people's buying is reduced and Govt. spends with printed currency. Since Govt. is caring and does not like people to suffer from inflation in this manner, Govt. tries to spend by (a) raising tax revenues, (b) charging fees for giving its services and (c) taking loans from the people who save from their income.
Q: Does that mean that govt. takes a portion of the income of individuals and firms in some manner to spend?
A: Correct. Govt. taxes the income of individuals and firms means transferring income of individuals to Govt. by law. When individuals purchase something they pay a higher price than what the sellers keep for themselves because the seller gives a portion of the price paid by the purchaser to the Govt. as sales tax or value added tax. All these are straight transfer of income from individuals and firms to Govt. But such taxes and fees collected by the Govt. seldom proves adequate to meet govt.'s growing expenditure. So, govt must raise taxes, charge higher fees and just borrow from individuals and firms. Most Governments therefore run huge deficits that are covered by taking loans from individuals and firms.
Q: But how will a Govt. always in deficit repay the loans it takes and pay interest on such loans?
A: Simple. The Govt. takes more and more loans again and again. After all there will always be some rich persons who will have large savings and whatever poor people saves goes into banks and mutual funds which in turn gives loans to Govt.
Q: Then, people must get angry with the Govt. taking away their incomes through taxes and taking away their savings that are never effectively returned?
A: You are right, people get angry. So, govt is careful to see that there are more and more people who pay very little taxes and very little direct loans to Govt That is why taxes are high on rich people and low on poor people. In some countries poor people who do not pay income taxes or pay very little are the vast majority. And, that is what democracy is all about. Democracy is the rule of the majority and majority must be least taxed. Then the majority will vote for one govt. or the other.
Q: What happens to the minority of tax payers?
A: They protest for sometime and then try to reduce their income so that they have to pay less taxes. This helps sustain democracy with more and more people joining the ranks of low tax paying class. Those who are unwilling to reduce their income, try to evade taxes or just keep paying high taxes.
Q: But tax evasion is bad and criminal offence.
A: So, most people therefore reduce their work effort and income. Except the corporations. Bigger corporations try to increase their income. Their incomes should ultimately flow down to the shareholders but the Govt. is clever enough to tax away part of the income before they get distributed to shareholder of these companies. And, since there are millions of shareholders they do not really come to realize that the Govt. is taking away a part of their incomes that would come through the companies. Specially, the Government, the media and the intelligentsia keeps telling the people that it is the corporations who create most nuisances like pollution, job cuts, lower wages, higher prices, fat salaries and bonuses for executives to the detriment of the shareholders, flout accounting principles and prudential codes. So higher the taxes on corporations the better are the voters pleased.
Q; But heavily taxed corporations may ultimately get into trouble?
A: They do. But that maybe taken up in the next episode day next time.
A: Purpose of the Government is to spend as much as possible under any circumstance. The higher is the Government expenditure higher is the value and importance of the Govt. The number of problems afflicting the country is never going down. The Government must solve all these problems like new diseases, new religions, new types of marriages, movement of people across borders, promotion or saving of democracy elsewhere, aid to poor people globally, maintaining external diplomatic policy for alliances and international peace, maintain and grow establishments to regulate the behavior of human beings in so many different areas of their activities, promote education and health care, ensure adequate care for the babies, education for the children, health care for the poor, ensure adequate income for retired senior citizens, care for the mothers, care for the workers, care for the immigrants, care for the wild life, care for the drug addicts and smokers, care for the unemployed, care for the mentally and physically handicapped, care for the sports persons, care for the teachers, care for.. . Such a caring institutions like Govt. needs lots of money because care cannot come without cost. So Government requires increasing amounts of money.
Q: Why can't every one care for themselves?
A: First, many people do not have money to care for themselves. Like children or old people. Second, private care is costly to buy: Govt care comes almost free. Third, many people just do not care either for them or for others and so Government has to enter. Fourth, many people do not know how best to care: this is known only to Govt. because Govt. can buy the best knowledge wholesale at the cheapest cost and make available that knowledge virtually free to all. Finally, what happens when there is bad recession like the one we currently have? Govt. has to spend to raise demand and arrest recession and stop prices from falling to levels at which no producer or seller will be willing to produce and sell. And, when big banks are about to fall, Govt. has to save them by giving them money as otherwise many people will lose jobs and many persons savings with such banks may erode in value significantly. Govt. therefore needs money to bail out big firms and their employees.
Q: Where does the Govt. get all this increasing amount of money from? It just prints currencies?
A: Unfortunately printing currencies does not itself get Government purchasing power to finance its spending. If the Govt. prints double the amount of currency now available and starts using that currency, it results in higher demand for whatever govt. wants to purchase. Given the fixed supply of goods and services available at any point of time, higher demand results in higher prices. So Govt. may buy but some other individual and firm buyers have to be satisfied with lower quantity of purchases than before. Yes, through inflation other people's buying is reduced and Govt. spends with printed currency. Since Govt. is caring and does not like people to suffer from inflation in this manner, Govt. tries to spend by (a) raising tax revenues, (b) charging fees for giving its services and (c) taking loans from the people who save from their income.
Q: Does that mean that govt. takes a portion of the income of individuals and firms in some manner to spend?
A: Correct. Govt. taxes the income of individuals and firms means transferring income of individuals to Govt. by law. When individuals purchase something they pay a higher price than what the sellers keep for themselves because the seller gives a portion of the price paid by the purchaser to the Govt. as sales tax or value added tax. All these are straight transfer of income from individuals and firms to Govt. But such taxes and fees collected by the Govt. seldom proves adequate to meet govt.'s growing expenditure. So, govt must raise taxes, charge higher fees and just borrow from individuals and firms. Most Governments therefore run huge deficits that are covered by taking loans from individuals and firms.
Q: But how will a Govt. always in deficit repay the loans it takes and pay interest on such loans?
A: Simple. The Govt. takes more and more loans again and again. After all there will always be some rich persons who will have large savings and whatever poor people saves goes into banks and mutual funds which in turn gives loans to Govt.
Q: Then, people must get angry with the Govt. taking away their incomes through taxes and taking away their savings that are never effectively returned?
A: You are right, people get angry. So, govt is careful to see that there are more and more people who pay very little taxes and very little direct loans to Govt That is why taxes are high on rich people and low on poor people. In some countries poor people who do not pay income taxes or pay very little are the vast majority. And, that is what democracy is all about. Democracy is the rule of the majority and majority must be least taxed. Then the majority will vote for one govt. or the other.
Q: What happens to the minority of tax payers?
A: They protest for sometime and then try to reduce their income so that they have to pay less taxes. This helps sustain democracy with more and more people joining the ranks of low tax paying class. Those who are unwilling to reduce their income, try to evade taxes or just keep paying high taxes.
Q: But tax evasion is bad and criminal offence.
A: So, most people therefore reduce their work effort and income. Except the corporations. Bigger corporations try to increase their income. Their incomes should ultimately flow down to the shareholders but the Govt. is clever enough to tax away part of the income before they get distributed to shareholder of these companies. And, since there are millions of shareholders they do not really come to realize that the Govt. is taking away a part of their incomes that would come through the companies. Specially, the Government, the media and the intelligentsia keeps telling the people that it is the corporations who create most nuisances like pollution, job cuts, lower wages, higher prices, fat salaries and bonuses for executives to the detriment of the shareholders, flout accounting principles and prudential codes. So higher the taxes on corporations the better are the voters pleased.
Q; But heavily taxed corporations may ultimately get into trouble?
A: They do. But that maybe taken up in the next episode day next time.
Apr 21, 2009
Maximizing Tax
Taxing Democracy
The oldest democracy of the latest epoch of politics is under turmoil. Some citizens are up against proposal to raise taxes on earnings above a cut-off limit. They organized tea parties that those who like others to be taxed as racists and irrational. Those who wanted taxes to be rationalized and reduced, and nt increased, felt sad and dejected with the apprehension of a higher taxes on all of them soon. God felt pity for them and sent them an answering machine that would make them happy if they seek answers to their questions.
The answering machine was installed by TV channel and the Question and Answer show was telecast live. Here is the transcript.
Q: Who has sent you here?
A: The God of Democratic Science.
Q; What's Democratic Science?
A: It's the Science of Society developed democratically.
Q: What's the purpose of this science?
A: To eradicate all exploitation and unfair social practices.
Q: Why is it called a Science?
A: It is a Science because it is the most democratic. It's hypothesis are logically and empirically verified to be correct.
Q: Why has God sent you here?
A: To enable you to get answers to your questions so that you become wise listening to me and forget your worries like the one arising from the threat of higher taxes.
Q: Can we ask you questions?
A: Yes, as many as you like. But only one at a time. That is the reason I am in this REALITY show.
Q. Why should taxes be raised?
A: Because taxes are lower now and can be lowered again if required.
Q: Doesn't higher taxes mean suffering for the tax payers?
A: No. higher tax are beneficial to all. When taxes are raised, they incentivize some people to reduce income to reduce tax incidence and reduce economic disparities. Some people get the incentive to become innovators of devices to evade taxes. Some others happily pay taxes.
Q: But why should one pay taxes at all?
A: Because it has been decided democratically to tax as much as the democratically elected Governments wish to spend.
Q: Why should Governments spend as much as they like?
A: Because that has been decided by democratically elected representatives who legislate.
Q: But why do democratically elected legislators decide to tax or raise taxes/
A: Because that is the way to strengthen democracy. Most people are poor and do not like to pay taxes and want richer people to pay more and more taxes. The representatives want to get votes. They must become popular. That is why they legislate for higher and higher and more and more taxes.
Q: Isn't that contradictory to become popular by imposing higher taxes?
A: Not really. What is the percentage of current voters in the total number of voters. Not the dominant one. With higher cut-offs in the lower range, the percentage will continuously decline. More people will vote for higher taxes because most people will not get hurt by higher taxes. Rather,a dis utility of a voter paying an additional dollar as taxes is much lower than the utility derived by the voters who do not pay taxes (or pay lower taxes) from additional dollar of tax paid by someone else. This is called externality in (negative) tax consumption. So higher taxes are very popular as per democratic science principles.
Q: But why do Govt. need higher and higher tax revenues?
A: We have no more time for this episode of the show. Wait for the next episode next day next time.
The oldest democracy of the latest epoch of politics is under turmoil. Some citizens are up against proposal to raise taxes on earnings above a cut-off limit. They organized tea parties that those who like others to be taxed as racists and irrational. Those who wanted taxes to be rationalized and reduced, and nt increased, felt sad and dejected with the apprehension of a higher taxes on all of them soon. God felt pity for them and sent them an answering machine that would make them happy if they seek answers to their questions.
The answering machine was installed by TV channel and the Question and Answer show was telecast live. Here is the transcript.
Q: Who has sent you here?
A: The God of Democratic Science.
Q; What's Democratic Science?
A: It's the Science of Society developed democratically.
Q: What's the purpose of this science?
A: To eradicate all exploitation and unfair social practices.
Q: Why is it called a Science?
A: It is a Science because it is the most democratic. It's hypothesis are logically and empirically verified to be correct.
Q: Why has God sent you here?
A: To enable you to get answers to your questions so that you become wise listening to me and forget your worries like the one arising from the threat of higher taxes.
Q: Can we ask you questions?
A: Yes, as many as you like. But only one at a time. That is the reason I am in this REALITY show.
Q. Why should taxes be raised?
A: Because taxes are lower now and can be lowered again if required.
Q: Doesn't higher taxes mean suffering for the tax payers?
A: No. higher tax are beneficial to all. When taxes are raised, they incentivize some people to reduce income to reduce tax incidence and reduce economic disparities. Some people get the incentive to become innovators of devices to evade taxes. Some others happily pay taxes.
Q: But why should one pay taxes at all?
A: Because it has been decided democratically to tax as much as the democratically elected Governments wish to spend.
Q: Why should Governments spend as much as they like?
A: Because that has been decided by democratically elected representatives who legislate.
Q: But why do democratically elected legislators decide to tax or raise taxes/
A: Because that is the way to strengthen democracy. Most people are poor and do not like to pay taxes and want richer people to pay more and more taxes. The representatives want to get votes. They must become popular. That is why they legislate for higher and higher and more and more taxes.
Q: Isn't that contradictory to become popular by imposing higher taxes?
A: Not really. What is the percentage of current voters in the total number of voters. Not the dominant one. With higher cut-offs in the lower range, the percentage will continuously decline. More people will vote for higher taxes because most people will not get hurt by higher taxes. Rather,a dis utility of a voter paying an additional dollar as taxes is much lower than the utility derived by the voters who do not pay taxes (or pay lower taxes) from additional dollar of tax paid by someone else. This is called externality in (negative) tax consumption. So higher taxes are very popular as per democratic science principles.
Q: But why do Govt. need higher and higher tax revenues?
A: We have no more time for this episode of the show. Wait for the next episode next day next time.
Monarchs of Democracy
Flourishing Democratic, Republic Monarchs in the Third Millennium
The recent fall of the King in Nepal did not herald the end of the last remains of Monarchy in human civilization. Old wine in a new bottle is more attractive and addictive but the toxicity and the taste remain intact. The philosophers, dead long ago after they had propounded and argued for Democracy and Republics may be happy that virtually all countries in the modern world are democracies and / or republics; but the fact remains Monarchs have proliferated and flourished since I had studied Modern World History as a school student 45 years ago. The chapters on the rise of the Parliament in Great Britain, the French Revolution and failure of Napoleon to establish a dynastic rule, the American War of Independence and Abraham Lincoln, the Marxian call for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Russian Revolution, the mysticism of Mao’s People Republic of China and the socialism of East European states and finally the establishment of the Socialist Democratic Republic in India (not secular at that time) were fascinating and absorbing readings in history that would have firmly convinced the teenagers that the earth had been cleansed of Monarchial atrocities, exploitation and oppression.
Forty-five years down the line, Democracies and Republics of the World can boast of a distinct class of monarchs who are much more powerful, wealthier, dishonest, exploitative, oppressive and irresponsible than the monarchs that ruled the World for centuries until, say 300 years ago. We now have much richer countries throughout the World that can afford more monarchs to enjoy life than before. Such monarchs have proliferated and flourished in religious democracies like Iran, peoples’ republics like China, secular democratic republics like India, post-glasnost democracy in Russia, Military-controlled democracies in Bangladesh and Pakistan, Communist democracies like Cuba and North Korea, strife-ridden democracies in Africa and Latin America and economic disaster spreading, color-blind democracy like the United States of America.
To find out the reality and identify the modern monarchs and their kingdoms, one needs to lift the democratic / republic veil.
2. Before one is able to lift the veil, it may be worthwhile recollecting little that one knows about the formal definitions and practice of different organizational forms of the political state in different countries. Monarchy is the single or sole ruler of a state, the hereditary (often constitutional) head of a state like king or queen, or is a person or thing that surpasses others of the same kind. A monarch enjoys supreme and absolute power as the head of state, for life or until abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state”. It was a common form of government in the world during the ancient and medievall times. Holding unlimited political power in the state is not the defining characteristic, as many constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom and Thailand are considered monarchies. Hereditary may be a common characteristic, but there are elective monarchies like the pope, sovereign of the Vatican City State, is elected by the College of Cardinals). On the other hand, some states may have hereditary rulers and yet call themselves as republics (the Dutch Republic, or the Fiji.
3. In a republic state, the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government: In most modern republics, the head of state is termed president. In republics democratic republics like India, the head of state is selected for a given period of time or term/s, with / without restriction, through a direct or indirect election. This type of democracy was used in ancient India and Rome. If the head of state of a republic is at the same time the head of government, this is called a presidential system (United States). In semi-presidential systems and parliamentary republics, the head of state is different from the head of government prime minister/premier/ chancellor. Republic head of state may have the characteristics of a monarch: some republics have republics a president with life-long tenure and powers to make the post hereditary (Syrian Arab Republic). Monarchies can also resemble a republic in some ways: the political power of monarchs may be purely ceremonial or the monarch may be replaced by the people through some kind of referendrum.
4. Republics are often associated with democracy but there does not seem to be one to one correspondence. Before the concept of "one equal vote per adult" got generally around the middle of the last century, in all democracies the right to vote depended on one's financial situation, sex, race, age, etc. Political parties in many representative democracies fear and abhor direct democratic instrument like referendum. Marxist and communist republics / democracies that seek to establish the dictatorship of the proletariats seldom allow political freedom and hate reforms like glasnost and perestroika of Gorvachov in Russia. In Cuba’s basic democracy, "popular committees" allow participation from citizens at the local level but far-reaching political power is beyond the proletariat mass. However, the communist / socialist rulers have used the term’s peoples’ republic and people’s democracies quite extensivelt to describe countries like China, former East Germany, North Korea and Mongolia and other countries that practised complete totalitarianism and hence were essentially opposite to the concept of either democracy or republic.
6. In a democracy, power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system and ideally supposed to be based on two principles: (a) all members of the society (citizens) should have equal access to power and (b) all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. No real world democracy seemed to have fully adopted these principles in practice. Democracies do not as yet know how to reconcile through democratic process "majority rule" and mionority rights, neither has it been possible to establish procedures that are fair and ensure substantive competitive elections. Marxist revolutionary, Che Gievara, once said "Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians." Real world democracies have so far failed to devised mechanisms that would make democracy an efficient social / political system. Efficiency of democracy depends on the assumptions of rational voters, competitive elections, and relatively low political transactions costs: these assumptions are far not valid in reality.
Voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics. Even if they have information they are and politically conscious, they are generally poor interpreters of information. Different sections of the societies are often strongly biassed by their sectional interests rather than the national interests. While on the one hand, democracy has remained grossly inefficient as a political system, the communists, religious leaders and conservatives tied to cultural traditions dislike attempts to make democracies more efficient because democratic freedom leads to questioning of the authority of rulers and leaders, of the cultural and social codes in favor of respect to the clergy and the seniors and even of the powers of God.
7. If the real world democracies and republics are in so weak state and so poor in quality despite the politicians claim that democracies and republics are the best form of poltical organization, it is hardly surprising that these political regimes have become active breeding grounds of and covers for implicit monarchs and monarchies. Essentially, the concept of democracy is merely an extension of the concept of democracy. It accepts the fundamental superiority of and absolute power of the Ruler in relation to all other citizens of a State. The concept of democracy does not question the distinction of the Ruler and the Ruled. It only establishes procedures and a rational for such procedures for choosing the ruler: the Ruler in a demcracy is chosen by some form of selection process in which citizens participate and this participation of the citizens in the choice of the Ruler by majority votes is believed to be a good thing in that each citizen can perceive to have enjoyed equal power in choosing the Ruler by casting his/ her vote. Just as in the case of Monarchies, there is not just a single person Ruler in practice. Beyond the size of a family, the ruler of a group has often to be a team headed by a leader: there would be various government departments and minister and bureaucracies through which administration of the Ruler functions. Democracies and republics may also allow citizens participation in the choice of the entire Ruler network from the national level to provincial level to local area level. The ruler network is hierarchial not only in terms of geographical areas but also in terms of functional areas like legislation, administration of policies, internal security, external security, economy management, international relations, etc.
8. The essential emphasis is only on the choice of the Rulers at various levels through some process of election/ selection by the citizens. Clearly, a large number of Rulers of varying powers are chosen and once chosen each elected ruler is free to enjoy the power to rule over others in the respective jurisdiction. Democracies and Republics are nothing but legimising the rulers by making the citizens feel that they enjoy the ultimate power to elect the rulers who will actually enjoy the real powers to rule. Democracies and republics are therefore are formal systems of creation of monarchs. These have really nothing to with justice, equality, peace, progress or efficiency and does not contribute in any way to fulfilling national aspirations or eradication of poverty or protection of human rights or eradication of corruption. The probability of having a good king delivering good governance for 40 years in a period of say 200 years of monarchy is higher than the probability of good governance for 40 years in 200 years of democratic or republic rule.
The above may appear strong negative assertions about democracy and republic rule. But if one closely studies the inherent structure of democracies and republics and evaluate the empirical evidence, it would become clear that democracies and republics are nothing but weaker versions of essentially monarchial form of government. We will explore these assertions in this series.
The recent fall of the King in Nepal did not herald the end of the last remains of Monarchy in human civilization. Old wine in a new bottle is more attractive and addictive but the toxicity and the taste remain intact. The philosophers, dead long ago after they had propounded and argued for Democracy and Republics may be happy that virtually all countries in the modern world are democracies and / or republics; but the fact remains Monarchs have proliferated and flourished since I had studied Modern World History as a school student 45 years ago. The chapters on the rise of the Parliament in Great Britain, the French Revolution and failure of Napoleon to establish a dynastic rule, the American War of Independence and Abraham Lincoln, the Marxian call for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Russian Revolution, the mysticism of Mao’s People Republic of China and the socialism of East European states and finally the establishment of the Socialist Democratic Republic in India (not secular at that time) were fascinating and absorbing readings in history that would have firmly convinced the teenagers that the earth had been cleansed of Monarchial atrocities, exploitation and oppression.
Forty-five years down the line, Democracies and Republics of the World can boast of a distinct class of monarchs who are much more powerful, wealthier, dishonest, exploitative, oppressive and irresponsible than the monarchs that ruled the World for centuries until, say 300 years ago. We now have much richer countries throughout the World that can afford more monarchs to enjoy life than before. Such monarchs have proliferated and flourished in religious democracies like Iran, peoples’ republics like China, secular democratic republics like India, post-glasnost democracy in Russia, Military-controlled democracies in Bangladesh and Pakistan, Communist democracies like Cuba and North Korea, strife-ridden democracies in Africa and Latin America and economic disaster spreading, color-blind democracy like the United States of America.
To find out the reality and identify the modern monarchs and their kingdoms, one needs to lift the democratic / republic veil.
2. Before one is able to lift the veil, it may be worthwhile recollecting little that one knows about the formal definitions and practice of different organizational forms of the political state in different countries. Monarchy is the single or sole ruler of a state, the hereditary (often constitutional) head of a state like king or queen, or is a person or thing that surpasses others of the same kind. A monarch enjoys supreme and absolute power as the head of state, for life or until abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state”. It was a common form of government in the world during the ancient and medievall times. Holding unlimited political power in the state is not the defining characteristic, as many constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom and Thailand are considered monarchies. Hereditary may be a common characteristic, but there are elective monarchies like the pope, sovereign of the Vatican City State, is elected by the College of Cardinals). On the other hand, some states may have hereditary rulers and yet call themselves as republics (the Dutch Republic, or the Fiji.
3. In a republic state, the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government: In most modern republics, the head of state is termed president. In republics democratic republics like India, the head of state is selected for a given period of time or term/s, with / without restriction, through a direct or indirect election. This type of democracy was used in ancient India and Rome. If the head of state of a republic is at the same time the head of government, this is called a presidential system (United States). In semi-presidential systems and parliamentary republics, the head of state is different from the head of government prime minister/premier/ chancellor. Republic head of state may have the characteristics of a monarch: some republics have republics a president with life-long tenure and powers to make the post hereditary (Syrian Arab Republic). Monarchies can also resemble a republic in some ways: the political power of monarchs may be purely ceremonial or the monarch may be replaced by the people through some kind of referendrum.
4. Republics are often associated with democracy but there does not seem to be one to one correspondence. Before the concept of "one equal vote per adult" got generally around the middle of the last century, in all democracies the right to vote depended on one's financial situation, sex, race, age, etc. Political parties in many representative democracies fear and abhor direct democratic instrument like referendum. Marxist and communist republics / democracies that seek to establish the dictatorship of the proletariats seldom allow political freedom and hate reforms like glasnost and perestroika of Gorvachov in Russia. In Cuba’s basic democracy, "popular committees" allow participation from citizens at the local level but far-reaching political power is beyond the proletariat mass. However, the communist / socialist rulers have used the term’s peoples’ republic and people’s democracies quite extensivelt to describe countries like China, former East Germany, North Korea and Mongolia and other countries that practised complete totalitarianism and hence were essentially opposite to the concept of either democracy or republic.
6. In a democracy, power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system and ideally supposed to be based on two principles: (a) all members of the society (citizens) should have equal access to power and (b) all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. No real world democracy seemed to have fully adopted these principles in practice. Democracies do not as yet know how to reconcile through democratic process "majority rule" and mionority rights, neither has it been possible to establish procedures that are fair and ensure substantive competitive elections. Marxist revolutionary, Che Gievara, once said "Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians." Real world democracies have so far failed to devised mechanisms that would make democracy an efficient social / political system. Efficiency of democracy depends on the assumptions of rational voters, competitive elections, and relatively low political transactions costs: these assumptions are far not valid in reality.
Voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics. Even if they have information they are and politically conscious, they are generally poor interpreters of information. Different sections of the societies are often strongly biassed by their sectional interests rather than the national interests. While on the one hand, democracy has remained grossly inefficient as a political system, the communists, religious leaders and conservatives tied to cultural traditions dislike attempts to make democracies more efficient because democratic freedom leads to questioning of the authority of rulers and leaders, of the cultural and social codes in favor of respect to the clergy and the seniors and even of the powers of God.
7. If the real world democracies and republics are in so weak state and so poor in quality despite the politicians claim that democracies and republics are the best form of poltical organization, it is hardly surprising that these political regimes have become active breeding grounds of and covers for implicit monarchs and monarchies. Essentially, the concept of democracy is merely an extension of the concept of democracy. It accepts the fundamental superiority of and absolute power of the Ruler in relation to all other citizens of a State. The concept of democracy does not question the distinction of the Ruler and the Ruled. It only establishes procedures and a rational for such procedures for choosing the ruler: the Ruler in a demcracy is chosen by some form of selection process in which citizens participate and this participation of the citizens in the choice of the Ruler by majority votes is believed to be a good thing in that each citizen can perceive to have enjoyed equal power in choosing the Ruler by casting his/ her vote. Just as in the case of Monarchies, there is not just a single person Ruler in practice. Beyond the size of a family, the ruler of a group has often to be a team headed by a leader: there would be various government departments and minister and bureaucracies through which administration of the Ruler functions. Democracies and republics may also allow citizens participation in the choice of the entire Ruler network from the national level to provincial level to local area level. The ruler network is hierarchial not only in terms of geographical areas but also in terms of functional areas like legislation, administration of policies, internal security, external security, economy management, international relations, etc.
8. The essential emphasis is only on the choice of the Rulers at various levels through some process of election/ selection by the citizens. Clearly, a large number of Rulers of varying powers are chosen and once chosen each elected ruler is free to enjoy the power to rule over others in the respective jurisdiction. Democracies and Republics are nothing but legimising the rulers by making the citizens feel that they enjoy the ultimate power to elect the rulers who will actually enjoy the real powers to rule. Democracies and republics are therefore are formal systems of creation of monarchs. These have really nothing to with justice, equality, peace, progress or efficiency and does not contribute in any way to fulfilling national aspirations or eradication of poverty or protection of human rights or eradication of corruption. The probability of having a good king delivering good governance for 40 years in a period of say 200 years of monarchy is higher than the probability of good governance for 40 years in 200 years of democratic or republic rule.
The above may appear strong negative assertions about democracy and republic rule. But if one closely studies the inherent structure of democracies and republics and evaluate the empirical evidence, it would become clear that democracies and republics are nothing but weaker versions of essentially monarchial form of government. We will explore these assertions in this series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)