Its time to redefine "Democracy" in India.
A system with a success definition of a 50 % + 1 for an MLA seat, for coming to power at center or state etc., does not work anymore - since the whole time is spent "managing" rather than leading the people.
It can be better explained with three examples :
In the history of Andhra Pradesh - there are two significant periods where there was a "definitive" ruling . ( I am not debating here on corruption / subsidy policies etc.,) . The point is a leader implementing his people's agend without fear.
1. When NTR has won for the first time in Andhra Pradesh
2. When YSR has become the cheif minister for the first time.
Both times the leadership was clear - had their tasks cutout for people welfare and implemented them without fear of xyz things.
At the national level, everybody even remembers today of one particualr regime - when Mrs Indira Gandhi became the first time prime minister of India . She has revolutionarized banking, urban land ceiling etc.,
In other states, Gujarat is a standing example of leadeship.
"In all these achievements there is one commanility - the party has won with clear majority at that time with more than 60% seats."
Hence there was no fear of losing power, there was pressure from people's expectations and leaders did their best to reach them.
The extreme is the present situation in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka where people have clsoe to 50 % seats and every damn guy in the state can threaten the government. It can be some gali or jagan or xyz with 10-15 MLA's can form the camp and threaten the government and the ruling party's primary responsibility is to manage and remain in power.
If it had been 60 % for being in power, by this time there would have been either elections and people can choose Kiran or Chandrababu or Jagan - rather than the present turmoil where people are playing hide and seek and merging other political parties without any political commonlaity just to remain in power.
A system with a success definition of a 50 % + 1 for an MLA seat, for coming to power at center or state etc., does not work anymore - since the whole time is spent "managing" rather than leading the people.
It can be better explained with three examples :
In the history of Andhra Pradesh - there are two significant periods where there was a "definitive" ruling . ( I am not debating here on corruption / subsidy policies etc.,) . The point is a leader implementing his people's agend without fear.
1. When NTR has won for the first time in Andhra Pradesh
2. When YSR has become the cheif minister for the first time.
Both times the leadership was clear - had their tasks cutout for people welfare and implemented them without fear of xyz things.
At the national level, everybody even remembers today of one particualr regime - when Mrs Indira Gandhi became the first time prime minister of India . She has revolutionarized banking, urban land ceiling etc.,
In other states, Gujarat is a standing example of leadeship.
"In all these achievements there is one commanility - the party has won with clear majority at that time with more than 60% seats."
Hence there was no fear of losing power, there was pressure from people's expectations and leaders did their best to reach them.
The extreme is the present situation in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka where people have clsoe to 50 % seats and every damn guy in the state can threaten the government. It can be some gali or jagan or xyz with 10-15 MLA's can form the camp and threaten the government and the ruling party's primary responsibility is to manage and remain in power.
If it had been 60 % for being in power, by this time there would have been either elections and people can choose Kiran or Chandrababu or Jagan - rather than the present turmoil where people are playing hide and seek and merging other political parties without any political commonlaity just to remain in power.
No comments:
Post a Comment