Bhaiyon, behenon and mitron..the political process in this country, quite similar to political processes in many other parts of the world, is one of the most mindless activities that human society indulges in. It has a lot of people voting for the wrong reasons or without reason, electing persons who do not know what reason is or what they are expected to do but who only want to be elected by any means. It is essentially a game of various political parties with whom we, as individuals, form affiliations based on religion, language, culture and all the other wrong reasons. The outcome is a contest of various teams with the only objective being whose team wins the elections rather than looking at what the responsibilities of the elected representatives are, what the state of the nation is and what is good for the nation and the world at large. The election process results in vast amounts of money and resources being wasted and the lives of the entire nation being disrupted. All this for superficial benefits while the most critical areas are neglected. The process is repeated once again after short periods of time without any kind of assessment as to what progress has been made overall. This has been happening for decades now and we continue to embrace this process without questioning. Vast organizational entities and processes have been created to keep this chaos alive. Each of us, as individuals, absolve ourselves of all responsibility by getting a purple mark on the index finger and standing up when the national anthem is played at the start of our favorite Marvel superhero movies - job done. Three-quarters of the national expenditure is spent on keeping this system alive.
One of the main reasons for all this is that we, as a nation, do not have a clear universal vision of who we are and who we want to be. The clearer and more universal the national vision the more efficiently the nation gets to where it should be. The constitution was created at the time of creation of the Indian national identity to serve as a vision document. It suitably enshrines the rights and freedoms of the individual making that part worthy of inclusion in the national vision. It also adequately encapsulates the key areas worthy of a national vision in the Directive Principles and Fundamental duties though it can definitely be improved. It however loses its worth as a vision document once it starts getting into the micro-details of how administration should be structured. Everything from Part V of the constitution according to me is part of an operational or governance document and should detached from the vision. The vision must be a guide and roadmap, translatable into real world action, with the nation's progress measurable against its charter and goals and relevant always to the here and now. The operational part must not be rigid but fluid and dynamic enough to adapt to the needs of achieving the vision.
As a result of the lack of coherence and focus on a national vision, we have an administrative structure, in the form of elected governments, that lacks coherence and focus on what needs to be achieved. A newly elected government currently has either no vision or its own selfish vision, if any at all, which in no way connects or aligns to the constitution or universal development goals for the well being of the individual, society, the nation and the world we live in. There are no target outcomes and measures for accountability of each government vis a vis its own vision, which is itself an ever changing goalpost. Each subsequent government starts afresh with its own new vision each time. Each newly elected government promptly forms its own portfolios and ministries with no focus on its own vision, let alone what is required for the nation, and focuses more on accommodating its elected representatives and their wants. The newly elected government dismantles the structure created by and work done by the previous governments. As governments go along, they change their goals, measures, actions and structure to suit what is best for them at the given moment. This results in erosion of progress achieved in the past and lack of continuity. We, the people, of course have no idea what the vision of the past government was, what the vision of the present government is and what we the nation want the ideal vision to be. This chaos happens at the national level, at the state level, at the constituency level and at the ward level. The disconnect between the government, people and ground realities is thus more or less complete at all points of time.
I suggest a reform of the entire political process so that there is more meaning to it, it is more efficient and it is based on outcomes and results. The reforms are suggested considering the nation as an organization which is how politicians would like us to think they look at it with themselves in the CEO role and we as the employees. The suggested reforms are:
1) Creating a universal vision of what we want the nation to be. A lot of thinking and participation needs to go into creating the vision as this is the most crucial part of the process. A vision for our nation should be based on a)the first four parts of the constitution, b)sustainable and desirable goals including the UN development goals and c) any other goals that make up an ideal society or nation. It should not be a competitive, aggressive or selfish vision that says we want to be the world's number one economy, superpower, etc or in terms of posturing or ego. Rather it should based on peace, sustainability and the highest evolutionary principles of human society.It should be in terms of what is most vital for the planet and its inhabitants of which our nation is but one entity. Key areas are of course health, education, environment, water, food, sustainability, etc. One of the most vital aspects to remember while defining the vision should be that the above defined vision should then be equally applicable to all administrative levels of the nation i.e. state, constituency, ward, sub-ward and the individual otherwise it is a vision that has no connection with ground reality i.e. it is a delusion or illusion not a vision. Key areas should be defined as necessities for the people of the nation such as energy rather than as a specific industry such as coal. The means of providing this energy should meet the constraints of the other areas in the vision such as sustainability. It is also most important from an achievement perspective to keep the vision as simple as possible, hence the needs of each individual, NOT the wants, should translate into the vision of the nation.
2) Defining target outcomes for each of the focus areas defined in the vision that will help us realize our vision. Target outcomes should be in terms of meaningful, measurable, quantifiable and qualitative goals that include all the key focus areas vital for the nation's development. Desired outcomes should be of a universal nature so that it applies to the entire nation and hence its states, constituencies, wards and sub-wards uniformly. These target outcomes must be such that on achieving them we realize our vision. Working towards achieving them moves us closer to realizing our vision.
3) Defining measures to validate actual progress against target outcomes to see where we stand currently as against desired outcomes that will help us reach our vision. The measures should be always current and up to date to give a real time view. The same measures should be applicable at the state, constituency, ward and sub-ward level. The measures should be true and factual.
4) Creating organizational entities that are dedicated to achieving these outcomes. There should essentially be a portfolio or organizational entity that realizes the universal vision for each focus area in the vision and its desired outcome and measures and reports progress against it. We have over the past years since our freedom done this exercise repeatedly and haphazardly forming portfolios and ministries each time a new government is formed. These portfolios change every time there is a need to accommodate a rebel politician who has joined the ruling party and have almost no meaning in the real world. There is so much overlap and ambiguity between these portfolios that chaos and confusion is the order of the day. Currently the Minister of Environment is also the Minister of Industry, two areas at cross purposes with each other. A fixed set of portfolios, for say the next 25 years, aimed at achieving the vision through the desired outcomes and measures should enable us as a nation to have long term focus. The organizational entities or portfolios making up the governance structure should extend from the national level to the state, constituency, ward and sub-ward levels for the operational achievement of the vision and for making it a truly universal ground reality. This should be a key constraint ensuring efficient, effective and minimum governance that will help realize the national vision at the earliest and with least wastage of precious limited resources.
5) Electing representatives for a portfolio at the lowest level The person who stands for election for a particular portfolio at the lowest level, say the sub-ward level, should be a person who has vast experience, qualifications and expertise in the area of the portfolio. The elected person should be the best possible match for that role from among the available options. E.g. the elected representative for the Water Resources portfolio at the sub-ward level should be a person who has worked in the area and has the necessary qualifications, skills and integrity to be considered the best person to represent Water Resources from the sub ward. Electing of representatives should be purely merit based i.e based on performance in terms of outcomes accomplished against target set in order to achieve the vision. Persons should not be elected based on gender, religion, language or ideology. It is crucial that the right candidates are selected right at the sub-ward level across the nation because the quality of our elected representatives and their ability to do the job and realize our national vision depends on this. Candidates standing for elections at the sub-ward level for a particular portfolio should provide their qualifications, skills, achievements, etc to justify why they should be elected for that particular portfolio. The responsibility for ensuring that the best persons without bias occupy these roles is up to us as the people of the nation. It is our primary focus in this ongoing focus. We should be better placed and informed to elect these persons given that they are from the localities and community that we live in rather than being far removed from us, projecting an illusory image of their skills and capabilities through the skills of their spin doctors and the tools and money that they possess.
6) Electing the representatives above lowest level that will head each of these portfolios at the various higher levels, i.e ward, constituency, state and national levels, and who will be responsible for achieving the target outcomes at these higher levels. The election of representatives to a portfolio at a particular level should essentially be done by all the representatives who hold the portfolio at the next lower level. This is so that the process is a ground up approach from the grass roots level involving the will of the people. As stated in the point 4 above, only if a portfolio exists at the lowest levels it justifies its existence at a higher level else it should be done away with. Also the persons elected in point 5 above should be the ones now involved in the subsequent aggregation of representatives at the various levels. E.g. Election of the representative for the Education portfolio at the ward level should be done by all the persons from all the sub-wards in the ward holding the Education portfolio at the sub-ward level who have been elected as per point 5 above. Election of the representative for the Education portfolio at the constituency level should be done by all the persons from all the wards in the constituency holding the Education portfolio at the ward level. Election of the representative for the Education portfolio at the state level should be done by all the persons from all the constituencies in the state holding the Education portfolio at the constituency level in the state. Election of the representative to head say the Education portfolio at the national level should be done by all the persons from all the states in the nation holding the Education portfolio at the state level. Constraints and oversight needs to be put in place by us the people to ensure that all these subsequent elections are carried out without bias and in an equitable fashion.
Currently, there is the path of the education system, especially in key areas (that should tie in with a coherent, powerful, sustainable vision for the nation and the planet) where a person is trained rigorously and builds experience in administration, law, governance and policy making, through exposure to real life situations. Yes, there are biases and corruption in this system where inequity favors some over others and poor quality institutions exist but these are issues that can be addressed with the necessary focus. On another path is a person who uses corruption, deceit, force and other forms of crime to get elected to be a representative of the people. This person, with no suitable skills, experience or merit whatsoever, assumes the role of boss over the one trained through the education system. This person then negates everything that the educated person tries to do and actively works to repay the benefactors who got him to his position of power and consolidate his own and his supporters position ultimately tearing society apart. A minimum criteria for governance in society should be that the person has the highest education, competence, experience and merit.
7) We, the people, in this proposed political scenario would be voting for who we think should represent the sub-ward for each of the specific portfolios so that the national universal vision is met at our sub-ward level at the earliest and in the best possible way. We would not be voting for any political party or any general candidate.
8) We, the people, should be voting for representatives of each portfolio at the sub-ward level not for fixed time intervals such as once every 5 years as it happens now but whenever there is a trigger to vote. A trigger to vote could be that a candidate has failed to meet expected target outcomes continuously for an agreed period of time such as say 6 months or a year. Or a trigger could be the retirement or non-availability of a candidate due to illness or death. On the other hand a candidate performing excellently in a particular portfolio could be retained for as long as the members of the sub-ward think it is worthwhile. A candidate elected at this sub-ward level can be based on proportionate representation so that the person with the most votes is the first choice and the next most votes is the second choice, etc.
9) Other times that we, the people, should vote is when we feel that there should be a change in the universal vision in terms of adding or removing areas of focus or its target outcomes and measures keeping in mind the changes in the nation and the larger world. Such a vote should be a national activity aimed not at electing representatives but at modifying and aligning our vision to the best needs of the nation at the given point in time. Such activities should be limited and only exercised when absolutely necessary since it involves a national level consensus of all the people.
10) At the moment I cannot think of any focus areas in the vision at the national level which would not be applicable at the sub-ward level. If there is a vision for external affairs in relation to other nations at the national level with its respective target outcomes and measures then the same vision for external affairs and its associated target outcomes and measures should be applicable at the sub-ward level in relation to other sub-wards.
11) The elected representatives for all the portfolios at the national level and state level continue to work as lawmakers in terms of floating, voting and passing bills, laws and statutes as is done in the current assemblies. All such activities are done with the universal vision and its achievement in mind. You could say that the sub-ward, ward and constituency levels are concerned with execution while the state and national levels are concerned with policy making.
12) It is tempting to suggest that there should be portfolios in this structure that are business specific. My thinking is that such a move will erode and dilute the universal national vision and its effective implementation which we acknowledge as the most critical areas of focus for the nation. Where there is a need to set up business focus areas, the same should be done outside the political process through the establishment of private guilds and lobbies that have no government involvement or support. Once a business policy is formulated, it should be whetted against the national vision to ensure that it is not disruptive to the vision especially key aspects such as environmental sustainability. If there are areas of conflict the same must be corrected at the business level rather than causing disruptions to the political structure. Only if this criteria is met should a particular business be permitted at the lowest level which is the sub-ward or community or locality level. If such business focus areas grow into a national need then the same can be reviewed in terms of inclusion into the national vision. Once the proposal to include the same in the national vision along with its target outcomes and measures is brought up at the level of national representatives it can be put through a nationwide vote based on which it can be adopted or rejected. If adopted the same needs to be implemented ground up from the grass roots to the top i.e ward level to the national level. Till such time business and government need to have a clear separation.
These are some of the thoughts I have in terms of political reform. The benefits I see are immense including vast improvements in efficiency, cost and time saving, streamlining of structures and achievement of goals. Most importantly I see it as an opportunity for stating of a coherent, meaningful, relevant, sustainable, long term and universal national vision and a way forward to achieving the same collectively as a nation..
Related articles:
The Politician
https://ravingkoshy.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-politician.html
Vision of a new India
https://ravingkoshy.blogspot.com/2012/03/vision-of-new-india.html
One of the main reasons for all this is that we, as a nation, do not have a clear universal vision of who we are and who we want to be. The clearer and more universal the national vision the more efficiently the nation gets to where it should be. The constitution was created at the time of creation of the Indian national identity to serve as a vision document. It suitably enshrines the rights and freedoms of the individual making that part worthy of inclusion in the national vision. It also adequately encapsulates the key areas worthy of a national vision in the Directive Principles and Fundamental duties though it can definitely be improved. It however loses its worth as a vision document once it starts getting into the micro-details of how administration should be structured. Everything from Part V of the constitution according to me is part of an operational or governance document and should detached from the vision. The vision must be a guide and roadmap, translatable into real world action, with the nation's progress measurable against its charter and goals and relevant always to the here and now. The operational part must not be rigid but fluid and dynamic enough to adapt to the needs of achieving the vision.
As a result of the lack of coherence and focus on a national vision, we have an administrative structure, in the form of elected governments, that lacks coherence and focus on what needs to be achieved. A newly elected government currently has either no vision or its own selfish vision, if any at all, which in no way connects or aligns to the constitution or universal development goals for the well being of the individual, society, the nation and the world we live in. There are no target outcomes and measures for accountability of each government vis a vis its own vision, which is itself an ever changing goalpost. Each subsequent government starts afresh with its own new vision each time. Each newly elected government promptly forms its own portfolios and ministries with no focus on its own vision, let alone what is required for the nation, and focuses more on accommodating its elected representatives and their wants. The newly elected government dismantles the structure created by and work done by the previous governments. As governments go along, they change their goals, measures, actions and structure to suit what is best for them at the given moment. This results in erosion of progress achieved in the past and lack of continuity. We, the people, of course have no idea what the vision of the past government was, what the vision of the present government is and what we the nation want the ideal vision to be. This chaos happens at the national level, at the state level, at the constituency level and at the ward level. The disconnect between the government, people and ground realities is thus more or less complete at all points of time.
I suggest a reform of the entire political process so that there is more meaning to it, it is more efficient and it is based on outcomes and results. The reforms are suggested considering the nation as an organization which is how politicians would like us to think they look at it with themselves in the CEO role and we as the employees. The suggested reforms are:
1) Creating a universal vision of what we want the nation to be. A lot of thinking and participation needs to go into creating the vision as this is the most crucial part of the process. A vision for our nation should be based on a)the first four parts of the constitution, b)sustainable and desirable goals including the UN development goals and c) any other goals that make up an ideal society or nation. It should not be a competitive, aggressive or selfish vision that says we want to be the world's number one economy, superpower, etc or in terms of posturing or ego. Rather it should based on peace, sustainability and the highest evolutionary principles of human society.It should be in terms of what is most vital for the planet and its inhabitants of which our nation is but one entity. Key areas are of course health, education, environment, water, food, sustainability, etc. One of the most vital aspects to remember while defining the vision should be that the above defined vision should then be equally applicable to all administrative levels of the nation i.e. state, constituency, ward, sub-ward and the individual otherwise it is a vision that has no connection with ground reality i.e. it is a delusion or illusion not a vision. Key areas should be defined as necessities for the people of the nation such as energy rather than as a specific industry such as coal. The means of providing this energy should meet the constraints of the other areas in the vision such as sustainability. It is also most important from an achievement perspective to keep the vision as simple as possible, hence the needs of each individual, NOT the wants, should translate into the vision of the nation.
2) Defining target outcomes for each of the focus areas defined in the vision that will help us realize our vision. Target outcomes should be in terms of meaningful, measurable, quantifiable and qualitative goals that include all the key focus areas vital for the nation's development. Desired outcomes should be of a universal nature so that it applies to the entire nation and hence its states, constituencies, wards and sub-wards uniformly. These target outcomes must be such that on achieving them we realize our vision. Working towards achieving them moves us closer to realizing our vision.
3) Defining measures to validate actual progress against target outcomes to see where we stand currently as against desired outcomes that will help us reach our vision. The measures should be always current and up to date to give a real time view. The same measures should be applicable at the state, constituency, ward and sub-ward level. The measures should be true and factual.
4) Creating organizational entities that are dedicated to achieving these outcomes. There should essentially be a portfolio or organizational entity that realizes the universal vision for each focus area in the vision and its desired outcome and measures and reports progress against it. We have over the past years since our freedom done this exercise repeatedly and haphazardly forming portfolios and ministries each time a new government is formed. These portfolios change every time there is a need to accommodate a rebel politician who has joined the ruling party and have almost no meaning in the real world. There is so much overlap and ambiguity between these portfolios that chaos and confusion is the order of the day. Currently the Minister of Environment is also the Minister of Industry, two areas at cross purposes with each other. A fixed set of portfolios, for say the next 25 years, aimed at achieving the vision through the desired outcomes and measures should enable us as a nation to have long term focus. The organizational entities or portfolios making up the governance structure should extend from the national level to the state, constituency, ward and sub-ward levels for the operational achievement of the vision and for making it a truly universal ground reality. This should be a key constraint ensuring efficient, effective and minimum governance that will help realize the national vision at the earliest and with least wastage of precious limited resources.
5) Electing representatives for a portfolio at the lowest level The person who stands for election for a particular portfolio at the lowest level, say the sub-ward level, should be a person who has vast experience, qualifications and expertise in the area of the portfolio. The elected person should be the best possible match for that role from among the available options. E.g. the elected representative for the Water Resources portfolio at the sub-ward level should be a person who has worked in the area and has the necessary qualifications, skills and integrity to be considered the best person to represent Water Resources from the sub ward. Electing of representatives should be purely merit based i.e based on performance in terms of outcomes accomplished against target set in order to achieve the vision. Persons should not be elected based on gender, religion, language or ideology. It is crucial that the right candidates are selected right at the sub-ward level across the nation because the quality of our elected representatives and their ability to do the job and realize our national vision depends on this. Candidates standing for elections at the sub-ward level for a particular portfolio should provide their qualifications, skills, achievements, etc to justify why they should be elected for that particular portfolio. The responsibility for ensuring that the best persons without bias occupy these roles is up to us as the people of the nation. It is our primary focus in this ongoing focus. We should be better placed and informed to elect these persons given that they are from the localities and community that we live in rather than being far removed from us, projecting an illusory image of their skills and capabilities through the skills of their spin doctors and the tools and money that they possess.
6) Electing the representatives above lowest level that will head each of these portfolios at the various higher levels, i.e ward, constituency, state and national levels, and who will be responsible for achieving the target outcomes at these higher levels. The election of representatives to a portfolio at a particular level should essentially be done by all the representatives who hold the portfolio at the next lower level. This is so that the process is a ground up approach from the grass roots level involving the will of the people. As stated in the point 4 above, only if a portfolio exists at the lowest levels it justifies its existence at a higher level else it should be done away with. Also the persons elected in point 5 above should be the ones now involved in the subsequent aggregation of representatives at the various levels. E.g. Election of the representative for the Education portfolio at the ward level should be done by all the persons from all the sub-wards in the ward holding the Education portfolio at the sub-ward level who have been elected as per point 5 above. Election of the representative for the Education portfolio at the constituency level should be done by all the persons from all the wards in the constituency holding the Education portfolio at the ward level. Election of the representative for the Education portfolio at the state level should be done by all the persons from all the constituencies in the state holding the Education portfolio at the constituency level in the state. Election of the representative to head say the Education portfolio at the national level should be done by all the persons from all the states in the nation holding the Education portfolio at the state level. Constraints and oversight needs to be put in place by us the people to ensure that all these subsequent elections are carried out without bias and in an equitable fashion.
Currently, there is the path of the education system, especially in key areas (that should tie in with a coherent, powerful, sustainable vision for the nation and the planet) where a person is trained rigorously and builds experience in administration, law, governance and policy making, through exposure to real life situations. Yes, there are biases and corruption in this system where inequity favors some over others and poor quality institutions exist but these are issues that can be addressed with the necessary focus. On another path is a person who uses corruption, deceit, force and other forms of crime to get elected to be a representative of the people. This person, with no suitable skills, experience or merit whatsoever, assumes the role of boss over the one trained through the education system. This person then negates everything that the educated person tries to do and actively works to repay the benefactors who got him to his position of power and consolidate his own and his supporters position ultimately tearing society apart. A minimum criteria for governance in society should be that the person has the highest education, competence, experience and merit.
7) We, the people, in this proposed political scenario would be voting for who we think should represent the sub-ward for each of the specific portfolios so that the national universal vision is met at our sub-ward level at the earliest and in the best possible way. We would not be voting for any political party or any general candidate.
8) We, the people, should be voting for representatives of each portfolio at the sub-ward level not for fixed time intervals such as once every 5 years as it happens now but whenever there is a trigger to vote. A trigger to vote could be that a candidate has failed to meet expected target outcomes continuously for an agreed period of time such as say 6 months or a year. Or a trigger could be the retirement or non-availability of a candidate due to illness or death. On the other hand a candidate performing excellently in a particular portfolio could be retained for as long as the members of the sub-ward think it is worthwhile. A candidate elected at this sub-ward level can be based on proportionate representation so that the person with the most votes is the first choice and the next most votes is the second choice, etc.
9) Other times that we, the people, should vote is when we feel that there should be a change in the universal vision in terms of adding or removing areas of focus or its target outcomes and measures keeping in mind the changes in the nation and the larger world. Such a vote should be a national activity aimed not at electing representatives but at modifying and aligning our vision to the best needs of the nation at the given point in time. Such activities should be limited and only exercised when absolutely necessary since it involves a national level consensus of all the people.
10) At the moment I cannot think of any focus areas in the vision at the national level which would not be applicable at the sub-ward level. If there is a vision for external affairs in relation to other nations at the national level with its respective target outcomes and measures then the same vision for external affairs and its associated target outcomes and measures should be applicable at the sub-ward level in relation to other sub-wards.
11) The elected representatives for all the portfolios at the national level and state level continue to work as lawmakers in terms of floating, voting and passing bills, laws and statutes as is done in the current assemblies. All such activities are done with the universal vision and its achievement in mind. You could say that the sub-ward, ward and constituency levels are concerned with execution while the state and national levels are concerned with policy making.
12) It is tempting to suggest that there should be portfolios in this structure that are business specific. My thinking is that such a move will erode and dilute the universal national vision and its effective implementation which we acknowledge as the most critical areas of focus for the nation. Where there is a need to set up business focus areas, the same should be done outside the political process through the establishment of private guilds and lobbies that have no government involvement or support. Once a business policy is formulated, it should be whetted against the national vision to ensure that it is not disruptive to the vision especially key aspects such as environmental sustainability. If there are areas of conflict the same must be corrected at the business level rather than causing disruptions to the political structure. Only if this criteria is met should a particular business be permitted at the lowest level which is the sub-ward or community or locality level. If such business focus areas grow into a national need then the same can be reviewed in terms of inclusion into the national vision. Once the proposal to include the same in the national vision along with its target outcomes and measures is brought up at the level of national representatives it can be put through a nationwide vote based on which it can be adopted or rejected. If adopted the same needs to be implemented ground up from the grass roots to the top i.e ward level to the national level. Till such time business and government need to have a clear separation.
These are some of the thoughts I have in terms of political reform. The benefits I see are immense including vast improvements in efficiency, cost and time saving, streamlining of structures and achievement of goals. Most importantly I see it as an opportunity for stating of a coherent, meaningful, relevant, sustainable, long term and universal national vision and a way forward to achieving the same collectively as a nation..
Related articles:
The Politician
https://ravingkoshy.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-politician.html
Vision of a new India
https://ravingkoshy.blogspot.com/2012/03/vision-of-new-india.html