Members of the Jury, my fellow contestant, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Abhay Mangaldas.
First, I'd like to thank the Times of India for taking this initiative and giving me this platform…
The subject today..
"Can a Presidential form of government clear the muck in Indian politics?"
I have just three minutes so I will jump right into it.
On the outset, the Presidential model has some salient features.
Let me quickly list those that I feel are the important ones… and do excuse me if it sounds a bit technical.
One : To start with, voters play a role in selection of candidates … just like what we are doing in this contest. This ensures that only the deserving get a ticket and not a goon with a connection.
Two : Voters also decide who leads the government. Its akin to our choosing the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister and not leaving it to our representatives. This would take care of all the horse-trading that goes on in our system.
Three : The elected leaders have a predefined term in office. This can provide stability and allow them to focus on their job, something our leaders can rarely do.
Four : The voter representation in government is proportional to the votes won … and not on the constituencies won. This ensures that the majority always carries a stronger voice, unlike what we have in India.
So, to sum this first bit up, I think we would do well to adopt these features in our political system and perhaps come up with a hybrid model that combines the best of both the Presidential and the Parliamentarian systems.
But will just electoral reforms clear the muck?
No.
Muck exists in all politics, regardless of the system. It has become the nature of the beast.
Our disappointment with politicians and public servants at large has to do with our perception of what we assume motivates people to enter public service.
We expect them all to be Gandhiwadees who make this choice for the love of the motherland. We forget that they breathe the same air as you and me…. they have a family to feed and aspirations to meet.
Think about it…
Would you want to be a servant… a public one at that?
Would you want a job that pays peanuts and provides no job security?
Its time we drop this hypocrisy.
Politics and public service come with huge responsibilities and awesome challenges… they should be an attractive career option for any bright person if they had commiserate salary packages, performance incentives, merit based promotions… just as in private enterprise…
The government can actually become a professionally run organization…. As it should be.
In conclusion, not only do we need electoral reforms …. And we can look to the Presidential system for some of them… but we also need to review and restructure the compensation packages and human resource management within the government.
I believe that only do we have a good chance to get rid of the muck.
Showing posts with label Lead India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lead India. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Prioritise the three most important challenges for the country and how you would tackle them
For Lead India, September 30, 2007
The issues are all interlinked1. Poor infrastructure and unequal opportunities that results in inequitable distribution of wealth.2. Ineffective enforcement of the law and order.3. Lack of basic school education that can instill an awareness and pride amongst youth in our ancient and rich heritage, diverse cultural identity and spiritual core.
I am convinced that most of our learned political leaders are well aware of these issues. Unfortunately, our electoral system has inherent flaws that make survival in politics an unpredictable and insecure numbers game that diverts their attention from issues of governance.
I believe that electoral reform can become the primary driver in resolving this dilemma. Bestowed with authority, I would push for reform that ensures that both the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister area. The popular choice of the electorate themselves and not their representatives.b. Their jobs are secure for the given term, whereby they can focus on fulfilling their promises and not worry about losing their seat midway or be driven to compromise to appease the destabilising forces.
I am confident that the problems we face are primarily the outcome of our political and electoral system and not due to our politicians.
My view on
I) Reservation
I believe in equal opportunity. If Reservation is treated like a golfer's handicap (as you improve your game, your handicap goes down), it can be a useful tool to level the score. Reservation is necessary for sections of society that have been discriminated against or have not enjoyed the same opportunities as their more fortunate counterparts. Reservation should be used as a 'leg up' till they catch up.
II) PSU disinvestment.I believe that only stakeholders can have a driving interest and passion in running an efficient business enterprise. Due to glaring lack of accountability, PSUs are either working below optimum efficiency or are, by and large, the milking cows for unscrupulous elements. Their stake should be divested to unlock value for the state that can be used for development programmes. However, there is a possibility to explore a formula that vests the first right of refusal of acquiring this stake with the employees and vendors of the PSU before putting it up for an open auction.
III) SEZsSpecial Economic Zones can be compared, once again, to a golf handicap. Just as Reservation is a tool to uplift a deprived section of society, SEZ's are a 'leg up' tool to help backward regions and put them on a fast track to development. However, once the stated objectives are achieved, the handicap must go. I believe in an equal playing field and any long-term disparity in the rules of the land must not be allowed.
IV) Sting OperationsThere is a fine line between sting operations and entrapments. I am for sting operations but against entrapments. Responsible journalists have to define this line before they contemplate launching a sting operation. Having put it in context, I feel that sting operations act as a useful deterrent and can play an important supportive role in enforcing the law of the land.
V) Need for tougher laws to tackle terrorism
I think that vigilant intelligence combined with stricter enforcement of existing laws and a fast track judiciary can tackle terrorism better than any new 'tougher' laws can. Bolting the stables before the horses flee can be more effective than tougher laws like POTA that go against basic human rights and are often misused.
Affluence and empathy are not inversely proportional. Jawaharlal Nehru was affluent and so was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. This perhaps hightened their sense of empathy towards the poor in India and strengthened their resolve to work towards their upliftment.
Maybe there is also a higher probability that affluent people join politics with the right motivations. In my case, my relative affluence has allowed me an excellent education and the option to choose any field of work. My choice of career, of trying to revitalise the heritage of the old city of Ahmedabad, was possible only because I enjoyed financial security. If I get a broader platform through Lead India, I can expand my scope of rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure and disappearing heritage of not only the historic old city of Ahmedabad but of other cities as well and in the process, make a small contribution to the lower middle class and poor people who reside in them.
The issues are all interlinked1. Poor infrastructure and unequal opportunities that results in inequitable distribution of wealth.2. Ineffective enforcement of the law and order.3. Lack of basic school education that can instill an awareness and pride amongst youth in our ancient and rich heritage, diverse cultural identity and spiritual core.
I am convinced that most of our learned political leaders are well aware of these issues. Unfortunately, our electoral system has inherent flaws that make survival in politics an unpredictable and insecure numbers game that diverts their attention from issues of governance.
I believe that electoral reform can become the primary driver in resolving this dilemma. Bestowed with authority, I would push for reform that ensures that both the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister area. The popular choice of the electorate themselves and not their representatives.b. Their jobs are secure for the given term, whereby they can focus on fulfilling their promises and not worry about losing their seat midway or be driven to compromise to appease the destabilising forces.
I am confident that the problems we face are primarily the outcome of our political and electoral system and not due to our politicians.
My view on
I) Reservation
I believe in equal opportunity. If Reservation is treated like a golfer's handicap (as you improve your game, your handicap goes down), it can be a useful tool to level the score. Reservation is necessary for sections of society that have been discriminated against or have not enjoyed the same opportunities as their more fortunate counterparts. Reservation should be used as a 'leg up' till they catch up.
II) PSU disinvestment.I believe that only stakeholders can have a driving interest and passion in running an efficient business enterprise. Due to glaring lack of accountability, PSUs are either working below optimum efficiency or are, by and large, the milking cows for unscrupulous elements. Their stake should be divested to unlock value for the state that can be used for development programmes. However, there is a possibility to explore a formula that vests the first right of refusal of acquiring this stake with the employees and vendors of the PSU before putting it up for an open auction.
III) SEZsSpecial Economic Zones can be compared, once again, to a golf handicap. Just as Reservation is a tool to uplift a deprived section of society, SEZ's are a 'leg up' tool to help backward regions and put them on a fast track to development. However, once the stated objectives are achieved, the handicap must go. I believe in an equal playing field and any long-term disparity in the rules of the land must not be allowed.
IV) Sting OperationsThere is a fine line between sting operations and entrapments. I am for sting operations but against entrapments. Responsible journalists have to define this line before they contemplate launching a sting operation. Having put it in context, I feel that sting operations act as a useful deterrent and can play an important supportive role in enforcing the law of the land.
V) Need for tougher laws to tackle terrorism
I think that vigilant intelligence combined with stricter enforcement of existing laws and a fast track judiciary can tackle terrorism better than any new 'tougher' laws can. Bolting the stables before the horses flee can be more effective than tougher laws like POTA that go against basic human rights and are often misused.
Affluence and empathy are not inversely proportional. Jawaharlal Nehru was affluent and so was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. This perhaps hightened their sense of empathy towards the poor in India and strengthened their resolve to work towards their upliftment.
Maybe there is also a higher probability that affluent people join politics with the right motivations. In my case, my relative affluence has allowed me an excellent education and the option to choose any field of work. My choice of career, of trying to revitalise the heritage of the old city of Ahmedabad, was possible only because I enjoyed financial security. If I get a broader platform through Lead India, I can expand my scope of rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure and disappearing heritage of not only the historic old city of Ahmedabad but of other cities as well and in the process, make a small contribution to the lower middle class and poor people who reside in them.
Would Mahatma Gandhi have been a political force today!
For Lead India, September 30, 2007
Leaders are a bi-product of the prevailing scenario. The question is akin to asking if Alexander the Great would have been a great conqueror today or would Chairman Mao brought about a Chinese revolution today?
Mahatma Gandhi was an astute man. He would have definitely been a major political force today; yet, I don't believe he would have taken any office. By remaining an outsider and non-aligned to any political party, he would have succeeded wielding the highest moral authority on all political parties to priorities the issues that truly concern the welfare of our democracy.
He would have read the current political climate and used his insights to come up with an appropriate strategy. I suspect that he would have taken up a cause that concerns the downtrodden masses of this country, like unequal opportunities, lack of basic education and primary health facilities. He would have championed 'inclusive' growth of the entire nation and spread his 'non-violence' and 'all religions are equal' mantras to achieve his goals.
Lea
Leaders are a bi-product of the prevailing scenario. The question is akin to asking if Alexander the Great would have been a great conqueror today or would Chairman Mao brought about a Chinese revolution today?
Mahatma Gandhi was an astute man. He would have definitely been a major political force today; yet, I don't believe he would have taken any office. By remaining an outsider and non-aligned to any political party, he would have succeeded wielding the highest moral authority on all political parties to priorities the issues that truly concern the welfare of our democracy.
He would have read the current political climate and used his insights to come up with an appropriate strategy. I suspect that he would have taken up a cause that concerns the downtrodden masses of this country, like unequal opportunities, lack of basic education and primary health facilities. He would have championed 'inclusive' growth of the entire nation and spread his 'non-violence' and 'all religions are equal' mantras to achieve his goals.
Lea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
