Friday, October 26, 2012

Re-Elected Barack

                                            Forecast: Barack re-elected in last debate
             In 2008, Americans elected Obama president of USA. But in 2012, they re-elected Barack as president. The word change we can made him the most powerful person on the earth. In all probability, he will not repeat his big margin of 365. But he will not get less than 300 this time. Winning will be thin but comfortable.
           Third debate on foreign policy was a boon for Barack. The challenger tacitly and indirectly accepted his political acumen. Mitt agreed on many issues and congratulated him on Osama killing issue. He could not propose any better alternative before nation on foreign policy.
           Facts and figures show the formal decision will be on November 6, 2012. But real decision has been taken by voters on the day of third debate. This day and debate is the turning point of US election 2012.
           Learned voters evaluate in view of all facts and situations. Barack is not responsible for any ailment with which country is infected. Be it economy, unemployment, war outside the country etc. He entered into white house as president in the worst situation. First, he checked ongoing deterioration and then tried his best to bring things on track. Recession and meltdown inside and outside the nation was the biggest challenge for him to face with.
           Dr Barack will cure all ailments by medicine Obamacare. First, he experiments his treatment on Romensia.  He is an excellent election manager and fundraiser. After second debate graph starts going up gently. Third debated accelerated it. Now election keeps on building in favor of Barack.
            Unlike 2008, 2012 election is being contested on social issue. Then the issue of change was very much visible. But this time invisible under current on social issue- market versus social-has brought the win to Barack. It is a matter of announcement of result. Result is already prepared and will be shown on due date of 6th Nov.
            Above statement (my forecast well in advance) is not without mathematical calculation and proof. With the help of social and political marketing tools and techniques, it is evaluated and proved. Based on mathematical analysis Barack will win more than 300 of 540.
      A buzz/gossip of close contest. This all is manipulation, management money game. BO is winning for sure,with bottom margin of 300. Media is just trying to see their news by creating a slogan like its neck and neck and close-contest. These are all media marketing products.

Heera Lal
( Views are personal and based on different references)       


Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Governance Deficit In India

           Governance is an outcome of a system. It is a yardstick to measure the performance of a system/organ of a body. Performance and governance-deficit of a system are inversely proportional to each other. Its product is a constant. This means if one is increasing the other is automatically decreasing. Decreasing performance means increasing governance deficit.
                Nowadays, the buzz word in different media is corruption in India. Front page headlines in print and prime time news in visual media are corruption. This news is coming from all branches of our government. All organs of our government are inflicted with the ailment of governance deficit. This deficit of the branch reduces its required performance.
                Governance is the act of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance. It consists of either a separate process or part of management or leadership processes. These processes and systems are typically administered by a government. The Word Bank defines governance as: the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country's economic and social resources for development.
               The Government of India, officially known as the Union Government, and also known as the Central Government, was established by the Constitution of India, and is the governing authority of the union of 28 states and seven union territories. The government comprises three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. 
               The duties and functions of legislative branch generally is law making: this includes making and passing of new laws, and amending and repealing of old laws.
                The objective classification adopted by the scholars, categorized Indian Parliament as a reactive institution. The Legislative institutions that react to the policies, decision proposed by the executive are reactive institutions.
                If we look back a little and evaluate the performance of the Parliament and State legislatures through the conduct of the houses in the formative period, it could be seen that Jawaharlal Nehru, an ardent devotee of parliamentary democracy and a builder of Parliament, devoted his whole attention in evolving modern devices for representation.
                He conducted lengthy sessions to transact business and gave adequate time for the voicing of dissent. Opposition views were respected if not incorporated in the decision. Thus lengthy sessions were conducted. Barring a few, all decisions were taken only in the legislative bodies. Ordinance was a rare phenomenon.
                Nehru once cautioned the members, that unless the members are equipped to face the technical subjects prepared by the bureaucrats, the Parliament has no relevance in decision-making. Gradually, the composition of the Legislative institutions has been changed. New elites grabbed the opportunities made possible due to the retirement of veteran politicians who were no longer useful. The generalist tendencies of the legislators pave the way for the domination of bureaucrats in the decision making process.
                The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) was established in 1999 by a group of professors from the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad. The slogan of ADR is “No Office in this land is more important than that of being a citizen - Felix Frankfurter.” Our goal is to improve governance and strengthen democracy by continuous work in the area of Electoral and Political Reforms. It conducts multiple projects aimed at increasing transparency and accountability in the political and electoral system of the country.
                 ADR is working in close coordination with Election Commission of India (ECI). ECI has recommended many political reforms. The reforms list is available online. But none is serious to take up it. It is due for long. Political parties and actors are facing heavy criticism for not resorting this reform. As a result, public confidence is reducing day by day in our political masters and such institutions run and won by them. We are leading towards a grave situation.
                  Indian bureaucracy is the worst in Asia with a 9.21 rating out of 10, according to a report by a prestigious consulting firm based in Hong Kong. India fared worse than Vietnam (rated at 8.54),Indonesia (8.37), Philippines (7.57) and China (7.11), said the report by Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd released in Jan 2012. The report said India's inefficient bureaucracy was largely responsible for most of the biggest complaints that business executive have about the country.
               The bureaucrats were rarely held accountable for wrong decisions and it would be extremely difficult to challenge them when there were disagreements, it said."This gives them (bureaucrats) terrific powers and could be one of the main reasons why average Indians as well as existing and would-be foreign investors perceive India's bureaucrats as negatively as they do," said the report.
                  . Real administrative reform is political in nature and unless political masters mean business, the rituals will be gone through but without implementation. There have been two Administrative Reform Commissions with the first one with the most comprehensive terms of reference. But when it was ready with its recommendations after 5 years, political priorities had changed and the reports were promptly put in cold storage.
                  No political party or Prime Minister has shown real interest in changing this. If there is no corruption at the political level, it is easy to deal with corruption at bureaucratic level. Globalization will force India to reform its bureaucracy further.
                Sardar Patel famously called the bureaucracy the steel frame. Today it seems made of very flexible bamboo. Not only has it failed to prop up the system but also has actually bent over backwards to facilitate its decay.
                 The bureaucrats actually must share greater burden for all that is wrong than politicians. Politicians at least have the challenge to be elected every five years. Moreover, running a party as well as fighting elections is expensive affairs. So it is in their nature to please special interests and chase easy money.
                 Bureaucrats have no such compulsion. Their compromising themselves stems purely out of a lust for power and goodies including nice-post retirement assignments. It is time for a change. Officers suffer from too little competition and accountability.                 
                 The bureaucrats have made little use of protection. It was supposed to make them more independent but they have willingly surrendered their independence to cozy up to politicians in order to get plum postings and other favours.
                 The steel frame has become bamboo now.  Is it possible to run a 21st century economy, galvanized by 22nd century ideas and social networks, with a 20th century bureaucracy, interpreting 19th century laws? One of the few institutions created by the British, which has survived the test of time in more ways than one, and yet had some notable failures, is the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).
                Despite prodigious reforms, the IAS has seen limited change. This is a cause for concern. The classic Westminster model, on which the IAS is founded, postulated that while politicians would debate and legislate policy, the civil service would execute it. This has, over the years, been turned on its head.
                Politicians have found it profitable to get into every aspect of execution and indulge in rampant corruption, while the civil service is left to write something that passes off as policy. Add to this the increasing criminalization of civil servants' political masters and the influence of money power within the system. The IAS urgently needs reform if it is not to become increasingly irrelevant to development or be co-opted by the corrupt.
               In above light, administrative reform is due for long. Government of India constituted two administrative reforms committee. Its recommendations are pending and waiting for its turn to get implemented. There is no serious attempt in site for its implementation.
                 An independent and impartial judiciary and a speedy and efficient system are the very essence of civilization. However, our judiciary, by its very nature, has become ponderous, excruciatingly slow and inefficient. Imposition of an alien system, with archaic and dilatory procedures, proved to be extremely damaging to our governance and society.
                    Nani Palkhiwala observed once, the progress of a civil suit in our courts of law is the closest thing to eternity we can experience! Our laws and their interpretation and adjudication led to enormous misery for the litigants and forced people to look for extra-legal alternatives. Any one, who is even remotely exposed to the problem of land grabbing in our cities, or a house owner who finds it virtually impossible to evict a tenant after due notice even for self occupation; can easily understand how the justice system failed.
                  The gradual liberalisation of the Indian economy over the last two decades has of course had profound implications for the legal system. The efficient judicial enforcement of contractual obligations as well as property rights is a pre-condition for generating confidence among domestic as well as foreign entrepreneurs and investors. 
                    In this regard, the Indian judiciary – especially at the subordinate level, has been the target of persistent criticism for mounting arrears as well as inefficiency in disposing of litigation involving business interests.
                     The Indian Judiciary plays an increasingly important role in the life and the governance of this country. However, anyone who has any experience of the courts is aware of the serious problems that beset the judicial system.
                    The issue of judicial reforms has thus far been discussed in only elite legal/judicial circles or among various official commissions and committees of the government. For some time now there has been an increasing realization that this issue needs to be discussed outside these circles as well and common people of this country who are the real stakeholders of the system need to get involved in this issue.
                      The Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Judicial Reforms (CJAR) works so that grassroots pressure comes to bear on the authorities for implementing the needed reforms that will impact: Appointment of Judges and Judicial Accountability, Access to the Judicial System and Delay in Justice, Values and Attitude of the Judiciary towards the Poor.                  
                        Over a period, Governance deficit has covered all three branches of our government. This led us to land in ocean of corruption. Public see it all around and has lost hope to fight and curb it. They are full of anger and against it and wish to get rid of this.
                        But system is not supporting albeit opposing the crusaders against graft. Civil society activists- Anna, Baba, Arvind along with tacit supports of higher judiciary and constitutional bodies like CAG-have brought some ray of hope to them. They are now able to revive the lost hope.
              India Against Corruption (IAC) member Arvind Kejriwal has entered a new domain and accused the Congress and the BJP of being hand-in-glove on matters relating to corruption. This new domain is talk of the town. The consensus on corruption issue among political parties and actors need to be broken.  Arind has made a good start by voicing this issue loudly. His effort will help in reducing the governance deficit from our government bodies.
Heera Lal
 (Views are personal and based on different sources)

2.     World Bank, Managing Development - The Governance Dimension, 1991, Washington D.C., p. 1

Sunday, October 7, 2012

US -2012: Chief Election Agenda

Political Marketing 
                     The rich back Mitt Romney and others Barack. This is the real and central election agenda on which public will give decision on 6th Nov.2012.  Apparently; there are many big issues like ailing economy, high unemployment, Obamacare etc. Among all election issues, the central point is social versus market, wealthy (1%) versus un-wealthy (99%). That means rich versus others. This issue is not very visible at all, but it has created a strong under current affecting people who will bring win to Barack.
                   A message is all around that Mitt is backed by rich while Barack is backed by middle and below. He has given a solid poof for this. Unaware he was being recorded at a private fundraiser for wealthy donors in May; Mr. Romney solidified his image as a super-rich guy out of touch with his struggling countrymen.

                 "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," he said. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.
                 "Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," he continued, adding that his job "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
                 Now election is very clearly polarised in two camps in disguise. One camp is 1% while other is 99%. This issue was buzz word of a movement- Occupy Wall Street (OWS). OWS is a people-powered movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, and has spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally.
                 OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.
                David Maraniss recounts in his new biography, “Barack Obama: The Story.” By the time that Obama ran for President, in 2008, his relations with the financial industry had grown warmer, and he attracted more donations from Wall Street leaders than John McCain, his Republican opponent, did. Yet this good feeling did not last, despite the government’s bailout of the banking sector. Many financial titans felt that the President’s attitude toward the “one per cent” was insufficiently admiring, even hostile.

               Washington fund-raiser sees it. The White House social secretary must spend the first year of an Administration saying, “Thank you, thank you, thank you.” Instead, the fund-raiser says, Obama’s first social secretary, DesirĂ©e Rogers—a stylish Harvard Business School graduate and a friend from Chicago—made some donors feel unwelcome. Anita McBride, the chief of staff to Laura Bush, says, “It’s always a very delicate balance at the White House. Do donors think they are buying favours or access? You have to be very conscious of how you use the trappings of the White House.

               But you can go too far in the other direction, too. Donors are called on to do a lot. It doesn’t take a lot to say thank you.” One of the simplest ways, she notes, is to provide donors with “grip-and-grin” photographs with the President. “It doesn’t require a lot of effort on anyone’s part, but there’s been a reluctance to do it” in the Obama White House. “That can produce some hurt feelings.”
                Obama's ban on the influence of lobbyists was one of several measures he implemented in 2009 themed around changing the Washington establishment. A federal judge upheld the attempt by President Barack Obama to cut down the influence of lobbyists, ruling that Obama was within his authority when he barred them from serving on government boards.
                From family background both belongs to two opposite school of thoughts . Barack has lived poverties, scarcities, and difficulties. Hence, it is but natural that his thought process will be like that. He is pro middle class, deprived. Mitt is from an affluent and rich family. His father was Governor. So he talks about rich class, decrying the others (47%) on the basis of different benefits offered to them by the government.
                 On party line,Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. Our party, led by President Obama, is focused on building an economy that lasts—an economy that lifts up all Americans.
                 On party line,Republicans believe in the power and opportunity of America’s free-market economy. We believe in the importance of sensible business regulations that promote confidence in our economy among consumers, entrepreneurs and businesses alike. We oppose interventionist policies that put the federal government in control of industry and allow it to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
                In 2008 chief agenda was the change, we can. The public was fed-up with and wanted to get rid of misrule of then republican president. Empirically, it is proved that, in general, one agenda pays once. During his working as President, he strategically set the agenda. He avoided photos with big donors of 2008 to prove to his voter that he is pro them. He banned lobbyist to send benefit to his voters. He, tacitly, lends his support to OWS to help remove inequality from the society.

                It is very hard for Mitt to break the image of pro rich. He is trying to avoid this ghost to muster support of middle class voters. Only rich can’t fetch win to him. They can give big donations but in vote count all are same.

               This is the chief election issue fanned by Barack camp by a privately recorded speech during a fund raising activity. This recorded message has done the work of Barack. It has created a strong undercurrent in disguise in masses among voters who are pro Barack on social issues. To make it an issue, very silently, he behaved like this in his current presidency at the cost of annoyance of rich who are vehemently opposing him in different ways. This time his donations are small but from bulk numbers to top the fund raising.

               There is no sign yet in sight that Mitt will be able to remove his pro rich image. Barack contested 2008 on visible issue of change; but in 2012, he is contesting on invisible issue. This situation is more dangerous for the challenger. If this situation prevails which is most probable? This ongoing situation will re-elect Barack President on 6th November, 2012.

Heera Lal

(Views are personal and based on different ref.)


Thursday, October 4, 2012

Political Marketing: Win in Defeat

 First debate shows Mitt Offensive and Barack defensive. Barack is now an  experienced political player. He know better how to manage a national election than Mitt. He focused and begged four more year to bring fruits  in trees which he planted. It is well established that election's strong momentum are impulsive in nature. Election day is far ahead. It is difficult to maintain the momentum generated in first debate till election day. By this defeat, strategically, he wished to consolidate his vote bank. With this defeat he will muster the support of his middle and below voters in sympathy. From Political marketing point of view, his trick to gather sympathy of voters is a success. His defeat in debate will bring win on 6 Nov. election.
Money and Management are two vital issues in a election. Barack raised the highest fund form diverse community. His fund management acumen is proved. In election management, he has no match, he harnessed the potential of ICT and net for the first time in 2004. This is the reason, he is called Internet president. This time, he is applying all tricks of political managements and marketing. Through a political trick, he gave a walkover to his challenger in his first debate of 2012 election. Its meaning is hidden and can be accessed by reading between the lines.