Political culture among non-politicians.
Politics (from Greek πολιτικος, [politikós]: «citizen», «civilian»), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.
I am not going to harp on the things that you already know, accommodating for your intellectuality in Indian politics. I will not take any names (or numbers) in this essay.
Re: Cynicism.
Politics and politicians are viewed with certain degree of disdain across the lands. Common opinion is that the kurta-clads are scoundrels and talking about them or their acts is a futile act immersed in a form of grandeur that would make you be called an arm-chair intellectual. Sure, but let us address the futility of the issue a little later. For the moment, let us recollect a time when politics was not a bad word. People of my generation probably cannot. If we revisit the Indian political leaders in the 1940's or 50's.. and our opinion about them.. ah wait, the problem with starting this argument is that it sounds like a cliche even before one starts waxing one's words. What has changed over 70 years has been addressed in many scholarly books and opinion columns that we do not like to read. (Unfortunately) either due to differences in preset opinions, or scarcity of time. But it is essential to note that politics was not always about politicians. Politics was about civilians.
There are two classes of politics - (1) the well-known party politics based on the electoral voting system, and (2) the obscure-but-valid-term citizen politics, i.e. role of citizens. Needless to say, one is more dominant than the other, but both are equally existent, in my opinion. The reason the former is more influential (obviously) is because there is a physical system that exists in the country namely the Constitution, the different administrative bodies and government frameworks - to take care of the latter. Civilian participation is mostly voting, filing petitions, the recently popular RTIs, living-room discussions, media critique and sparse online fora. And paying taxes. Both these political classes are correlated. But you already knew that.
I often wondered if the disjoint and the discontinuous cluster of events that contributes to the latter class of politics is the reason for its impotency. Up until a few years back, these packets of public opinion/query existed in diaspora. Trite as it might sound, but the advent of communication technology in the last few years accounted for a lot of populous movements, though mostly concentrated on entertainment and personal promotion. However, this technology could be the percolating pathway that unites these disjointed clusters, for there are many well-meaning educated people who in spite of the cynicism, harbour goodwill for the nation. Humour me, for I am a hopeful romantic. =)
The problem I feel is that we were preceded by (or are a part of) a generation of common men and women who witnessed a dramatic decline in the quality of political leadership. One of the primary sources of educated spirited leaders during independence period was the middle class. As the 70's-80's approached, this demographic focused on more personal economic welfare than that of the society, thereby fragmenting communal ideologies. I guess this is also the period when the middle class began consider themselves as the benefactors of the political class, and something away from the system. The decline of this section of population in politics was promptly replaced by more street-smart albeit (even) less altruistic forces. Historians would have references to Congress party here, esp. Mrs. Gandhi Sr., but I feel this very historical demonising/dietification of political leaders serves as a crutch for us to ignore politics as either dirty or elitist.
As a young man in your teenage years, you develop a certain understanding of society and a sense of responsibility - a simple pervasive fervour born out of conscience and historical rhetoric. But as years roll by, depending on your geographical positioning, you either grow cynical of the same, or variedly helpless, as you realise the distance and disproportion between an individual self and the communal environment, namely your country. Mid-twenties is an age when the self and the ego begin to part ways in a man. (The self consists of various streams, social conscience being one of them. Ego however deals with a unstemming purportful diligence towards attaining the good life as per popular models.) In a desire to make oneself someone of a consequence among a billion, one loses respect for the social conscience. The foot soldier does not fight for the system (formerly known as nation in his head) anymore, but begins to think he has to fight against/through it. As one of my friends remarked, the idealist becomes a realist.
The so-called decline in the overall quality of political leadership, it must be noted, coincided with the demise of the common middle-class middle-aged man's social idealism.
"Does this mean jump into politics?" This is a wrong question to ask, coz we were never originally supposed to be out of politics. "Does this mean I need to run for elections next time?" Not necessarily.
I refuse to believe that there are no good people in politics. Or that there are no administrators within the system who want to help the junta, given the leeway. There are several unfortunate circumstances in which the current political system works, and if you have read any newspaper in the last 10-20 years, you know why. But the political machinery works in that way, coz todate the citizen politics was never organized enough to question it. Neither did it have a national platform to serve as a reflection of collective public opinion. (Media, was supposed to be this very thing, but that is another story.) What the good seeds in the government need, is a better and transparent system where their honesty comes forth. And this can be largely aided by having an active second class of politics, which is politically educated enough, to demand better.
It is no news that an individual's identity today is both physical and virtual. And soon, what one does on the internet, would be as pertinent as what he/she does on the streets. (Online govt. offices, national IDs and NRI voting are just the beginning of a larger changing face of democracy, I feel.) There is a difference between having an odd status update and having a culture for political discussion. The stigma that needs addressing first, is that speaking about politics is not futile. Neither is it superfluous. It is our forgotten responsibility, if anything.
Surely after twenty years of witnessing the political circus, one should be able to have eye to sift the bullshit out from the shit. Without falling prey to agents of polarising opinion, one could have a well-rounded opinion on current affairs by having a communal discussion with an educational pursuit. Gray versus black/white. Not back-slapping or huddles of like-minded commentators demonising X or Y, but a balanced debate on policy which includes self-critique. Diversity in opinion demands for factually relevant points to be expressed, which would propel the discussion away from personal issues and more towards the ideological arguments, which is what at the end of the day politics is about. About ideologies of citizens, not politicians.
Unless we take politics seriously, we are not a serious society. And if not, we do not deserve serious leaders.
P.S. This turned out longer than I thought. =p
I am not going to harp on the things that you already know, accommodating for your intellectuality in Indian politics. I will not take any names (or numbers) in this essay.
Re: Cynicism.
Politics and politicians are viewed with certain degree of disdain across the lands. Common opinion is that the kurta-clads are scoundrels and talking about them or their acts is a futile act immersed in a form of grandeur that would make you be called an arm-chair intellectual. Sure, but let us address the futility of the issue a little later. For the moment, let us recollect a time when politics was not a bad word. People of my generation probably cannot. If we revisit the Indian political leaders in the 1940's or 50's.. and our opinion about them.. ah wait, the problem with starting this argument is that it sounds like a cliche even before one starts waxing one's words. What has changed over 70 years has been addressed in many scholarly books and opinion columns that we do not like to read. (Unfortunately) either due to differences in preset opinions, or scarcity of time. But it is essential to note that politics was not always about politicians. Politics was about civilians.
There are two classes of politics - (1) the well-known party politics based on the electoral voting system, and (2) the obscure-but-valid-term citizen politics, i.e. role of citizens. Needless to say, one is more dominant than the other, but both are equally existent, in my opinion. The reason the former is more influential (obviously) is because there is a physical system that exists in the country namely the Constitution, the different administrative bodies and government frameworks - to take care of the latter. Civilian participation is mostly voting, filing petitions, the recently popular RTIs, living-room discussions, media critique and sparse online fora. And paying taxes. Both these political classes are correlated. But you already knew that.
I often wondered if the disjoint and the discontinuous cluster of events that contributes to the latter class of politics is the reason for its impotency. Up until a few years back, these packets of public opinion/query existed in diaspora. Trite as it might sound, but the advent of communication technology in the last few years accounted for a lot of populous movements, though mostly concentrated on entertainment and personal promotion. However, this technology could be the percolating pathway that unites these disjointed clusters, for there are many well-meaning educated people who in spite of the cynicism, harbour goodwill for the nation. Humour me, for I am a hopeful romantic. =)
The problem I feel is that we were preceded by (or are a part of) a generation of common men and women who witnessed a dramatic decline in the quality of political leadership. One of the primary sources of educated spirited leaders during independence period was the middle class. As the 70's-80's approached, this demographic focused on more personal economic welfare than that of the society, thereby fragmenting communal ideologies. I guess this is also the period when the middle class began consider themselves as the benefactors of the political class, and something away from the system. The decline of this section of population in politics was promptly replaced by more street-smart albeit (even) less altruistic forces. Historians would have references to Congress party here, esp. Mrs. Gandhi Sr., but I feel this very historical demonising/dietification of political leaders serves as a crutch for us to ignore politics as either dirty or elitist.
As a young man in your teenage years, you develop a certain understanding of society and a sense of responsibility - a simple pervasive fervour born out of conscience and historical rhetoric. But as years roll by, depending on your geographical positioning, you either grow cynical of the same, or variedly helpless, as you realise the distance and disproportion between an individual self and the communal environment, namely your country. Mid-twenties is an age when the self and the ego begin to part ways in a man. (The self consists of various streams, social conscience being one of them. Ego however deals with a unstemming purportful diligence towards attaining the good life as per popular models.) In a desire to make oneself someone of a consequence among a billion, one loses respect for the social conscience. The foot soldier does not fight for the system (formerly known as nation in his head) anymore, but begins to think he has to fight against/through it. As one of my friends remarked, the idealist becomes a realist.
The so-called decline in the overall quality of political leadership, it must be noted, coincided with the demise of the common middle-class middle-aged man's social idealism.
"Does this mean jump into politics?" This is a wrong question to ask, coz we were never originally supposed to be out of politics. "Does this mean I need to run for elections next time?" Not necessarily.
I refuse to believe that there are no good people in politics. Or that there are no administrators within the system who want to help the junta, given the leeway. There are several unfortunate circumstances in which the current political system works, and if you have read any newspaper in the last 10-20 years, you know why. But the political machinery works in that way, coz todate the citizen politics was never organized enough to question it. Neither did it have a national platform to serve as a reflection of collective public opinion. (Media, was supposed to be this very thing, but that is another story.) What the good seeds in the government need, is a better and transparent system where their honesty comes forth. And this can be largely aided by having an active second class of politics, which is politically educated enough, to demand better.
It is no news that an individual's identity today is both physical and virtual. And soon, what one does on the internet, would be as pertinent as what he/she does on the streets. (Online govt. offices, national IDs and NRI voting are just the beginning of a larger changing face of democracy, I feel.) There is a difference between having an odd status update and having a culture for political discussion. The stigma that needs addressing first, is that speaking about politics is not futile. Neither is it superfluous. It is our forgotten responsibility, if anything.
Surely after twenty years of witnessing the political circus, one should be able to have eye to sift the bullshit out from the shit. Without falling prey to agents of polarising opinion, one could have a well-rounded opinion on current affairs by having a communal discussion with an educational pursuit. Gray versus black/white. Not back-slapping or huddles of like-minded commentators demonising X or Y, but a balanced debate on policy which includes self-critique. Diversity in opinion demands for factually relevant points to be expressed, which would propel the discussion away from personal issues and more towards the ideological arguments, which is what at the end of the day politics is about. About ideologies of citizens, not politicians.
Unless we take politics seriously, we are not a serious society. And if not, we do not deserve serious leaders.
P.S. This turned out longer than I thought. =p
posted by Sharad Ragas at 10:43 AM
15 comments
