Politics
affect each and everyone, often we tend to hate it as well as people
called as politicians. But is that a correct attitude? I wondered on
this, and here is the result of my explorations and thoughts about
it.
What
Is Politics
On hearing the word politics, what usually springs to mind are images of government, politicians and their policies or more negatively the idea of corruption and dirty tricks. The actual definition seems to have been obscured and almost lost by such representations and clichés that tend not to pinpoint the true essence, which defines this thing, called politics. In order to make an attempt at a definition of politics a systematic approach is required. To begin with, a brief historical overview will be considered, to understand the origins of politics. Following this, different core concepts, which are imperative to a definition of politics, will be discussed, in the hope to discover a true and fair interpretation of the word politics.
The word politics comes from the Greek word "polis", meaning the state or community as a whole. The concept of the "polis" was an ideal state and came from the writings of great political thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. In his novel "The Republic", Plato describes the ideal state and the means to achieve it. Hence, the word politics originally has connotations in the ways in which to create the ideal society. An ideal society is in practice a rather difficult aim and even an impossible aim to achieve. Politics implies measures which could and should, in the views of their devisor, be implemented in the hope to create a better society, than that which is already present. The very fact that Plato and Aristotle saw imperfections in the societies in which they lived, prompted them to write their political philosophies. These philosophies provided the first written recognition of politics. In his writings his "The Politics", Aristotle states that "Man is by nature a political animal"(The Politics, 1) in another words, it lies deep within the instinct of man. It is almost primal. Due to his nature man should consider and realise his role within the "polis".
Throughout
history, people have participated in politics on many different
levels. Participation in politics has been the way that people have a
voice and change the things that directly affect their lives.
Throughout the course of history, politics has been the competition
of ideas; they decide who gets what, when, where and how.
So,
is it wise to hate politics?
Politics is the means for attaining valued things, that are different in every society, the means of securing those things has never changed. The competition for power, authority and influence will always be the backbone of politics. Applying power, authority and influence to the valued things that support the public good, will produce the quality of life a society desires. In the present day, citizens in the United States demand certain valued things such as welfare, education, safe streets and healthcare. Through politics, citizens can apply their power in many different ways to get the things they want. Power is the ability to get someone to do something they may or may not want to do. Through the use of or the application of coercion, persuasion, manipulation and negotiation, power is used to influence the system.
It would seem as if valued things, such as safe streets and healthcare, would already be established in a society such as ours. Using safe streets as an example, it is hard to believe a person would not support safe streets. But the discussion about safe streets is not exactly whether we want them or not. The disagreement on this topic, and most political topics, is how much should be spent fiscally on achieving and maintaining safe streets. The question of how much money should be spent on what and where is usually decided by whomever or whatever has applied the most power, influence and authority.
How active or inactive should the government be in getting valued things? Politics must be used as the means of answering this question. Politics should be used to attain the things that the society needs most and should represent all of the people equally. Politics, as we witness it in our society or the university is the fight for power, authority and influence. Through discourse, debate, and the knowledge of the public good, politics decides who gets what, when, where and how.
Politics is the means for attaining valued things, that are different in every society, the means of securing those things has never changed. The competition for power, authority and influence will always be the backbone of politics. Applying power, authority and influence to the valued things that support the public good, will produce the quality of life a society desires. In the present day, citizens in the United States demand certain valued things such as welfare, education, safe streets and healthcare. Through politics, citizens can apply their power in many different ways to get the things they want. Power is the ability to get someone to do something they may or may not want to do. Through the use of or the application of coercion, persuasion, manipulation and negotiation, power is used to influence the system.
It would seem as if valued things, such as safe streets and healthcare, would already be established in a society such as ours. Using safe streets as an example, it is hard to believe a person would not support safe streets. But the discussion about safe streets is not exactly whether we want them or not. The disagreement on this topic, and most political topics, is how much should be spent fiscally on achieving and maintaining safe streets. The question of how much money should be spent on what and where is usually decided by whomever or whatever has applied the most power, influence and authority.
How active or inactive should the government be in getting valued things? Politics must be used as the means of answering this question. Politics should be used to attain the things that the society needs most and should represent all of the people equally. Politics, as we witness it in our society or the university is the fight for power, authority and influence. Through discourse, debate, and the knowledge of the public good, politics decides who gets what, when, where and how.
It
is the season for politics and politicians in India nowadays. Lately
I have been giving some thought why do politicians behave the way
they do? And I am half way reaching a conclusion that is because of
the accepted codes of social conduct that determines this behavior.
Let me clarify a bit more in detail. Every human being in a society has certain position, which s/he would like to improve upon through actions moral or amoral. Politicians are no exception! So if a particular set of politicians incited crowds to massacre the members of a particular community at a particular time, we should try to understand their behavior with some empathy. A politician achieves a certain status in a particular political party only through his/her actions which please his superiors, say the party president. So, if s/he thinks that by encouraging his goons to punish some people, for what they consider to be deviant behaviour, s/he stands to improve his status in the party, which is the normal mode of conduct for most politicians and perhaps all human beings. The end is always considered to justify any means to achieve it.
After all there is a popular proverb. Everything is fair in love and war. And life is invariably a struggle for existence, be it towards successful biological or social life. Tell me the name of a person who does not employ unfair means like this, he would invariably either a saint or seer; a much more coveted social status! Most of us never aspire to become a saint or seer, and as common human beings most often exhibit social conduct without a thought how it affects people around us, except when they are in a superior social position. We often trounce on the feeling of people we consider inferior to ourselves, and wait for the opportunities hen we would be in a better position then our present superiors to show the world our merit. In the process we very often earn the wrath of people we consider weak and poor.
Let me clarify a bit more in detail. Every human being in a society has certain position, which s/he would like to improve upon through actions moral or amoral. Politicians are no exception! So if a particular set of politicians incited crowds to massacre the members of a particular community at a particular time, we should try to understand their behavior with some empathy. A politician achieves a certain status in a particular political party only through his/her actions which please his superiors, say the party president. So, if s/he thinks that by encouraging his goons to punish some people, for what they consider to be deviant behaviour, s/he stands to improve his status in the party, which is the normal mode of conduct for most politicians and perhaps all human beings. The end is always considered to justify any means to achieve it.
After all there is a popular proverb. Everything is fair in love and war. And life is invariably a struggle for existence, be it towards successful biological or social life. Tell me the name of a person who does not employ unfair means like this, he would invariably either a saint or seer; a much more coveted social status! Most of us never aspire to become a saint or seer, and as common human beings most often exhibit social conduct without a thought how it affects people around us, except when they are in a superior social position. We often trounce on the feeling of people we consider inferior to ourselves, and wait for the opportunities hen we would be in a better position then our present superiors to show the world our merit. In the process we very often earn the wrath of people we consider weak and poor.
Politics
is not limited to the utterances in the public space. Often,
different political parties have a hidden common agenda, and that is
to perpetuate the prevalent social inequalities.
How?
By refusing to take steps, while in power, to empower the traditionally underprivileged sections of the society. Most political parties, and by implication most politicians are very comfortable with uneducated and economically poor masses of electorate. Because, it allows them to lure them to vote in favour of them in any elections. Imagine, what would be the fate of the present general elections, if many more members of the public were capable of thinking critically and independently. If they were in economic situation so as not to fall prey to the bribes offered by some politicians. Take the example of Muslims, a large majority of them are uneducated and poor, they trained from childhood to follow the local religious leaders, who often bargain benefits for themselves in return to large chunk of votes that are under their control. Or the situation in backward states like Bihar; why do people vote for known criminals, only because of their own feeling of social insecurity. They know that given their economic status, the hired goons of these criminals can easily harm them.
Everybody is aware of these facts, but no one cares to highlight them in elections, because each and every political party stands to gain from this state of society. But, How many of us, who often pontificate politicians for not 'perfect' social behavior. How often do we pause to think, what effect does our behavior has on people less privileged then us? Thus when we flaunt expensive clothes and ride expensive motorized vehicles, we seldom think what effect it may have on a youth of the poorer section of society, who learns from his peers and relatives, how difficult it is to cross social barriers, without the help of an influential person. S/he knows that merit and hard work seldom pays! So regardless of your merit and hard work, one cannot aspire to be in the top political position unless you belong to the 'G' family. That is the message being spread loud and clear through out the society nowadays. Most of us are so self occupied, that we have not a single moment to pause and think about others around us, without whose services we would be as much handicapped as they without the alms we give them. For example, take the instance when we step out of an expensive mall or restaurant, and hail a rickshaw puller to haul us to the nearby destination, we often bargain for a few bucks, something that we cannot do in the restaurant or mall shop. Why? Because s/he is much more economically rich and hence influential then us. We dare not confront them, but we can definitely do so with a person poorer then us.
When you hear/see a person aspiring for a political career exploiting poor by buying their votes or influencing their immature minds with a speech that appeals to a large crowd, we go about criticizing the person or the political system, but seldom think how much are we ourselves are different from him. How much effort you have put in to be of some help to poorer sections of the society?
How?
By refusing to take steps, while in power, to empower the traditionally underprivileged sections of the society. Most political parties, and by implication most politicians are very comfortable with uneducated and economically poor masses of electorate. Because, it allows them to lure them to vote in favour of them in any elections. Imagine, what would be the fate of the present general elections, if many more members of the public were capable of thinking critically and independently. If they were in economic situation so as not to fall prey to the bribes offered by some politicians. Take the example of Muslims, a large majority of them are uneducated and poor, they trained from childhood to follow the local religious leaders, who often bargain benefits for themselves in return to large chunk of votes that are under their control. Or the situation in backward states like Bihar; why do people vote for known criminals, only because of their own feeling of social insecurity. They know that given their economic status, the hired goons of these criminals can easily harm them.
Everybody is aware of these facts, but no one cares to highlight them in elections, because each and every political party stands to gain from this state of society. But, How many of us, who often pontificate politicians for not 'perfect' social behavior. How often do we pause to think, what effect does our behavior has on people less privileged then us? Thus when we flaunt expensive clothes and ride expensive motorized vehicles, we seldom think what effect it may have on a youth of the poorer section of society, who learns from his peers and relatives, how difficult it is to cross social barriers, without the help of an influential person. S/he knows that merit and hard work seldom pays! So regardless of your merit and hard work, one cannot aspire to be in the top political position unless you belong to the 'G' family. That is the message being spread loud and clear through out the society nowadays. Most of us are so self occupied, that we have not a single moment to pause and think about others around us, without whose services we would be as much handicapped as they without the alms we give them. For example, take the instance when we step out of an expensive mall or restaurant, and hail a rickshaw puller to haul us to the nearby destination, we often bargain for a few bucks, something that we cannot do in the restaurant or mall shop. Why? Because s/he is much more economically rich and hence influential then us. We dare not confront them, but we can definitely do so with a person poorer then us.
When you hear/see a person aspiring for a political career exploiting poor by buying their votes or influencing their immature minds with a speech that appeals to a large crowd, we go about criticizing the person or the political system, but seldom think how much are we ourselves are different from him. How much effort you have put in to be of some help to poorer sections of the society?
A friend of mine, an
academic at Indian Institute of Science, once wrote:
“Everyone
has a need to feel superior to somebody. Research shows that our
happiness depends more on the misery of others than our well being.
Hate speeches work precisely because of this reason. Poor of any
community are essentially identical, they should all be feeling
equally miserable. Yet, if I tell someone that they are more
important in the scheme of things, or that only they are the true
citizens of this country then that might make them feel better. I
don't think that only Indian politicians are to be blamed for this.
Ultra nationalistic parties in all countries create such hierarchies
to exploit this particular human folly to come to power. Also recall
that after having come to power, the actions of these parties are not
very different from each other. All governments are essentially
identical since there are not a lot of different ways that you can
run a country, and anyway for that we have civil servants. Everywhere
in the world, affluence came with industrialization, and for that we
need a strong central government that can push forward various
reforms. In UK, from where we borrowed our parliamentary system, the
country is not so diverse that state issues would dominate over
national issues, but in India it is the other way round. BJP and
Congress have very poor presence in the south, and the parties over
there hardly have any national agenda. Thus, I largely agree with the
PM's comment yesterday that independents should not be encouraged in
this election since they would only help to create a fragmented
parliament. We have all seen the effect of that during the Nuclear
deal fiasco.”
I
wondered, why it is so? Isn't it because though Congress ruled these
states of India for decades, Congress leaders in these states behave
much like the viceroys of the central governments and they were more
loyal only to the Central Government then the people the represented
in the parliament. Anyway i believe that most politicians belonging
to any political party have been more loyal to the interests of their
party ( and their families) rather then to the nation! Else how can
we explain the poor state of education in our country even after 60
years of Independence. The Nuclear deal indeed made it abundantly
clear, just think about the drama in parliament, and all the back
stage efforts of the ruling party. It is a popular perception, just
as a few congress leaders who stay accused for 84 Sikh riots, or BJP
leaders who assisted in Godhra riots, that these national parties
have hardly any national agenda really. Is the divisive agenda of BJP
really a national agenda, or the agenda of many governments to
support construction lobbies really nationalistic? I really wonder f
someone has done a survey of the increase in private wealth of Indian
politicians vis a vie the total GDP growth of the country (perhaps
GDP growth may not be as revealing as the real economic growth for
which i think no indicators have so far been recognized.
In my opinion if we really want able and thinking people to rule us with a nationalistic agenda, we should abandon the present parliamentary system we have imported from England, rather we should elect a much smaller group of people in which the whole nation reposes its faith on the basis of their services to nation, rather than their family identities or the number of goons at their command. Mayawati the CM of a state of India, UP was once much in news because of a garland that is made up of high denomination currency notes. There has been a lot of discussion about in several news channels involving several members of intelligentsia. I happened to watch a few! One point that i could indeed appreciate in these discussions is that for far too long the Indian society has been dominated by the members of upper castes, who became powerful by hook or crook so if a person belonging to the underprivileged section of population is now aspiring to become powerful by accumulating some money, can s/he be faulted. How can the moral principles that have allowed the present lot of powerful politicians to become so, be not allowed for the newly aspiring class. If Mayawati is aspiring to become politically powerful, and we all know that no one can become so unless s/he has lots of money power, can she be indeed faulted on moral grounds. It is argued that if she has the money, why doesn't she spends it instead on the welfare of the extremely deprived Dalits in her state. But, can a change in the prevalent political system possible by simply such philanthropy??
In my opinion if we really want able and thinking people to rule us with a nationalistic agenda, we should abandon the present parliamentary system we have imported from England, rather we should elect a much smaller group of people in which the whole nation reposes its faith on the basis of their services to nation, rather than their family identities or the number of goons at their command. Mayawati the CM of a state of India, UP was once much in news because of a garland that is made up of high denomination currency notes. There has been a lot of discussion about in several news channels involving several members of intelligentsia. I happened to watch a few! One point that i could indeed appreciate in these discussions is that for far too long the Indian society has been dominated by the members of upper castes, who became powerful by hook or crook so if a person belonging to the underprivileged section of population is now aspiring to become powerful by accumulating some money, can s/he be faulted. How can the moral principles that have allowed the present lot of powerful politicians to become so, be not allowed for the newly aspiring class. If Mayawati is aspiring to become politically powerful, and we all know that no one can become so unless s/he has lots of money power, can she be indeed faulted on moral grounds. It is argued that if she has the money, why doesn't she spends it instead on the welfare of the extremely deprived Dalits in her state. But, can a change in the prevalent political system possible by simply such philanthropy??
Rakesh
Mohan Hallen
No comments:
Post a Comment