shivajisisodia wrote:
Telling the youth to change parties from within can only be suggested by someone who is living in "la la land". Here you just went through an episode where rank outsider led movements, first by Babaji and then by Ana Sab and company have failed to move any of the political parties, you are talking about change from within ? Who will allow anyone with sense to join and play even a minor role in any of these power drunk political parties today, leave aside allowing them room to bring about change. All the political parties do talk about "generational change" and "modernization" from time to time, but they only do it to usher in their new generation, which thinks exactly like the old generation. So, when Indira wanted to promote Rajiv, all this drama about "youth India" etc was played out then, but it was only done to push Rajiv forward and it turned out that Rajiv was no different from the old India. Same thing is being hyped up now with Rahul.
Very true. The parties are structured in a way that only those who can be mosahibs will get promoted. But you know why? the reason why this happens - is actually democracy. Sounds contradictory? Not at all.
Wherever an organization needs to sustain itself long-term [you cannot be in a permanent revolution all the time - Trotsky theorized and was wiped off], you cannot rely on a permanent mobilization of large number of people. Which means you need to attract and hold a dedicated group which will stick to the org issue or no issue. If the political culture requires or sees strength in numbers - then within the party, leaders will need followers in numbers in their internal fight for power over their peers. This means, democratic structural influence in politics makes leaders look for greater numbers within the party for their personal following.
The catch is that if new recruits are for intra-party struggle for power, then the best such recruit is one who has weaknesses - that makes the recruit dependent on the leader, and in a bind to support the leader in intra-party struggles. Therefore each leader will increasingly bring in followers with increasing "weaknesses" at each level - and we will have a hierarchy of leadership that has increasing levels of "weaknesses" as we go down the levels, and over time.
The same also happens to dynastic ones - because, the dynastic scions may also feel threatened by talent and seek to remove or suppress talented organizers.
To a certain extent only a directly elected dictator or authoritarian, limited in number of consecutive terms - perhaps is the best compromise, but also needs strong barriers against partisan politics, and strong independent complaints investigating institutions to prevent the rashtryia apparatus - especially the armed and coercive wings, to act as a "party" anyway under the influence of the authoritarian.
Basically this is what is happening. AH is becoming a subconscious experiment in society to direct democracy - with a single authoritarian being "voted" to power. Note that neither MKG nor AH are democratic in their operations.
There may be some examples, but very few, of change coming anywhere from within. Most places, significant and meaningful change always comes via a revolution (violent or non-violent) or through some kind of external cataclysm. Even in the West, major shifts such as the reformation or the French revolution or the American revolution, occured very quickly and were led by rank outsiders, not insiders.
Not actually - both had long preparations by an elite dissenting faction. Jacobins in the French case, and landowner-entreprenur-legal luminaries in the American case. Revolutions are always manifestations of elite dissent and intra-elite factional infighting where a dissenting faction is able to use some popular discontent to ride to supreme power.
Frankly, you are being seriously misguided by all this talk of "incremental change" or "change from within", or "gradual change", which is really the empty slogans peddled by the pig politicians in power, who naturally want to lull people into inaction as they obviously dont want any change at all. By fooling the gullible public into thinking that "incremental change", "change from within" means something and is actually intended, these pigs are merely buying more time and space to continue to loot us and repress us. These politicians have been making many excuses for not making faster change since independence. First, it was, oh, we have just become independence, it will take time. Then, it was, we are a poor country, it wont happen in a day. Then, for decades, it was our excessive population which was blamed. "No matter how much development we politicians do, population outpaces al this development", they would lament. Now it turns out that population is a huge asset, both as a workforce and as a market. No one gives that excuse anymore. So, now the latest is, that "corruption" is an inevitable companion of 10% growth, and we must learn to live with it, until at some distant future, when we are all rich and have mercedes, it will go away miraculously, all by itself, without us having to work for it, hell, even without us having to think about it. Even Britain and the West had it, when they were in their growing phase. Sounds familiar ? Since I am from an older generation, I remember all these excuses and lies spread by these politicians over the decades, while they were robbing us blind for decades.
Actually the "youth" you are so hopeful about will come to the same conclusions in one generational time - roughly 30 years from now.
I respectfully urge you, not to be gullible yourself and if you insist on being gullible, at least try not to dampen the energy and the enthusiasm of our younger generation to seek fast change, their way and in through their own devices. Yours and my generations have had our chances, and we have failed miserably. If we cannot encourage them, let us not be old foggies, sitting on armchair and criticising the young, for no reason.
Yes, I agree with your spirit. But at the same time note that this experiment in "direct democracy" is not new in India, and was done with MKG before. The long term consequence was disillusionment as you are showing. It is not enough to rebel. The long terms goals and values need to be clear.
I am rather intrigued by a revolutionary "youth" which failed to ignite on 26/11 and went WKK, and which we are supposed to pin our hopes on for systemic changes? Maybe yes the "youth" overall, but not the section that onlee reacts to "corruption".
Existing political parties and system is like a building which has rotted to its foundation. It has no hope. No matter how much energy you throw into saving this building, its all going to go to waste. If you want to go on this futile path yourself, by all means go, but please, please dont send your and my future generations into this futile wild goose chase and ruin their lives too.
[/quote]
I would like to be cautious in encouraging the "youth". I still am torn inside from time to time when I recall my own failure to turn away certain youth from the extreme Left road, and most of whom I know to have already been eliminated.
I would be rather crude in saying that any call for a revolution that also does not give a concrete plan for not duping the very same youth - is a surefire another elite factional call for personal power. A revolution takes away our finest, the most dedicated, the most selfless - leaving the surviving society richer in opportunists, self-servers, and more of the rotten eggs. The Independence movement cleared away generations of such dedicated people leaving us with the wily "survivors". We all are reaping the harvest.
If you cannot or do not have a plan for securing the "spirit", the best of our future generations - not in money-spinning genius terms, but the values of community-nation-commitment-spirit terms - it is irresponsible and plain emotionalism to raise the "revolutionary" pitch.
as far as holistically viewing the entire gamut of civilization/culture/society is considered.
and build some solid foundation for a wholesome view.