No, this is not a rant against dynastic politics. Only an ostrich, or your average Congressi blessed with archetypal thick skin, would have missed its disastrous limitations. The fact is that present-day India pretty much makes the case for the misfortunes that result when power is thrust into the hands of those whose credentials begin and end with parentage. Thankfully, although General Elections are a year away, the writing seems to be on the wall for sundry dynasts and their brazen sense of entitlement.
My pitch today is almost the opposite. For our polity to step up, more of our bright young things ought to be encouraged to don the political mantle. This, however, is a long walk from current reality. Quiz any Indian schoolgoing child about career ambitions, and it is difficult to transcend the familiar doctor-engineer-civil servant territory. Yes, an MBA has gained some coinage as a livelihood option in the last decade or so; and there will be the occasional interest in bijness (often running in the family); but you can bet the barn against finding anything more than the odd aspirant for public life.
Yet, at many levels, politics is at the top of the pyramid. Take a country like ours, and it is easy to argue that professionals of all ilks actually have to defer to the neta class more often than any other. Apart from an undeniable power to do good, it is not as if there is no economic upside either (and that is without perforce descending, UPA style, into my-kursi-is-my-ATM moral degeneracy). Despite this, politics as a career somehow continues to be considered lowly and fit only for 'the scoundrel'.
Of course, this is in stark contrast to democracies housed in the more developed nations of the West. Politics is right up there with medicine and law as career choices for the nation's bright minds. Sure, there are jokes on the neta as much as, say, on a banker, lawyer, movie star, or any other. However, there is no sustained scorn or uniform vilification of the kind we see locally. Thus, talent does enter, and often from the unlikeliest of quarters. In the US, for instance, from a Lincoln to an Obama, politics has accorded means for the proverbial outsider to rise to the very top by dint of merit (and some timing; but such is true in all walks of life). Must we be so very different?
The most commonly profferred hypothesis for this dichotomy seems to be the vintage of those democracies. Somehow, barriers to entry are lowered as the democratic model matures over time; and (eventually) the cesspool of politics becomes less murky. However, in this respect, our record of the last few years has been rather uninspiring. One does not have to look further than the principles that were IAC, to the compromise that is Kejriwal, in order to understand this gap.
To that extent, the AAP's apparent descent from the promise of breathtaking change may have ramifications beyond the obvious. Will similar future efforts be equally torn asunder by the fallibility of a few? Were they felled in trying to do too much too soon; and is that all we must guard against? Or must we be willing to tread the longer path by galvanising from within, centred around the two national parties? With the Congress seemingly intent on self-destruction, at least part of the answer is clear. The time is now.
My pitch today is almost the opposite. For our polity to step up, more of our bright young things ought to be encouraged to don the political mantle. This, however, is a long walk from current reality. Quiz any Indian schoolgoing child about career ambitions, and it is difficult to transcend the familiar doctor-engineer-civil servant territory. Yes, an MBA has gained some coinage as a livelihood option in the last decade or so; and there will be the occasional interest in bijness (often running in the family); but you can bet the barn against finding anything more than the odd aspirant for public life.
Yet, at many levels, politics is at the top of the pyramid. Take a country like ours, and it is easy to argue that professionals of all ilks actually have to defer to the neta class more often than any other. Apart from an undeniable power to do good, it is not as if there is no economic upside either (and that is without perforce descending, UPA style, into my-kursi-is-my-ATM moral degeneracy). Despite this, politics as a career somehow continues to be considered lowly and fit only for 'the scoundrel'.
Of course, this is in stark contrast to democracies housed in the more developed nations of the West. Politics is right up there with medicine and law as career choices for the nation's bright minds. Sure, there are jokes on the neta as much as, say, on a banker, lawyer, movie star, or any other. However, there is no sustained scorn or uniform vilification of the kind we see locally. Thus, talent does enter, and often from the unlikeliest of quarters. In the US, for instance, from a Lincoln to an Obama, politics has accorded means for the proverbial outsider to rise to the very top by dint of merit (and some timing; but such is true in all walks of life). Must we be so very different?
The most commonly profferred hypothesis for this dichotomy seems to be the vintage of those democracies. Somehow, barriers to entry are lowered as the democratic model matures over time; and (eventually) the cesspool of politics becomes less murky. However, in this respect, our record of the last few years has been rather uninspiring. One does not have to look further than the principles that were IAC, to the compromise that is Kejriwal, in order to understand this gap.
To that extent, the AAP's apparent descent from the promise of breathtaking change may have ramifications beyond the obvious. Will similar future efforts be equally torn asunder by the fallibility of a few? Were they felled in trying to do too much too soon; and is that all we must guard against? Or must we be willing to tread the longer path by galvanising from within, centred around the two national parties? With the Congress seemingly intent on self-destruction, at least part of the answer is clear. The time is now.
Posts
