Elections – what reaction does this word evoke in you? For me, it brings out the words participation, self-determination, leadership. But, that is too individual a thought. From a larger perspective, this is about a mass movement, actually multiple mass movements all trying to outdo each other for success.
What does this mass movement consist of? This, normally, belongs to a single political party. The hierarchy begins with the senior party management. Then come several levels of party leadership as the structure goes from the national level to individual constituencies. At the constituency level, come the party workers. They are the people who consist of believers, supporters, leadership wannabes and are the day-to-day touchpoints for common folk; the people who spread the ideology and belief; the people who eventually garner and mobilize the vote. There is no successful politician at any level who can ignore this fact.
So, let us talk about contrast. Is the election process identical everywhere? Definitely not. What follows is a comparison of the process that is used in India to what is prevalent in the USA. Let us see what we can learn from these observations.
In India, the decision on who gets the ‘ticket’ in an election is through an interesting process. The party high-command publishes a list of the winners! What is this decision based on? Winnability should be the sole criterion for party success. But, rumors (maybe they are fact) sometimes point to familial, financial, quid-pro-quo or other similar instincts which on a pure analysis level, do not help the larger organization. The base of the party – the workers, may or may not be consulted or satisfied through this process. This process is not necessarily autocratic, but there is surely room for more transparency.
In the states, anybody can throw in their hat into the ring for an election. The candidates then run a campaign to be elected. However, this election is from multiple candidates within the same party – they are fighting to become the nominee for their party in the general election. This process is called a primary. The layers of party leadership along with the local party workers can show their partisanship by supporting their desired candidates. However, the result is driven by the ballot, which is cast by the registered party workers or the general public (depending on the party constitution). Given the transparency of the process and the involvement of the mass movement, this process is necessarily not autocratic.
What is the difference? By being necessarily not autocratic, there is an involvement of all levels of the party in the decision on who will be the final candidate. This improves the winnability of the seat for the party and benefits the larger organization. Interested in examples?
How many of you really think that Mr. Obama would have run for president from the Democratic party without the primary. His lack of experience and his color would have been huge barriers. However, the primary allowed him to showcase his abilities which guaranteed 4 years for the party in the White House.
In India, Mr. Khanduri has resigned as the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. This was because the party workers did not believe in his leadership which resulted in no efforts during the Lok Sabha elections on the party’s behalf. The BJP failed miserably in the state due to this autocratic appointment.
Is the solution perfect? Nope. But it is an improvement in my belief, and a very important one at that. But, then again, this is not a political column. What can us 9-to-whatevers take away from this?
How many strategies have you either created or seen come down from senior management? How many of these have been pre-synced with the people who need to implement them? How many of these have met the original estimates of success?
We forget too often, who our “party workers” are. We take our believers, supporters and executors for granted. Strategies which have buy-in from them will always have a greater chance of succeeding. This is because their inputs will ensure that the strategy is grounded in day-to-day realities which they are much closer to. This is also because the commitment to the cause and motivation to succeed increases with their involvement in the decision. We could try to be more necessarily not autocratic.
What do you think?