400 MPs under 40: Why Young, Independent Candidates Deserve Your Vote(s)....

In a democratic society, the power to choose our representatives through voting is a fundamental right. As responsible citizens, we must exercise this right carefully and consider the long-term impact our choices will have on our nation's future. In recent times, it has become apparent that there is a significant age gap between the majority of voters and the elected politicians. Let us analyze the importance of supporting younger candidates, preferably independent ones, whose ages are closer to the voter demographic, and why doing so can bring fresh perspectives, innovation, and a stronger representation of our interests.

1.   Representing the Voice of the Majority:

The age group of 18 to 31 constitutes a significant portion of the population, and their concerns, aspirations, and priorities deserve strong representation in the political landscape. Younger candidates are more likely to understand and empathize with the challenges faced by their fellow youth, whether it be education, employment, or social issues. By electing candidates closer to the age of  the majority of voters, we can ensure our concerns are given due attention and that our voices are effectively represented.

2.   Embracing Change and Innovation:

The world is rapidly evolving, with technological advancements and social shifts occurring at an unprecedented pace. Younger candidates are more likely to be in tune with these changes, as they have grown up in an era of rapid technological progress. Their unique perspectives and innovative ideas can help resolve many of the challenges of the modern world, foster economic growth, and create opportunities for the younger generation. By supporting younger candidates, voters will invite the infusion of new ideas, creative problem-solving, and adaptability into our political systems.

3.   Independence from Party Influence:

Political parties often have their own agendas and established hierarchies, mostly made up of geriatric people, that can limit the autonomy of individual political thinking. Supporting independent candidates allows voters to break free from the constraints of partisan politics and focus on electing representatives who prioritize the interests of their constituents over party loyalty. Independent candidates can bring a broader range of perspectives, as they are not bound by party platforms and can work towards finding common ground across different ideologies. This non-partisan approach fosters a more inclusive and collaborative political environment.

4.   Bridge the Generation Gap:

By electing younger candidates, voters can bridge the generation gap that often exists between the elected representatives and the majority of voters. This can lead to improved communication, understanding, and cooperation between different age groups. By electing representatives who are closer in age to the majority of voters, we can promote inter-generational dialogue and ensure that the concerns of all age groups are taken into account when making important decisions that shape our society.

Let’s compare the advantages and disadvantages of voting for young political candidates:

Advantages:

1.   Fresh Perspectives: Young political candidates often bring fresh perspectives and new ideas to the table. They have grown up in a different era and can offer innovative solutions to address the challenges of today's world.

2.   Relevance to Voter Concerns: Younger candidates are more likely to understand and prioritize the concerns and aspirations of their fellow youth. They can advocate for issues such as education, employment opportunities, and social issues that directly impact younger generations.

3.   Technological Proficiency: Growing up in a technologically advanced era, young candidates are generally more adept at using and leveraging technology for governance and public participation. This can lead to more effective and efficient governance, and better engagement with constituents through digital platforms.

4.   Long-Term Vision: Young candidates have a longer potential tenure in public office, which enables them to focus on long-term policies and planning. They may be more invested in shaping the future, as they have a longer stake in the consequences of their decisions.

Disadvantages:

1.   Limited Experience: Young candidates may lack the experience and depth of knowledge that comes with years of political involvement. They may face a learning curve when it comes to navigating complex political systems and dealing with the intricacies of governance.

2.   Lack of Network and Support: Young candidates often have limited political networks and may struggle to garner support from established political structures and interest groups. Building alliances and coalitions can be challenging, which may hinder their ability to enact change.

3.   Perception of Inexperience: Some voters may perceive young candidates as lacking the necessary qualifications and readiness to hold public office. This perception can be a barrier to their electoral success, particularly if they are running against more seasoned and politically cunning opponents.

4.   Overemphasis on Youth Issues: While it is important to address the concerns of young voters, an exclusive focus on youth issues could potentially neglect the broader range of challenges faced by other age groups. Balancing the interests of different demographics is crucial for effective governance.

It is important to note that these advantages and disadvantages are not absolute, and individual candidates will vary in their qualities and capabilities. Evaluating candidates based on their specific merits, qualifications, and policy positions is essential when making an informed voting decision.

In the next general election, young voters must consider voting for candidates whose ages are closer to their own. By supporting younger, independent candidates, voters can empower themselves to shape the future that they desire. Young elected representatives will ensure that their concerns are heard, their ideas are accepted, and their aspirations are fulfilled. Together, the voters can bridge the age gap, foster innovation, and build a more inclusive democracy that works for everyone, regardless of their age. It is time to make our voices heard by supporting young and independent candidates in the upcoming election.

Remember: If we can vote 400 young candidates to the Parliament in the next general election, we will change everything in our nation, and for the better. 

400 over 40 should be the voters goal.

                                                                 Pic courtesy: EU forum

 

 

 

The Technocratic Government of India

 

So what exactly is a technocrat anyway?

Destined to save our economy and our country, we Indians have been graced with the appearance of a technocratic government since last seven years, where economist Dr. Manmohan Singh (PhD) has been the prime minister. As the hero of our day – the UPA technocratic government - is largely unknown to many of our people, we summon a brief dialogue on technocratic government

Q: What's a technocratic government?

A: To answer this question we first need to be clear about how governments are formed in parliamentary systems. First - in a parliamentary system, the government must be approved by the parliament. Often this will require the agreement of more than one political party, resulting in a coalition of parties to support the government. As part of this "coalition agreement", the heads of ministries (or what are ‘Ministers’) are allocated to the different parties, who place representatives from their parties as the heads of their respective ministries. Moreover, the parties agree on a "Prime Minister" to head the government, usually but not always from the largest party in the coalition. Most of the time, the identity of this "Prime Minister" - conditional on election results - is known during the election campaign.

Q: Ok, so what's really a technocratic government?

A: Technically, a technocratic government is one in which the ministers are not career politicians; in fact, in some cases they may not even be elected members of parliament at all. They are instead supposed to be "experts" in the fields of their respective ministries. So the classic example is that the Finance Minister would be someone with an academic background in economics who had worked for years at the IMF, but has not previously run for elective office or been heavily involved in election campaigns.

Q: Is it required for the Prime Minister also to be a "technocrat"?

A: Not necessarily. You could have a prime minister from a major party who heads a technocratic government (i.e., most of the ministers meet the definition laid out above), or you could have a technocratic prime minister as well. In the current UPA government, the Prime Minister is both a technocrat and an economist. [To be clear: there is nothing in the definition of a technocratic government that requires it be led by an economist!]

Q: Why did the UPA appoint a technocratic Prime Minister, two times in a row?

A: The practical reason is often because a government has lost the support of the people who elect them to parliament, but also for various other reasons (including legal, pragmatic or political). If the parties in the parliament can't agree to form a normal government, then sometimes they can all agree to support a technocratic government. Just to make things even more complicated, it is possible to have a ‘partisan caretaker prime minister’ (which is basically what is going on in India right now), which then would not be known as a technocratic government, but instead is often called a "lame duck government".

Q: So why would elected politicians ever turn over power to unelected technocrats? Doesn't that go against the facts of everything we think we know about politicians: that they are above all else interested in holding elected office for self gain?

A: This brings us to the crux of the matter in terms of current developments. What seems to be going on is that a "received wisdom" is developing that only technocratic governments can carry out the "painful reforms necessary" to save our country. The theory here is that no major party is going to want to pay the costs of instituting painful policies alone. If this is the case, then one way around this predicament is to appoint a technocratic government that is not "of" any party but is supported by all the parties. In this way, blame can essentially be shared, and government can do the right thing, whatever that may be.

Q: Does it work?

A: Does anyone know?. First, politicians are not particularly good at "sharing blame", which will make the temptation for any of a number of major parties to undercut the technocratic government for political gains. Second, even if mainstream parties get behind a technocratic government, that doesn't mean fringe parties will as well. Indeed, a technocratic government supported by all of the mainstream parties seems a perfect recipe for the rise of non-mainstream parties.

Q: OK, but even with those caveats, technocratic government still sounds pretty good! Why doesn't everyone have one?

A: Well, there is this one small problem, which is that in a democracy; people are supposed to elect their rulers. Since, by definition, a technocratic government does not get elected for office, it is hard to call a country with a technocratic government, a democracy. Instead, we have a system where the people only get to vote for people that they send into Parliament; who then get to decide on who the real leaders of the government will be.

Q: Will technocratic governments save India?

A: The UPA made it possible for certain policies to be implemented in the short-term. But India’s longer-term problems are going to need to be solved (or not solved) by India’s elected officials. Democracy is about accountability. While UPA has made it possible to duck accountability, long-term policies are going to have been enacted - or at the very least maintained - by elected officials. The UPA technocratic government has failed miserably on most accounts and will never be an effective Government ‘of the people, for the people, by the people’.

Let's bring about a Positive Change

The essence of “Tilak Stotra” is “Badlav” or The Change! 

 Change in the way we think as Individuals and as a society. Change in our attitude as a Nation. Change in our personality from being servants of the world to be the leaders of communities’ world wide; to sponsor peace, harmony and exchange of knowledge. 

 Let it be known to friends and others that Hindustan was, is and always will be a powerful nation of ideas and ideals and that a powerful nation is not known by the wars it fights; but for the peace that it ensures within the country and across the world! The concept of Hindustan in this 21st Century: The People! 

The people of India will ensure that the nation is a strongly – disciplined and regulated society with strict standards of civil and social discipline. ‘Discipline’ will be the Mantra of the Nation! Punishment for violation of social, civil and criminal laws will be severe and punitive. 

The people will work towards achieving a strong and balanced society by observing a few simple rules that enhance living standards and ensure peace within the nation. 

The Change in Government work procedures: 

a) Expanding the work hours of the Government offices to catch up with the work load back log as well as to give more work time for the government employees as well as to the people who approach the government department for various purposes. The Government of Hindustan will work in two shifts; from 6 AM to 2 PM and again from 3PM to 11 PM. All government departments will work Monday through Friday and the nation will enjoy a full 48 hours weekend every week. The only exemptions will be the Police and Emergency personnel which will work 24/7/365 to ensure the availability of assistance to the people at all times. 

b) There will be only two government holidays. Independence Day (15th August) and Republic Day (26th January). All other civil, religious, political and sundry holidays will be cancelled. This will assist the government to catch up with the work of national governance and ensure an effective government. 

 c) Extended work hours in the Government will ensure that the Government work force will have to be doubled. This will mean a 100% immediate increase in employment for the youth of our nation. 

d) All government offices will be technologically upgraded so that work flow is efficient and time saving. 

e) Government departments will be legally required to reach a final decision within 30 days of the start of any work file in any department; from the Central level, all the ways down to District & Town level. Violation of this policy by Government officials will be punishable severely in the form of loss of employment as well as punitive financial punishments. 

f) The pay and financial benefits of the Government employees will be on par with those employees in the private industrial / commercial sector; and there will be substantially extra financial benefits to those employees who exceed the general performance standards. The change in Social procedures and the contribution of the People: 

g) All citizens will proudly wear any of our National dress(s) during all work hours. 

h) The morning hours from 4 AM till 12 Noon will be used by the Radio & TV Media to publicize national and cultural aspects of the nation; by broadcasting national / patriotic / cultural songs and programs that reinforce the image of a strong and progressive nation. The radio & TV media will have full freedom to broadcast all entertainment programs post noon till 3 AM; as long as such entertainment is not obscene in any form or manner. 

i) The use of foul language in public or inside government establishments will be deemed a cognizable offense and punished punitively. 

j) The use of foul and or obscene language by any person (male or female) towards any other person within the confines of the residences will be deemed as a cognizable offense; if it is reported to the police officials by any other member of the family or a visitor, and will be punished punitively. 

k) The use of footpaths, over- bridges, under-passes used for pedestrian traffic for any purpose other than walking will be a cognizable offense. Pedestrian areas are meant for pedestrians and the use of these areas as shops, hutments, or any other purpose will be punished harshly. 

l) The use of public areas for spitting or for releasing of body waste(s) will be a criminal offense and punished harshly. 

m) Punishment for Civil offenses will start with a minimum 03 years in a civil prison camp and people so convicted will become part of the prison workers detail which will be used to clean up the nations filth and garbage dumps, repair roads, build gardens, water lawns and work on the farm – fields.

Let's make our country Great ....

Jai Hind 

 

 

Political Oversight Policy, 2010

Oversight Autonomy would be a fitting concession to make to the people of India. 

This will involve the operation of oversight of the State Governments in connection with the internal administration of the country and putting in place the control of the representatives of Hindustani Polity through legislative process. 

Below is a brief outline that this form of administration oversight that should be set up in the states to carry out this idea. 

Each state should have: 

1. A “Chief of People” appointed from the People at the head of the Oversight Administration Council. 

2. A Cabinet or Executive Council of six members, three of whom should be political party(s) members and three nationals with oversight on the following portfolios: (a) Home (including law and justice). (b) Finance. (c) Agriculture, irrigation, and public works. (d) Education. (e) Local self-government (including sanitation and medical relief). (f) Industries and commerce. 

While members of the Bureaucracy should be eligible for appointment to the Executive Council, no place in the Council should be reserved for them, the best people available being appointed, male and female. 

3. A Oversight Council of between fifty-five and sixty members, of whom not less than four-fifths should be elected by different constituencies and interests. Thus each district should return two members, one representing municipalities and the other districts. 

Mega-Metro Cities should have about ten members allotted to the state bodies. There should be no nominated non-official members, except as experts. A few official members may be added by the ‘Chief of Party’ as experts or to assist in representing the Executive Government. 

4. The relations between the Elected Government and the Oversight Council so constituted should be under the preview of the “Interests of the People”. The Council will have the right to examine all state legislation and its assent may be necessary to additions to or changes in local and state taxation policies. The Budget too will have to come to it for discussion; and its resolutions in connection with it, as also on questions of general administration, will have to be given effect to, unless vetoed by the ‘Chief of People’. 

The members of the Executive Council shall not depend, individually or collectively, on the support of a majority of the Councils for holding their offices. The term of office for each member will not exceed five years; and no member will serve consecutive terms. 

5. The Oversight Council, so constituted and working under the control of the Executive Council as outlined above, should have complete charge of the oversight of internal administration of the states and it should have independent financial powers. 

The Oversight Council will have oversight authority over all the revenue expenditure exclusive to the Governments. 

Such a scheme of Oversight Autonomy will be incomplete unless it is accompanied by the liberalizing of the present form of district administration and a great role of local self-government. Oversight Council should be legally allowed to raise funds from the people so that they have adequate resources at their disposal for the due performance of their duties. 

Subject to the principle of “Interests of the People” the Oversight Committee should have increased opportunities of influencing the policy of the Government by discussion, questions connected with policy and issues of the citizens being placed on the same level with other issues; all within the boundaries of the Constitution of the Nation.