Consumerist sabotage of Democracy

This title is not meant to startle you, but to make you think seriously about your role in democracy.

If democracy is also by people, then my role doesn't end with casting my vote for a candidate.  I have to participate in the democratic process of legislation, execution and justiciation.  For that purpose, I have to study what the representatives are doing and not doing and ask them to do and not to do what in my best opinion speaks with our constitution.  I have to keep a watch and a check on the goings on in the democratic polity, for which I have a number of avenues open.  I can do this as an individual, as a group and also as a member of a political party.

But we see today a large number of people discuss and debate among themselves without directly confronting the political parties and the politicians.  On being asked what stopped them from approaching political parties, they would say, "but it's not going to help as they are not going to change".  By indulging in private discussion, they are perhaps absolving themselves of the guilt of not doing right by democracy.  So there is a dualism of I, the citizen and they, the politicians.  The citizen is at the mercy of the politicians.  Citizens have only one choice: this or that political party at the time of election.  This is mirroring of the marketplace:  there are sellers and I as the consumer have a choice of this brand or that one.

Like the consumer, I as the citizen have become passive recipient of services dished out by democracy, such as utilities, infrastructure and security. 

With globalization and privatization, many of the services that were a part of the government provisioning have been going out of public sector.  Education, health and transport which earlier were a part of the public services have gradually been handed over to the private sector, with disastrous consequences.  The moment a service is moved from home to business, direct participation goes out and we become lazy couch potatoes waiting to be served readymade stuff.  Of course, it is always made out to be "inevitable".  Privatization is a political process in addition to being a commercial or economic one.  It takes away people's power over the political will and places it in the hands of those with purchasing power. 

Education, healthcare, banking and insurance, media and communication, transport and now IT services also create an educated middle class employee, who earns a high income and is eligible for loans.  This middle class is fed with messages of a decent life surrounded by gadgets of comfort.  In fact it is a cocoon tucked away from the hustle and bustle of common people's life.  You sit in the comfort of your living room, move in the luxury of air-conditioned vehicles and if not ordering online, go shopping in high street malls.  Unless you consume, you don't enjoy and unless you enjoy you don't live.  So consume more and enjoy more.  In the process, become less active and productive and believe you have choices only among the brands on offer.

This slow debilitation of mind is the real danger of consumerism and that is why we see the participation of people even in the most ordinary democratic process of voting in elections going down.  No wonder, politicians adopt the Election Marketing strategies, which are all about promises of more and better services to you, the consumer of democracy.

I have discovered that I don't have to drive to the Gym, if I can walk to the market and to the bus stop to catch a bus wherever I want to go.  It's better to be passive in consuming and active in living, as much as I could do.

Not Leaders, but Leadership Teams

A few days back, I heard Dr Vishwambhar Choudhari, a renowned environmental activist and a biologist, speak at a seminar.  He mentioned current view among biologists that the evolution of human brain on the physical plane seems to have reached an end, but the movement now seems to be toward connectivity among human brains, something like a collective brain.  It struck me that since the challenges of contemporary society and organizations are big, complex and new, it is not possible for one person to be able to view, comprehend and conceptualize a whole set of responses to these challenges.  Yet, we continue to look for solutions in the realm of Leadership and by that term, we always have in mind a single Leader who is inspirational, transformational, effective and successful.  Now that's a tall order and doesn't appear realistic to expect of a single individual, howsoever great (if great be the right word).

Then I came across another study by Rasmussen and Li, reported in the Institutional Investor, that investigated the MBA Myth and the Cult of the CEO.  They found that elite education and track record of success of the CEO did not seem to influence corporate performance significantly.  The authors after an exhaustive study of data on companies and CEO's expressed this view:

"Journalists, investors, and boards are placing excessive emphasis on CEO pedigrees and track records. In a world that is feedback-rich, stochastic, and “fat tailed,” the simple narrative of the “great man” does not appear to have much quantitative merit — rather, it seems like yet another cognitive bias in the vein of those discovered by Daniel Kahneman."

Then again I heard my well-informed friends, who have worked in top and senior positions in industry, ask me at the end of a predictable discussion on current politics: 

"yes, we agree the current government headed by Mr M has not delivered.  But where is the alternative?"  

The question presupposes that one man as a Leader with all the qualities that you desire in him is going to solve the problems facing the country.  If you look at the current state of evolution of human society and human brain, this expectation of a singular leader who will deliver is quite outdated.  The dynamism and the complexity of life have grown much beyond our conception.  So we need to supplement our concept of Leadership by that of Leadership team.

A leader must be able to marshal multifaceted talent, manage the team and inspire execution at the broad base ground level.  Obviously, such a leader must be an outstanding human being in terms of wisdom, strength and sensitivity.  His team ought to comprise people of calibre and character, and they must learn to work together, which translated in practice, means they must know how to manage differences productively.  

We have had Dr Man Mohan Singh as a Leader who possessed wisdom and sensitivity.  His strength as a leader was compromised by several factors.  His team had multiple talents, but he was not able to rein in his ministers and could not inspire execution at the broad base in line with the vision.  

Then we saw Mr Narendra Modi in the last five years working long hours.  That spoke of his stamina and strength.  But his team could not be described as having the intellectual and political bandwidth that a country like India needs.  From Gujarat to India is not a matter of scaling up, it is a quantum jump in complexity.  Mr Modi's difficulties have arisen primarily from lack of bandwidth of talent and from a non-playing team under a captain trying to bat, bowl, keep wickets and field all at the same time.  

So today when we are faced with a choice, we have to carefully look at all the contending candidates as Leaders and their respective Leadership teams, in order to answer the question," where is the alternative?"