Homo politiciens is taxonomic bio-nomenclature of the most deceptive variety of human species – politicians. They essentially belong to two orders of disposition, one who are committed to the nation and the other, to themselves. Between these two extremes, left-outs are consistently struggling to attain either one of the two aforesaid categories. Owing to their extra-ordinary temperament, they require extra-ordinary criteria and ways of evaluation to reckon with lest one is lost in the spider-web of media hype, sycophant accounts or even bragging by themselves.
The species of Homo politiciens have their own mystical evolutionary path being absolutely Extinction-resistant. Often under exigencies, they evolve into newer varieties with minor modifications solely to obfuscate exigencies dancing on their heads. As soon as calamitous circumstances are over, they smartly revert to original roots of their species. Thus, they are well-versed in the art of dodging evolution by escaping from the cosmicity of evolution.
Is it possible for a country to become great, prosperous and wealthy if leadership is in hands of pygmies ? Or can such a leader be declared a great visionary at all in spite of country languishing in gutters ? How to realistically assess a politician providing leadership to the country or otherwise, is a difficult question to contend with. General and routine adulations like ‘he was a great visionary’, ‘preserved unity of the nation’…and all that bla bla do not, can not assess a politician in real terms. Such laudatory remarks, mostly chanted posthumously on their ‘Punya-tithis’, are solely meant to provide a momentary thrill to the departed Soul languishing in the other world or to their kins still surviving in this world on the wealth bequeathed by them. A politician can be realistically assessed by following under mentioned sacrosanct rules of the game –
First and foremost rule is that a politician must be evaluated in numerical/statistical terms like % rise in Per Capita GDP (quite a tough parameter), Per Capita Income, rise in exports, internal security scenario, relations with other countries, FDI, increase and improvement in infrastructure, number of greenfield projects going critical, growth in foodgrain production, health parameters, crime scenario, Judicial Efficiency Quotient viz. number of outstanding cases and days required to adjudicate cases, environmental issues in terms of Carbon-credits earned and number of units going Carbon-neutral, ratio of nuclear power vs. fossil based power etc. from the date of installation to the date of demitting office.
Performance against these criteria not only must be internationally benchmarked but complete attainable potential by the nation must also be realistically ascertained. If a politician or a party claims, x number of IITs were opened during the tenure on dart board, evaluator must know how many IITs are required in totality and how many could have been constructed with the amount of resources available in that period. A marketing professional claiming sales rose from x to 2x is senseless as it may have accompanied steep decline in market share and sharp rise in total size of the market concurrently !! Entire assessment process of a politician must be thoroughly comprehensive and exhaustive.
MK Gandhi as a person must be evaluated separately than Gandhi as a politician and his possible contribution to the War Of Freedom from the British yoke. Similarly, a politician must be assessed on two fronts independently and dispassionately entirely devoid of biases and prejudices. If a politicians contribution to the nation is nil by nil, he can not be declared a visionary or a great leader even by hardened sycophants on payroll. It is far wiser to adore and adulate a politician whose contribution to the nation is enormous albeit may not be gifted with amiable or sweet-tongue. Adoration of such leaders by masses is a sure sign of high level of political maturity as a nation.
Popularity, length of tenure, number of elections won too, can not be parameters of greatness. VP Singh was popular among OBCs due to implementation of divisive and destructive Mandal Commission recommendations. Jawaharlal Nehru served longest term as Prime Minister and left the country abjectly poor and traumatised as never before. Dalit leader Ramvilas Paswan had won highest number of elections, always remained in one Ministry or the other. Is it possible to address anyone of them as great or visionary by any stretch of imagination ? These criteria are certainly important yet razor-blade pragmatism must prevail on how to invoke them to arrive at a realistic picture. Popularity may be bought over by manipulating TRPs, length of tenure may be stretched by winning elections through dubious means, are possible pitfalls if the evaluation is devoid of pragmatism.
General epithets like ‘he was a jolly good fellow’, ‘honest’, ‘I was inspired by him’… neither cut ice nor do these make any sense. Even Daud Ibrahim did good to so many and inspired many more !!!! Most of well-known criminals are blessed with magnetic personalities !! These encomia are mostly personal individualised experiences that may be undesirable to expand hence, greatness can not be judged solely based on these.
Excellent and erudite speeches too, do not certify greatness of a politician. There may be a wide gap between his preach and practice. If a politican vouchsafes Spartan life-style before assuming power, he must be on a high-resolution radar to observe whether he in reality lives a Spartan life-style post installation in power. The hidden catch is the actual contribution to the nation in numerical terms by the dint of his Spartan life-style. If a politician imposes his Spartan life-style or ideals on others or on the nation merely to earn brownies without anybodys benefit or benediction, it may turn out to be regressively unfortunate for all. Similarly a politician may turn out to be grossly dictatorial while in power after a long spell of his demagoguery on democratic values and practices before assuming power. You evaluate a Sachin Tendulkar based on his performance in cricket field and not on the basis of quality of delicacies served in The Tendulkars at Mumbai. Similarly any Ratan Tata has to be assessed on the basis of his business performance during his tenure. If Tata Group have not done well during his tenure, he as the leader has to take all brickbats with no exit-points by blaming subordinates or business environment etc. as against his remarkable personality. A great legendary visionary must also be a possibilist in addition to being an eternal optimist.
To render the discourse explicit to all with an example, one may conclude that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a legendary politician and a leader who stands tall on all criteria and parameters catalogued afore. He may be compared only with ex-Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew. Given the size and complexity of governance of Bharata as well as what all he has achieved so far, will certainly give a run for his money to Lee Kuan Yew. Of course, Chief Minister of UP Yogi Adityanatha too, stands tall at the bar being a legend in the making. On the contrary, the last Mughal Jawaharlal Nehru comes a cropper at the end of his 17 years long tenure that was nothing but a monumental disaster. Even on personal fronts, his verticals and attributes left much to be desired. Prime Minister Modi has to take enormous amount of brickbats in spite of his scintillating leadership of the nation, Nehru takes the cake in spite of being an abject failure on all fronts. This example of two Prime Ministers amply reveals how tricky is it to evaluate members of Homo politiciens and what sort of extreme pragmatism, wisdom are essential to do it authentically.
Discussion about this post