The Prince and the Republic

the two profoundest books I've read have really similar although completely opposite titles- Plato's The Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince. The argument by many historians and academics is that both books encouraged Fascism and totalitarianism. While the argument that THE PRINCE is PROTOFASCIST may have some credence, there is incredible evidence to prove that THE REPUBLIC is clearly NOT PROTOFASCIST. With a name like "THE REPUBLIC", it is ironic that many people actually consider it to be a book that is philosophically supportive of tyranny. For Plato although favored philosophical rule, he didn't support any form of Greek-Nazism. The book, the Republic is hence not a greek version of THE PRINCE written many centuries earlier but a different kind of book altogether. The book may not have the same present day usage as the Prince, because unlike the Prince, the Republic is a bit unreal and idealistic. Yet we have a lot to learn from it. The book is not only a source of Greek literature but also a thesis on how to train our politicians. Plato through socratic dialogue envisions a republic whose rulers will have the philosphical thirst for knowledge and education rightly suited for the purpose of governance. We may argue that such philosphical kingdoms is anithetical to the concept of democracy, but in Plato's time the concept of direct democracy wasn't working. Even Tyrannies weren't. A compromise was needed and Plato provided it. He did so with many assumptions and presuppositions which even he couldn't defend well enough in his book. The Republic hence is a book philosphical different from THE PRINCE. And while it is true that Machiavelli was inspired by Pluto, their respective ideas for governments were totally different and their need to imagine such governments even more different!

Lame-duck Politics

Lame-duck sessions are usually free of politics. This is the time when there are no big legislations or controversies that spur up political vibes. This is the time when people are the least cynical about the congress. The feel sorry for the exiting congress and happy for the newly elected one. But this year everything is different. More bills of extraordinary importance are springing up every now and then in the lame duck period. The nuclear arms treaty bill and the unemployment benefits extension bill, not to mention the debates over the Bush-era tax cuts and the budget defecit. It seems that the lame duck period is probably more exciting than the election campaign itself. When John Boehner said "Politics is OVER", he was either sarcastic or too optimistic. It seems that the duel has just began. While the two parties fight over legislations in a critical period of transformation, the lives of millions not just in America but around the world hangs on a loose thread.

Statesman + Politician = President

I was watching the movie "Commanding Heights" the other day and in one part, Dick Cheney quotes Nixon's citation of Nikita Khrushchev's famous quote, "To be a great statesman, you have to be a great politician someday". Drawing allusions to President Obama's present situation,  one can conclude that Obama is a great statesman but a very mediocre politician. Unfortunately the wold of realpolitik demands that every President be a figure who has within him equal proportions of statesmanship and street-smartness. His charisma is undoubtedly unchallenged in modern history and his vision is comparable in magnitude only to FDR and the new deal. Yet in popularity ratings he probably shares the rank with George W Bush. Instead of matching the greatness of people like Kennedy and FDR and Lincoln, Obama is underachieveing. When elected in 2008, People believed he had the charisma of Kennedy, the spirit and humility of Lincoln, the vision of FDR and the facet of every great Chief Executive who had ever ruled in history. But what many Political scientists and average Americans in 2008 failed to notice is that President Obama wasn't half as good as politician as he was in character, spirit and vision. His weakness was finally shown in the most democractic way possible. On the night of the 2nd of November, 2010, when votes were being counted, the world watched the greatest statesman losing control of his congress. He has lost his support but Obama still has the will and the character to drive him on. But those two won't suffice in the political world Obama inhabits. He needs to be an effective politican. He must not crawl to the Centre but stick to the left and attack the republicans in the same way as they did to him. In 1996, Clinton got reelected with a mixture of shrewdness and compromise but in 2012 Obama will need shrewdness and lots of them along with sturdity and unwillingness to compromise. Obama became the President on the call for compromise, ironically he will need to shed this very compromising attitude and fight his tooth out to remain teh President. But maybe we haven't seen the Obama he will become- FDR changed, Clinton changed, Lincoln transformed, every great President eventually changed himself. For Obama who's nickname is "change", this shouldn't be hard!

Give veto a chance, Mr. Obama

The democrats have lost the midterm election ( republicans haven't won it). It's not because of their incompetence or mismanagement but because of their failure effectively communication to The American People. Now that the campaign politics is over, it is time for looking beyond. The President has to work with a Republican house. He has two options- one, veto and two, cooperate. For Obama, the ambassador of bipartisanship in DC, cooperation would be the better option. However, considering the political scenario, Obama must accustom himself to the dark reality of Politics is that cooperation never works. He must use one thing guaranteed to him by the constitution he taught students back in his days as a lecturer. The President, can with power vested in him as the chief executive, veto ( reshuffling vote to indicate the opposite) any legislation deemed un-American. He can therefore ensure that his work in the last two years can be redeemed by his role in the next two years. He must block stupid resolutions to favor the rich, and any legislation aimed at undoing his dream for a cleaner and more peaceful world. If he does that and his campaign blames the Republicans ffor not doing enough once in power, the democrats will not only regain the Congress but also the Presidency. As of now, I haven't been able to spot a single Republican capable of dethroning the President from his seat. And so long as this remains true, Obama must use his executive power to stay in power. Once re-elected, without fear of losing or having to work towards re-election, he will have time and the requisite political capital to create a greener, better America.

The Home-Strech

In less than 40 hours, the first voters will queue up in New Hampshire and New York and touch their ballot screens either the red way or the blue way. In less than two days, Obama will know whether his domestic policies, healthcare and economy have all worked. He will know whether his presidency for the next two years is going to be hard or very hard( it won't be easy for sure). There is little doubt in the fact that republicans will wrestle the house from the democrats and there is almost similar confidence that the democrats will keep the senate albiet with lesser seats. Their hopes of a filibuster-proof Senate and the house is diminishing by the day. Their progressive policies of energy and education reform are in shambles. As we enter the home strech of this elections, the final path, we know that the republicans who looked to reign supreme o'er the lands in the past and failed are now closer than ever to doing so. That the hope that galvanized Americans to come and vote democrat has turned into hopelessness for the democrats. From the pinnacle of their political stage two years ago, when it seemed that for the first time after FDR, democrats were closer than ever to a landslide, democrats are in the abyss looking for hope in place of despair. I am a democrat and for many days I've been saying that democrats can come back, yes they can. But now that hope seems to have blown away. But maybe, maybe just like 1994 became 2006 one day, 2010 will become the impetus for a future electoral triumph. Or maybe republicans will be able to change their party and their picture and paint a new GOP and new America and maybe then we'll no longer look at them with scorn. The answer will not come in 2 days, but the foundation for that answer will be laid in next 48 hours.

Dark Chocolate

Chocolates can be tasty for your tongue but nasty for your health. I was quite amazed how easily people come up with analogies. When I was in Singapore at an International conference discussing recent events and legislations in US Congress, A democrat abbreviated the long name of his health-care resolution as CHOCOLATE( Congressional Health-care Operation concerning the Overall livelihood of Americans in Tomorrow's Economy). Very creative indeed. But as if cancel out the creative juices from his political rival, a Republican promptly responded that chocolates were harmful for health. That was then in early 2010, a time that would be a political haven for democrats if they paralleled it with the situation they are presently in. But in retrospect the comment by the republican was more than just a vague pass-off or a hilarious rhetoric. That chocolate that sweetened democratic victory in 2008 seems to have turn bitter for their political health in 2010. As they head on into the 2010 midterms in a few days, they'll probably asking themselves whether the risk of eating CHOCOLATE( passing health-care bill) was too big a political risk. Instead of being able to savor the sweet tase, they're now condemned to its ill-effects. While health-care became a popular political platform to win the presidential election, it has now become some sort of liability for the democrats. Instead of proudly showcasing their achievements thorugh health-care, they are now desperately trying hide away from it. Maybe this is a lesson to all political parties in USA and around the world, that a sweet starter isn't necessarily indicative of a delicious main course!

Constitution- Savior or Destroyer of Democracy ?

One of the things that always troubled political scientists was the existence of a constitution in a republic. Why must a democratic government of, for and by the people establish and defend itself on the basis of one, often anachronic book? Aren't people the ultimate judges of democracy? Most notable critics of this were anarchists who defended that the best form of government was at an individual level and democracy was the biggest threat to individuality. A constitution according to them is just another form of repression. Its just an eulogy for dictatorship. Instead of a Tsar, Fuhrer or a Despot, the entirety of a country's law-making methodology now rests upon one book. Constitunalists or defendants of the Constitution claim that unlike the aforementioned leaders, a book cannot become despotic hence it rightly protects the will of the people. Agreed, a book can't become dictatorial but it can definately be contradictory to the people's will and then will it be justified to uphold the constitution over popular interest? And even though there is a remedy for this in law namely constitutional amendments, these are few and far in number. America has passed only 27 amendments in over 200 years. It is incredibly hard to pass an amendment and harder for the amendment to be implemented. And despite all these problems and misgivings in a constitution, the role the constitution plays is unquestionable. If there was no constitution, we'd never come to an consensus. If there was no constitution, they'd be no law-making procedures forget laws that protect induviduals. Without the constitution, they'd be no democracy to save or destroy, to shelter or burn. So instead of interpreting constitution as a despotic novel it is best to consider it the Bible that has empowered citizens and enfranchised them.

Communist Republic in the future?

To most people, Communism is tantamount to dictatorship. Well, partly because of the stupidity of the Soviet Union and socialist countries and partly because its pejorative use has become so colloquial, Communism has always been synonymous to repression. Communism, comes from the word "community', so it most nearly means more involvement of the community or a philosophy that protects community above all, and ensures a society driven by the community. Ironically democracy something similar. So just like history has had capitalistic dictatorships ( most notably Nazi Germany), it is not out of scope to envision a country that is ruled by a communist republic. And although the two words might seem like a oxymoron a communist republic is possible not just in grammar but also in the real world. While it would take both a revolutionary thinker like Marx and a risk-taking country to forgo some of its freedom-loving principles of efficiency and productivity to ensure equality. The road for such a country will be abound with difficulties but if it can overcome these, it can redefine or should set right the defination of communism.

Everything that goes around comes back

1992 and 2008
1994 and 2010
What are the similarities?
1992 and 2008 were both presidential years, both presidential victories going to democratic candidates.
1994 and 2010 are both midterm years. In 1994, the republicans wrestled congressional power from the democrats and in 2010 they're about to do the same. One other thing that unites 1992 with 2008 and 1994 with 2010 is the economy. Though not as severe as 2008, America did face a minor economic turmoil in 1992 due to Reagan-Bush economic policies. In 2008, Bush Jr.'s corporate tax cuts led to another deep recession that we are still unable to recover from. In 1994, two years after Clinton's emphatic victory, the democrats faced the ire for the same reason the won the Presidential race two years ago- THE ECONOMY. So, 2010 is somewhat similar. The democrats are having poor poll showing largely because of the stumbling economy. Economists love studying economic cycles. Political Scientists are finding similar trends in politics too. It seems that what goes around comes again and almost always it is the economy that makes or breaks a party's political future.

A better executive

My blog has become so American-centric, that my readers might wonder whether it is justified to keep the name of my site as politics unlimited when its limited to just one nation and one election. So, today I am opening a stronger and more global phenomenon to my readers- the Executive power. Before I go into executive power, it is best to divide the world into three categories- Non-democratic states, Presdential republics and Palimentary states. In Presidential republics, the need for a strong and structured executive, the responsiblity factor is compromised while in parlimentary modes, for increased responsiblity of the executive, strength and sturdity is compromised. Countries that have tried to fix this like France have created a mix of presidential and parlimentary executive, where power is yielded completely to none. But instead of solving the problem, a semi-presidential executive only makes things worse. So, is there a better government, a better executive. Can an executive be both powerful and controlled, can it be both flexible and rigid? Well there is a way, if governments are willing to work towards them. There is way in which executive power can be balanced with executive responsibility. The answer is, have a fixed-term executive elected directly by the people but answerable to the legislature and to the people i.e have an executive similar to USA but without veto powers or control of the army. And although the President/ Chief executive should have some amount of immunity, it must be easy to curb presidential power through a mixture of constitutional amendments and special provisions. Provision such as these, that allows the Legislature to remove the President should be in order. Moreover, a President must be subjected to removal not only in cases of high offence but also when the Legislature deems it neccessary to replace the President. The President however has to be protected from falling prey to political differences. Here the judiciary must intervene and constitutionally solve the deadlock. While it is way easier said than done, we can convince ourselves that only a executive powerful enough to lead the country but not powerful enough to destroy it can balance power between the three branches of the government.

Checks and Balances

America is probably known for three things- jazz, baseball and its constitution. Constitution too basically rests upon two words- checks and balances. The Congress checks Presidential power while the President balances congressional power with his executive. Then there is the judiciary that holds supreme over the two elected bodies, trying to keep the country in line with the constitution. Americans have always been politically savvy people, well atleast when it comes to checks and balances. They've always voted against the incumbent party and tried to maintain the perfect balance of power. This midterm elections they're probably going to do the same. The polls suggest that the Democrats will retain power in the Senate in addition to the executive power( President). But the Republican party however are posied to take control of the House of Representatives. This will be the first time since 1930, that a party has won only one of the two halls of congress. With the Senate and President under their command, the democrats will be able to get through federal appointments and foreign affairs easily but will find it incredibly hard to pass money bills, to pass progressive reforms and legislate climate change bills through the house. The Americans are most angry, not with either party or the congress in general but with the state of the economy. By ensuring a Republican victory in the Congress and not a Democratic continuation, the Americans are ensuing a change in Washington. They're making sure that trillions of tax payer money won't remain unchecked. On the flip side, they've leaned Democrat for the Senate because they don't want issues like abortion and tax-credits to hamper the functioning of the Congress. Any money bill can be introduced only in the house, but a bicameral support is essential for it become a law( incase its not vetoed by the President). If the democrats retain the Senate, a deadlock between the house and Senate in imminent. Their debate will eventually lead to a compromise whose direct benefactors would be the people of America. Even 223 years post the framing of the constitution , the basic nature of the constitution that protects citzien's view above all continue to exist. If this midterm is an indication of anything, anything at all, then it is not the volatility of the American economy and its effect on the ruling party but rather the reinstation of the popular belief of democracy that democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. So after November 2, it will be the will of the common American man in Washinton and not that of lobbyists or party bosses that will dictate the future of America. And I bet its better than ever before. Sail, Sail thy ship of democracy! Sail till thine control rests on the people thou servest!

A Week isn't long enough

A week is along time in politics is a cliché that's as old as politics itself. But even this antique rhetoric is under the threat of existence. As republicans continue surging in the polls and democrats continue to fall, this quote may no longer be applicable. Like a high school slacker who's overwhelmed by his midterm examinations a week before, democrats are finding it almost impossible to turn the polls around. They're optimistic only in voice, but deep within are acclimatizing themselves to the stark truth that they might no longer hold the keys to the House they had for a four years. Back in 2008, the democrats, a week before the election were unstoppable. They were anxious to turn the polls into votes and see a blue color painted across the United States. They were ecsatic about the fact they'd hold all the three arms of power in Washinton-the bicameral Congress and the White House. And they did. Just around 24 months later, they're staring straight at the possiblity of losing atleast one and a weak chance of losing both the halls of Congress. And just like in 2008, a week won't change the equation much. As much assured as they were of a victory the fall prior to the last one, they're assured of a defeat this fall. All is not lost for democrats. If they can come back from this abyss, they'd not only validate an age-old claim but also reinstate their spirit as the party which like a donkey never stops toiling until it has reached its destination.

Obama and Manmohan: twosome awesome

Their names stand out when the list of G20 leaders are read out. One, a ferocius orator with the power to move any crowd and the other a soft-spoken economist with global regard and reputation. Obama and Manmohan probably represent the best pair in any conference. With the charisma of Obama and the knoweldge of Dr. Singh, it is hard to see a better confluence that their's. When Obama is welcomed into the Racecourse road, Manmohan Singh will probably recall his visit to the oval office. India and USA have shared many cornerstones in democracy and the official residence is just one of them. Thew two leaders also share a smae story. Both weren't the most likely ones to be respective heads of government. If a poll would have been conducted in 2000, then the likelihood of a Obama-Manmohan conference in oval office or racecourse road would have tended to zero. But both them, from humble backgrounds, from minority communities, charted a succes story unprecented in human history. Obama, an African American, overcoming all odds to win the race to the White House and Mr. Singh, born in isolated village in Punjab in British India who'd later become the Prime Minister have shown that in the world's oldest and largest democracy, a common man can make it big. They are probably the two perfect examples to prove that despite all shortcomings and pitfalls that prevail in a modern republic, the burning spirit of opportunity to all and discrimination towards none still exists.

Devils advocate relationship

The one show that continues to amaze me is Karan Thapar's "Devil's advocate.". The quality of questions and the responses received are unparalleled in Indian Television. Mr. Thapar is a skilled interviewer who astounds both his interviewee and his audience. Today however his mastery in interviewing was matched in content and profundity by his interviewee Mr. Roemer, former congressman and the current US Ambassador to India. The two discussed issues that spilled into every small aspect of the plethora of issues and opportunities the two nations share. Their conversation quite nearly reflected the relationship India shares with the USA. Democracy, freedom, unyielding character and of course the common English language that has knitted the two nations as one. The ending was imminently the stand-out part of the entire interview. When asked about the pros and cons of nuclear energy to power Indian homes and Mr.Thapar's comment that electricity could shock-circuit the 'strategic relationship', Mr. Roemer cool as ever replied that the electricty will only energize the relationship.

Political Nation

If you all have accustomed yourselves to the basic definition of politics, it is time to know why it is so paramount to learn more about politics. First, before a technological or industrial nation can be forged and updated, a country must become politically strong. USA first evolved as political nation, a nation idealized on few verses of democracy. It was later that it grew as an economic and military force to beckoned with. Why did Germany not become a superpower when it had such great minds like Hertz, Einstein and Heisenberg? Well, because the never forged a strong political thought. The most important thing for any democracy is political intelligence, scientific knowledge comes second. But this model can be directly applied to an individual. A person may bask with scientific thought and expertise, but his true intelligence will remain concealed so long as his political juices are withheld. So my blog isn't just a meeting spot for some odd political enthusiasts but for every person willing to understand himself. You can be the best sportsman or the best businessman in the world but without sufficient political knowledge you will continue to remain subdued as an ordinary citizen. To achieve extraordinary status you must adopt a political self within you. Again, I'm not indimidating you or scaring you, but only expressing my deepest regard for political thought. It is imperative that political thought be engrained deeply within one and all, if the person, his country and humanity ought to grow intellectually.

Politics

I thank Karn for this post. I failed to realize that before jumping deep into the ocean of politics, I should have given you all the requisite equipments. For politics, the most helpful tool is understanding of politics. It is very hard to explain 'politics' in one or few words. So I leave the job to wikipedia. Here's the link-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

Are Polls always correct?

Polls are indisputably the most important thing before and on the election day. They are indicators of the final outcome of an election. They are not soothsayers. They are not always right and almost always are inaccurate. So what makes them so special and so exciting? The answer is-polls do what polls are supposed to do. They are probablities on how the election will turn out. Their function is less political and more psychological. Positive polls are probably the single most positive externality a candidate can hope to achieve. For the candidate, there's nothing more satisfying than seeing his/her opponent trailing. Hence. to keep himself ahead in polls, he will continue to pool in more resources and give more speeches, do everything he can and ought to do to secure a lead in the polls. But can he trust the polls. There are many instances in history where polls have failed. So is it safe for candidates to rely on polls? There is no 'yes' or 'no'. Candidates cannot be indifferent to polls while at the same time, it is dangerous to be overly dependent on them. In the day there is no poll that can foretell what can happen but they can come close and that's no small thing.

On why the republicans are poised to take the house

Almost every major non-democrat and even some democrat internal polls will tell you that a republican takeover of the House of representatives is on the cards. But hardly any of them say why. Well let me demystify. Here are some reasons why-

1. Anti Incumbency- No party can escape anti-incumbent sentiment of the populace. And in such times wherein a majority of Americans disagree with the people who represent them, it is but natural to see the democrat numbers dwindle as the party in power.
2. It's the economy stupid! - Again, I don't blame the democrats for this. It's not their fault that the American economy is in shambles. But the people of America are disgusted with the government and since democrats control both the law-making chambers, the people are disgusted with them too.
3. Enthusiasm, Enthusiasm and Enthusiasm - That's all you need to win an election. The republicans have done that very very very well. After the 2008 Political debacle for them, the republicans have managed to re-galvanize their voter base. 

These probably the three reasons why the republicans are poised to take the house. You see none of the three main reasons are faults of the democratic party but again politics is all about luck and the luck seems to have evaded the democrats. 

Welcome to Politics Unlimited

When time warrants that for the goodwill of man and for the good taste of humanity a blog on politics ought to be created, then I am no one to counter. Just over a week separates us from the midterm election in the United States. Not the most ideal time to start blogging but definitely an interesting time to do so.  Politics Unlimited is neither issue-specific nor partisan. As the name suggests it takes Politics to a new level- a blog where you'll enjoy the unlimited and complete discourse of political dishes. So hop on assured that you'll have great time aboard the political odyssey I will provide. If you have any suggestions and/or complaints about my blog or anything relevant to my blog or anything even ambiguously related to politics, please feel free to comment and personalize this blog. Once again, flagging off for the first time, this is Aniruddha- your expert de politique.