Why `Unite under a leader/organisation`is divisive?

यहाँ आप प्रजा अधीन राजा समूह के प्रस्तावित क़ानून-ड्राफ्ट ( नागरिक द्वारा भ्रष्ट को बदलने/सज़ा देने का अधिकार , पारदर्शी शिकायत प्रणाली ,नागरिक-सेना के लिए खनिज रोयल्टी आदि ) पर चर्चा कर सकते हैं

You can discuss here law-drafts proposed by Right to Recall Group like Right to Recall, Jury System, MRCM etc.

Moderators: admin, kmoksha, sumit

Forum rules
ये फोरम केवल कमेन्ट करने के लिए है ; यहाँ आप नया थ्रेड शुरू नहीं कर सकते | कृपया कमेन्ट करने से पहले फोरम के सारे नियम यहाँ पढ़ें - http://www.forum.righttorecall.info/vie ... =19&t=1098

This is a comment only forum. You cannot start a new thread here. Please read the rules of the forum before posting - http://www.forum.righttorecall.info/vie ... =19&t=1098
Post Reply
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm

Why `Unite under a leader/organisation`is divisive?

Post by kmoksha » Thu Jun 30, 2011 3:17 pm

Say there are 20 lakh honest activists in India spread over 543 MP Constituencies, each Constituency having about 3700 honest activists. In each MP Constituency there are about 7 Assembly Constituency, and so each Assembly Constituency has say 500-600 honest activist.

Lets say India has 20000 groups each consisting 1-2 activist leaders and 10 to 500 to 5000 honest activists spread across 543 MP Constituencies and 5000 MLA Constituencies. Now each group will see that because of disunity amongst leaders and groups, none is
able to win MLA, MP elections. So many junior activists and leaders will try to create unity under one leader. And since many will try, each will cut the other. Thus, the attempt to unite under one leader negative. This is one of the worst irony in politics --- “lets unite under Mr. XYZ” is the most divisive statement one can make, because he is opposing the person making “lets unite under Mr. ABC” statement.Each activist is loyal to his/her leader and asking to `Unite under a leader`seems to the other as being unloyal to his/her own leader.

Establishing “unity under one leader” has one more problem - time needed to decide which leader is too large. The unity under one leader needs trust in that one leader. One has to prove to other that he will be non-corrupt even after winning. And The God did not put stamps on people‟s forehead certifying whether he will be honest even after he comes in power. Intense question-answer sessions and prolonged personal observations are must before trust appears.
This is viable when group size is small in size and in area. But when two groups each having 20-100 activists spread across a large region try to “unite under one leader”, the amount of time that needs to be spent in communication to establish faith is unviably large. Many say that failure to unite is due to ego problems with leaders. That is only partially true --- there are many who put ego aside to serve nation. But lack of trust is real reason. And lack of trust is not due to lack of
trust worthiness, but due to lack of time needed to prove or disprove trustworthiness.

If an activity is possible, but time needed is twice the lifetime, such activity is as good as impossible. So the activity of “lets find one trustworthy leader, and unite under him” is possible as India surely has perhaps over 10000 of trustworthy persons. But if 20 lakh honest junior activists decide to find and agree on which of the 10000 activist leader is most trustworthy, then time they would need to discuss out is several lifetimes. And so “unity under one leader” is clone negative and needs to too much time, and so it futile.

“Unite under leader” has one more pitfall – the media owners can easily destroy the reputation of the leader by throwing false financial allegations against him or 10s of other ways.
Those who are trying to unite under a leader are walking on ice floor. If the enemy manages to break that ice floor, then there will be no time to walk back.

Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm

Re: Why `Unite under a leader/organisation`is divisive?

Post by kmoksha » Thu Jun 30, 2011 3:23 pm

Attempt to overcome clone negativeness(time taken to get a work done increases rather than decreases when two,unrelated work on the same work) by “unity under one organization” is futile
What is an organization? Individuals who have agreed to follow a set of laws inside that organization. Most organization will have omething called as their constitution. Now in many countries, such as Germany, Govt has enacted laws and procedures which make constitution of a
political party binding on leaders. E.g. if the Constitution of a political party in Germany says that an election candidates will be elected by inner party primary election, then Germany‟s Election Commission has powers to enforce that such inner party elections do happen. Such countries, such as Germany, also have fast/fair courts to resolve disputes that come in the way. In India, no such laws and procedures exist as of today, and our courts are too corrupt and slow to
have such laws. In fact, no law empowers Election Commission to force Constitution of a political party on that party leaders. And even if such law exists in some corner of some law-book, Election Commission has no time and man-power to force 950 registered parties to follow their respective Constitutions. And if Election Commission were to try that today, it would only add 100s of litigation that would take years to resolve, given the fact that our courts as of today are very slow and highly corrupt. As of today, a political party has to have Constitution, and they need to give a copy to Election Commission. The Election Commission only puts these papers in files and doesn‟t even bother to put these Constitutions on its website. And EC seldom tries to even read forget enforce these inner-party Constitutions.
As of now, when tickets are given in election, EC has one law --- EC will allocate the party symbols to a candidate as told by the Party President. Now even if Party Constitution says that local candidate should be elected by members and even if the Party Chairman did not
conduct any local inner party election, the Election Commission has no precedent and practice to enforce such inner party elections. EC simply goes by the letter of the Party Chairman.
So as per today‟s laws and practices, the so called organizations are as good as personal and private property of the party leaders. Secondly, in any organisation, only a few leaders are dominant.So an organization is as democratic or as good as the leader it has at the apex. So “unite under good organization with good internal rules” becomes no different from “unite under one good leader”, and has same problems. It is clone negative as two good organizations both with good internal rules will cut each other and establishing trust is
unviably time consuming.

Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm

Re: Why `Unite under a draft` is uniting/clone positive?

Post by kmoksha » Thu Jun 30, 2011 3:42 pm

Leaderless mass movement for law-draft is sufficient and clone-positive (similar action done by two unrealted, people leads to work being done in lesser time) and uniting.

Mass movement (aka aandolan) is event when thousands or lakhs or crores of citizens India are forcing Mayor, CM, PM to make a change in the Government. The change demanded can be expelling (or bringing back) an officer or a Minister or a judge, OR, the change demanded can be enacting a law-draft. Of this, the former one, namely change in person is grossly insufficient and I am not interested in it. But demand to enact a law-draft, depending on the draft of the law, can be sufficient. If the law-draft is well written, then enacting that draft can bring several long lasting positive changes in the lives of citizens. One such example is the Ration
Card System (aka Public Distribution System). The drafts of the Govt Notifications that created PDS in 1040s were good that the problem of hunger deaths nearly vanished in India from 1945 till today. Another example is mass movements which started for land reforms. The movement partially succeeded and partially failed. They failed because citizens did not create a draft themselves but asked MLAs/MPs to create drafts. The MLAs and MPs took bribes from
landlords and created weak drafts, and so land reforms did not happen to fullest possible extent.

The “mass movement for system change without law-drafts” have been total failure. The worst example is 1977 where Janata Party was a mass movement led by Jay Prakash Narayan and one of the key goal was bringing Right to Recall. The mass movement succeeded in getting 2/3rd majority in the Loksabha. But since there was no draft of the proposed Recall law, the MPs claimed that they need time to write law and thus spent away 2 years and then cancelled the plan
of enacting Right to Recall laws completely. The movement was a complete failure.
The “leaderless mass movement (aandolan) for law-draft” that I am proposing is as follows -
1. The activists have clear drafts of the laws they want. The laws need not be CITIZENS VOICE/JANTA KI AWAZ (RTI2), RTR, MRCM etc. It can be any law-drafts in which the activists believe in. But fully written drafts must be present.
2. The activists are asking citizens to ask CM, PM, Mayors or Sarpanch to sign these law-drafts
3. Most important : The goal is not to enact draft via winning elections but to enact draft via forcing existing PM, CMs, Mayors.
4. The activists can use every trick in the book to send the information about law-drafts to the citizens

The above method is sufficient and clone-positive. And (3) is the most critical ingredient.
If the goal is to bring changes in system via election-winning, then the method is hopelessly divisive and clone negative, and throws 5 year waiting period. And if the goal is to bring change in system without waiting for election, but forcing existing Mayors, CM, PM to sign drafts, then method is clone positive and also has no waiting time.

The “leaderlessness” and organization-less-ness is important. If the whole movement is under one or a few leaders, then established Indian and foreign elitemen will easily kill, force or bribe out that leader. Or will implicate the leaders in false allegations and destroy their images.
However if thousands or lakhs of activists have only law-draft as an item, then the Indian or foreign elitemen will see that killing or bribing out that leader will not help anymore.
In the leaderless mass movement, the law-draft is the leader and the citizens are deputy leaders. The citizens can change the draft and thus change the leader. But the leader cannot change itself and later become corrupt.
How leaderless mass movement (aandolan) for law-drafts is clone positive and uniting

The “leaderless movement for law-draft” is clone positive as more people join with demand for same or even different laws, they don‟t cut each other but only add the strength.

I will explain some of the items-
1. Say I contest Loksabha election where-in my goal is not to win election but to ask maximal citizens to ask existing MP, MLA, Mayor etc to enact Right to Recall over PM, CM, judges law-drafts. Say using newspaper advertisements etc I reached 100,000 citizens and gave them information about RTR over PM, CM, judges law drafts. Say one more person contests election in same constituency on RTR law-drafts. Then due to his efforts, the information will reach several thousand more voters and thus possibility that RTR laws would come increases.

Now we may cut each other‟s votes but since goal is not to win election but to ask citizens to force existing PM, CMs etc to pass RTR laws that goal had been positively served by both contestants. Thus contesting election to force existing PM, CM to sign a law-draft enact is clone positive. Though contesting election with goal of making the chosen candidate win and hoping that that candidate will enact RTR law is clone negative.
2. Say I am distributing pamphlets explaining RTR drafts If one more activist distributes the draft, then possibility of getting RTR laws signed increases.
3. Now say a group of activists-A are campaigning for Draft-A And another group activists-B comes and starts campaign for Draft-B. Then either of activist-A can include(subsume) Draft-B or
activist-B can include(subsume) draft-A or some third group-C will come and put a draft-C which covers both A and B.
And the fear that activists-A will add Draft-B, and fear of vice versa or fear that activist-C will come and include(subsume) both Drafts-A and Drafts-B will ensure that each group creates a subsuming draft. And if two drafts remain un-united, a citizen can support both drafts and thus there will be no division. Whereas a citizen cannot vote for two candidates.

For more details, see chapter 15,16 of www.righttorecall.info/301.pdf

Post Reply

Return to “प्रजा अधीन-राजा समूह` प्रस्तावित क़ानून-ड्राफ्ट पर चर्चा -Right to recall Group Drafts Discussion”