NaMo Model

by smArtha Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:47 am

Can the Gujarat model become an all India model? In Gujarat at the moment, Modi holds the following portfolios: General Administration, Administrative Reforms & Training, Industries, Home, Climate Change, Ports, Information & Broadcasting, Narmada, Kalpasar and Science & Technology. The one man government is what provides streamlined administration. But can such a one- man administration be replicated the Centre? Will state chief ministers be easily bludgeoned into following the diktat of an all- powerful Modi personality cult at the centre?

Read more at: http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sagarikaghose/223/64899/sagarika-ghoses-blog-heading-towards-a-saffron-upa.html?utm_source=ref_article

When Modi talks about Gujarat model he emphasizes on decisive and quick decision making, not the usual dragging your feet as mastered by Congress. Gujarat model means standing up and taking the bull by the horn, not putting the issue in a slow pressure cooker hoping the issue would resolve itself. Gujarat model is taking the facts and eventualities head on, unlike the principal policy of playing Ostrich of Congress. Above all Gujarat model is development for all, appeasement to none, not the `minorities have first right to natural resources` nonsense of Manmohan Singh. And it is again no brainer to realize that such a model is independent of who is posted as what. The model talks about a no-nonsense approach towards governance which really doesn`t care what portfolio is given to whom. Basically a Gujarat model is something that offers no drool to any community but demands equal contribution from one-and-all for mutual growth. Now does anyone feel such a model can`t be implemented across India? I am sure it can be, though it may have its resistance initially.

http://www.beingcynical.com/2013/10/oops-sagarika-ghose-does-it-again.html?showComment=1381322582365

by Propagandhi711 Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:16 pm

in all honesty, I dont know that having all portfolios under one person will work in the british model of governance we have.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:21 pm

smArtha wrote:Can the Gujarat model become an all India model? In Gujarat at the moment, Modi holds the following portfolios: General Administration, Administrative Reforms & Training, Industries, Home, Climate Change, Ports, Information & Broadcasting, Narmada, Kalpasar and Science & Technology. The one man government is what provides streamlined administration. But can such a one- man administration be replicated the Centre? Will state chief ministers be easily bludgeoned into following the diktat of an all- powerful Modi personality cult at the centre?

Read more at: http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sagarikaghose/223/64899/sagarika-ghoses-blog-heading-towards-a-saffron-upa.html?utm_source=ref_article

When Modi talks about Gujarat model he emphasizes on decisive and quick decision making, not the usual dragging your feet as mastered by Congress. Gujarat model means standing up and taking the bull by the horn, not putting the issue in a slow pressure cooker hoping the issue would resolve itself. Gujarat model is taking the facts and eventualities head on, unlike the principal policy of playing Ostrich of Congress. Above all Gujarat model is development for all, appeasement to none, not the `minorities have first right to natural resources` nonsense of Manmohan Singh. And it is again no brainer to realize that such a model is independent of who is posted as what. The model talks about a no-nonsense approach towards governance which really doesn`t care what portfolio is given to whom. Basically a Gujarat model is something that offers no drool to any community but demands equal contribution from one-and-all for mutual growth. Now does anyone feel such a model can`t be implemented across India? I am sure it can be, though it may have its resistance initially.

http://www.beingcynical.com/2013/10/oops-sagarika-ghose-does-it-again.html?showComment=1381322582365

All autocrats/dictators - including Indira - have this tendency. controlling several portfolios assisted by ministers of State, and frequent shuffling of portfolios are typical traits.

by Idéfix Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:56 pm

This is a rather disturbing model. It may appeal to many educated Indian people who often say that India needs a good dictator, but it is not suited to a parliamentary cabinet-style government. Even a presidential system needs strong executives running different departments like home, industry, etc.

by Petrichor Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:01 pm

I doubt Modi understands all the nuances of those departments even in Gujarat to make suo moto decisions. He probably relies on a good set of technocrats.

by Idéfix Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:17 pm

Petrichor wrote:I doubt Modi understands all the nuances of those departments even in Gujarat to make suo moto decisions. He probably relies on a good set of technocrats.

This is one of the reasons for a cabinet in a parliamentary democracy. Decisions are supposed to be made by elected representatives for their departments, with the advice and execution support of senior bureaucrats. If Modi makes most important decisions, then he likely makes ill-informed decisions; if he leaves most important decisions to better-informed bureaucrats, then he takes decision-making away from elected representatives and places it in the hands of his unelected appointees. Either way, this model subverts parliamentary democracy.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:26 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Petrichor wrote:I doubt Modi understands all the nuances of those departments even in Gujarat to make suo moto decisions. He probably relies on a good set of technocrats.
This is one of the reasons for a cabinet in a parliamentary democracy. Decisions are supposed to be made by elected representatives for their departments, with the advice and execution support of senior bureaucrats. If Modi makes most important decisions, then he likely makes ill-informed decisions; if he leaves most important decisions to better-informed bureaucrats, then he takes decision-making away from elected representatives and places it in the hands of his unelected appointees. Either way, this model subverts parliamentary democracy.

And, you think this is the way successive CONcrass givernments have been doing business and flying the demacraciee flag aloft. And, I should point out the recent democratic "withdrawal" of ordnance by the PM after their consultation and discussion with the beauracrats and of course the foremost Astronomer in India.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:32 pm

Idéfix wrote:This is a rather disturbing model. It may appeal to many educated Indian people who often say that India needs a good dictator, but it is not suited to a parliamentary cabinet-style government. Even a presidential system needs strong executives running different departments like home, industry, etc.

How about the MMS model of the parliamentary cabinet - highway robbery while the PM takes a nap? Apparently, Pappu is saying that MMS is his guru Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

by smArtha Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:46 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Petrichor wrote:I doubt Modi understands all the nuances of those departments even in Gujarat to make suo moto decisions. He probably relies on a good set of technocrats.
This is one of the reasons for a cabinet in a parliamentary democracy. Decisions are supposed to be made by elected representatives for their departments, with the advice and execution support of senior bureaucrats. If Modi makes most important decisions, then he likely makes ill-informed decisions; if he leaves most important decisions to better-informed bureaucrats, then he takes decision-making away from elected representatives and places it in the hands of his unelected appointees. Either way, this model subverts parliamentary democracy.

And why do you think Parliamentary Democracy model had to be protected come what may? The idea of any democratic model is to deliver effective governance and services to the people. The model itself is not significantly more sacrosanct than the results. IMO, NaMo can work his way only if he has total control over the Legislature and Executive as is the case in Gujarat. And at the Centre, in the best possible scenario, he will have just about 200 MPs backing him strongly. Such a situation will force him out of his 'zone' and how best he'll deliver operating 'out-of-zone' will be the concern.

by smArtha Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:56 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:in all honesty, I dont know that having all portfolios under one person will work in the british model of governance we have.

True. Just look at the number of bureaucrats and officials CBN upset during his rule. Also, if at the centre, Modi will be running a coalition and he'll be handling some avatars of Raja, Lalu and Mamta. He'll have to part with plum portfolios and cede all control over them. Even those he keeps with him or his folks will need to 'accomodate' interference in the interest of 'coalition dharma'.

by truthbetold Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:09 pm

I am not sure modi has any special formula or magic that previously successful cms did not have. most Indian politicians with some mass following tend to become autocratic. they cannot trust their flock as congress is always on the wings to steal the flock. congress is even worse with couple of external power centers.

if modi can keep peace in the country and keep his coalition intact, people will take care of the rest.

by confuzzled dude Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:28 am

smArtha wrote:And why do you think Parliamentary Democracy model had to be protected come what may? The idea of any democratic model is to deliver effective governance and services to the people. The model itself is not significantly more sacrosanct than the results. IMO, NaMo can work his way only if he has total control over the Legislature and Executive as is the case in Gujarat. And at the Centre, in the best possible scenario, he will have just about 200 MPs backing him strongly. Such a situation will force him out of his 'zone' and how best he'll deliver operating 'out-of-zone' will be the concern.

Yup. I watched this movie... Arjun becomes CM for a day and fixes all the issues, very entertaining, liked it so much that watched the Hindi version too Razz

by smArtha Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:20 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Yup. I watched this movie... Arjun becomes CM for a day and fixes all the issues, very entertaining, liked it so much that watched the Hindi version too

Dude. You are still deriving entertainment from that late 90s movie. You are definitely missing out on how our Pappu these days is driving out all the issues plaguing the country with the 'escape velocity of Jupiter' and by speaking Truth whenever wherever. Please upgrade from recorded replays to live tv.

by confuzzled dude Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:57 am

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Yup. I watched this movie... Arjun becomes CM for a day and fixes all the issues, very entertaining, liked it so much that watched the Hindi version too
Dude. You are still deriving entertainment from that late 90s movie. You are definitely missing out on how our Pappu these days is driving out all the issues plaguing the country with the 'escape velocity of Jupiter' and by speaking Truth whenever wherever. Please upgrade from recorded replays to live tv.

You knew what meant, didn't you? Anyway, let me clarify a bit. I meant your suggested model reminded me of that movie.

by smArtha Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:56 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
You knew what meant, didn't you? Anyway, let me clarify a bit. I meant your suggested model reminded me of that movie.

I suggested a Model?!! Where and what is that?

by Idéfix Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:36 pm

smArtha wrote:And why do you think Parliamentary Democracy model had to be protected come what may? The idea of any democratic model is to deliver effective governance and services to the people. The model itself is not significantly more sacrosanct than the results.

Institutions matter a lot more than individuals, and checks and balances are essential for a working democracy. Let us, for a moment, accept the premise that Modi is capable of delivering exceptional results* if -- and only if -- he has "total control" over the legislature and executive branches. Before we replace the parliamentary model to suit this one superhuman individual with exceptional abilities, we need to ask ourselves, what do we do after him? What's worse is if the person who is assumed to possess exceptional abilities turns out to be human after all -- absolute power corrupts absolutely. "Total control" is not compatible with checks and balances.

smArtha wrote:IMO, NaMo can work his way only if he has total control over the Legislature and Executive as is the case in Gujarat.

In that case, Modi is unfit for the position of Prime Minister which India is holding elections to fill. India is not holding elections to fill the post of Dictator or Emperor. If Narendra Modi is eminently qualified to be a great dictator or a great emperor, good for him, and he should seek such jobs where they are available.

* This premise is hard to believe based on the outcomes from Modi's leadership of Gujarat.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:47 pm

Idéfix wrote:In that case, Modi is unfit for the position of Prime Minister which India is holding elections to fill. India is not holding elections to fill the post of Dictator or Emperor. If Narendra Modi is eminently qualified to be a great dictator or a great emperor, good for him, and he should seek such jobs where they are available.

* This premise is hard to believe based on the outcomes from Modi's leadership of Gujarat.

This only means the democratic system in India is flawed. It does not have checks and balances. With Pranab as President, NaMo - no matter how dictatorial he is - will face constraints (and also Supreme court). This is not the case in the case of a CM. The greatest and worst dictator India has ever seen was Indira and even she could be put in place by the system. The only people the system cannot do much about is sneaky abuse and hijacking of the system as the Dynasty has been doing all along.

by Petrichor Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:29 pm

Idéfix wrote:
smArtha wrote:And why do you think Parliamentary Democracy model had to be protected come what may? The idea of any democratic model is to deliver effective governance and services to the people. The model itself is not significantly more sacrosanct than the results.
Institutions matter a lot more than individuals, and checks and balances are essential for a working democracy. Let us, for a moment, accept the premise that Modi is capable of delivering exceptional results* if -- and only if -- he has "total control" over the legislature and executive branches. Before we replace the parliamentary model to suit this one superhuman individual with exceptional abilities, we need to ask ourselves, what do we do after him? What's worse is if the person who is assumed to possess exceptional abilities turns out to be human after all -- absolute power corrupts absolutely. "Total control" is not compatible with checks and balances.

smArtha wrote:IMO, NaMo can work his way only if he has total control over the Legislature and Executive as is the case in Gujarat.
In that case, Modi is unfit for the position of Prime Minister which India is holding elections to fill. India is not holding elections to fill the post of Dictator or Emperor. If Narendra Modi is eminently qualified to be a great dictator or a great emperor, good for him, and he should seek such jobs where they are available.

* This premise is hard to believe based on the outcomes from Modi's leadership of Gujarat.

Is it your belief that India has the 'software' viz., institutions and institutional checks and balances, currently? or generally in UPA rule?

by Idéfix Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:21 pm

Petrichor wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
smArtha wrote:And why do you think Parliamentary Democracy model had to be protected come what may? The idea of any democratic model is to deliver effective governance and services to the people. The model itself is not significantly more sacrosanct than the results.
Institutions matter a lot more than individuals, and checks and balances are essential for a working democracy. Let us, for a moment, accept the premise that Modi is capable of delivering exceptional results* if -- and only if -- he has "total control" over the legislature and executive branches. Before we replace the parliamentary model to suit this one superhuman individual with exceptional abilities, we need to ask ourselves, what do we do after him? What's worse is if the person who is assumed to possess exceptional abilities turns out to be human after all -- absolute power corrupts absolutely. "Total control" is not compatible with checks and balances.

smArtha wrote:IMO, NaMo can work his way only if he has total control over the Legislature and Executive as is the case in Gujarat.
In that case, Modi is unfit for the position of Prime Minister which India is holding elections to fill. India is not holding elections to fill the post of Dictator or Emperor. If Narendra Modi is eminently qualified to be a great dictator or a great emperor, good for him, and he should seek such jobs where they are available.

* This premise is hard to believe based on the outcomes from Modi's leadership of Gujarat.
Is it your belief that India has the 'software' viz., institutions and institutional checks and balances, currently? or generally in UPA rule?

There are two parts to your question.

First on institutions. I believe that India has decent institutions. These institutions have been significantly weakened in the last nine years, with the extra-constitutional NAC and the Empress's puppet rule undermining the office of Prime Minister. In 2004, the people of India wouldn't have been surprised if Sonia Gandhi took oath of office as Prime Minister. It is India's institutional checks and balances that prevented her from becoming Prime Minister, and she has since undermined those institutions. India's institutions were strong enough to survive and end Emergency, and they survived Rajiv Gandhi's two-thirds majority. They also survived unwieldy coalitions in the '90s.

Second, on checks and balances. There are lots of checks and balances in the UPA regime today; a good case can be made that there are too many checks and balances right now -- most of them extra-constitutional. The office of Prime Minister has been rendered weak and ineffective under MMS; it needs to regain its preeminence in our system. Assorted cabinet ministers, and coalition partners and NAC officeholders from outside the cabinet, have power to undermine the Prime Minister. This needs to be fixed so our next Prime Minister is as powerful -- and effective -- as Rao and Vajpayee were. However, moving to the so-called NaMo Model would be swinging to the other extreme. We need to get rid of the extra-constitutional checks and balances without losing the constitutional checks and balances that are needed for a sustainable democracy.

by truthbetold Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:39 pm

Idefix,
I did not expect the following from you. The extra constitutional distortions are checks and balances. The phrase checks and balances was used in the. Context of overreach by one executive or judiciary or legislature. It is to ensure reason prevails over emotion. And basic spirit of constitution is preserved by balance of power.
I understand you do not support extra constitutional centers but to even remotely considering them as checks and balances is troubling. They can be described as only hinderances to progress and development.

No institutional power stopped Sonia from taking power. It is sonia's calculation that led her to install a clerical pm and run the show from behind.

by Idéfix Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:50 pm

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,
I did not expect the following from you. The extra constitutional distortions are checks and balances. The phrase checks and balances was used in the. Context of overreach by one executive or judiciary or legislature. It is to ensure reason prevails over emotion. And basic spirit of constitution is preserved by balance of power.
I understand you do not support extra constitutional centers but to even remotely considering them as checks and balances is troubling. They can be described as only hinderances to progress and development.

I agree with you on the substance, and used the term checks and balances in the sense of limits on the executive's power to make decisions and implement them. When a coalition partner can get the cabinet to reverse itself on approving FDI in multi-brand retail, that is a severe restriction on the executive power of the prime minister.

by Idéfix Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:53 pm

truthbetold wrote:No institutional power stopped Sonia from taking power. It is sonia's calculation that led her to install a clerical pm and run the show from behind.

You may be right... I was referring to speculation that Abdul Kalam asked her about the citizenship issue, and I may be wrong about how it went down.

by Sponsored content

NaMo Model

NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model

Re: NaMo Model