Yes, I too wish the order should be standardized. Having said that, I don't think anybody had any doubts over the "Administrative" capabilities of Manmohan i.e. without any hyphenated associations. However, is he a Leader? And, more pertinently, does the PM (of a country) have to be a great administrator or a great leader? If you take current context of India, I guess good administrator is more apt. What I meant by current context is "state of affairs" rather than the political discourse.
(As for his being a Leader) I don't know, I did not see much of "Leadership" qualities in Manmohan yet - perhaps the leadership requires authority and aura which he seems to lack or did not exhibit last year and 4 moreyears to go.
Now, Is Sonia a leader? I don't know.
Apart from the 'state of affairs' bit and how an administrator is best which I did not get fully, all perfectly valid points for a good debate.
My views on this:
1. Who should occupty a country's top post - an administrator or a leader? Some people have said none of the above, but a philosopher king, but they were unaware of parliamentary democracies. As for me, I don't know. I don't know about administrators, but one can argue for and against 'leaders'.
2. Prime Ministers who are not acknowledged as leaders have achieved much. PVN for instance. He knew enough to allow tough steps to be taken and to stand by his team. Finally he refused to realise the significance of what he had done - that is his failure. Ms Indira Gandhi on the other hand had authority and aura but she clamped emergency for two years. Mr Vajpayee I suppose had the authority and aura to begin with but I'm not sure about his legacy. Some people call George Bush a good leader too and look what he is out to do the underprivileged in his own country - tax cuts for the wealthy, and selling social security to the stock markets.
3. I'm not sure I would describe Manmohan Singh as just a good administrator. Looking at his profile one finds a career involving teaching and a series of jobs requiring thinking more than organizational skills. So I prefer to call him a thinker.
4. I would plump for a person who understands problems the country faces, has a vision of the future, and the expertise in diverse fields to help him find or at least understand solutions to get to the future. Then of course he needs to be honest.
5. To me the most important problem currently in the country is : poverty. Solve this and we'd have taken a giant leap forward. What has the most bearing on poverty? The economy. And Manmohan Singh is an economist and thus presumably understands the economy, how it works, what is required to give it a leg up. That single virtue counts for a lot in my book.
6. It would be easier for people like the finance minister, commerce minister, planning people, bureaucrats to explain their ideas, policies to him - he would readily understand what they are talking about. Another big plus.
7. However, there is no doubt that a leader is definitely the person to head a political party. During election times and during normal times. Inspire the party workers and the voters, keep the party flock together and all that.
8. Is Sonia is a leader - I would say she has proven it thus far. Many people gave her a major role in her party's showing in the last elections. She has kept her flock mostly intact - as Mr Aiyar himself notes, defections away from the Congress stopped after she took over. She has both the authority and the aura, within her party at least, more so after she gave up the PM's post. Would she be a good leader of some other party - say the BJP? I doubt it very much - she wouldn't have that kind influence there. She luckily happens to be in the right place at the right time. But then I don't believe a lot in luck - not without a big of hard work.
My views on this:
1. Who should occupty a country's top post - an administrator or a leader? Some people have said none of the above, but a philosopher king, but they were unaware of parliamentary democracies. As for me, I don't know. I don't know about administrators, but one can argue for and against 'leaders'.
2. Prime Ministers who are not acknowledged as leaders have achieved much. PVN for instance. He knew enough to allow tough steps to be taken and to stand by his team. Finally he refused to realise the significance of what he had done - that is his failure. Ms Indira Gandhi on the other hand had authority and aura but she clamped emergency for two years. Mr Vajpayee I suppose had the authority and aura to begin with but I'm not sure about his legacy. Some people call George Bush a good leader too and look what he is out to do the underprivileged in his own country - tax cuts for the wealthy, and selling social security to the stock markets.
3. I'm not sure I would describe Manmohan Singh as just a good administrator. Looking at his profile one finds a career involving teaching and a series of jobs requiring thinking more than organizational skills. So I prefer to call him a thinker.
4. I would plump for a person who understands problems the country faces, has a vision of the future, and the expertise in diverse fields to help him find or at least understand solutions to get to the future. Then of course he needs to be honest.
5. To me the most important problem currently in the country is : poverty. Solve this and we'd have taken a giant leap forward. What has the most bearing on poverty? The economy. And Manmohan Singh is an economist and thus presumably understands the economy, how it works, what is required to give it a leg up. That single virtue counts for a lot in my book.
6. It would be easier for people like the finance minister, commerce minister, planning people, bureaucrats to explain their ideas, policies to him - he would readily understand what they are talking about. Another big plus.
7. However, there is no doubt that a leader is definitely the person to head a political party. During election times and during normal times. Inspire the party workers and the voters, keep the party flock together and all that.
8. Is Sonia is a leader - I would say she has proven it thus far. Many people gave her a major role in her party's showing in the last elections. She has kept her flock mostly intact - as Mr Aiyar himself notes, defections away from the Congress stopped after she took over. She has both the authority and the aura, within her party at least, more so after she gave up the PM's post. Would she be a good leader of some other party - say the BJP? I doubt it very much - she wouldn't have that kind influence there. She luckily happens to be in the right place at the right time. But then I don't believe a lot in luck - not without a big of hard work.
No comments:
Post a Comment