8 posts tagged with "Politics"

Well this is not a headline which I came up with myself. This is the title of a chapter in Friedrich Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom, but I think its very relevant to the world we live in today.

I used to always question why in many domains, especially politics & governance the worst come out on the top. When many of us (at least in my friend circle) agreed that a particular candidate was absolute crass - why does he rise to power? Why don't more educated and intellectual people rose to power and took the nation/state to better place? To me this seemed very perplexing.

Little did I know that a mind far better than mine had debated this in his book written in 1944. If you haven't read about Hayek, you must check him out. Currently he is one of my top 5 authors, right along with Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Neil Stephenson & Ayn Rand.

I will not try to reinvent the wheel here, but just summarize the arguments made by Hayek in simple words. He argues that in a totalitarian system, the rise of "worst" people to the top is by design. You have to understand that this is a period when Hitler is still in power and World War II is ongoing.

1. Not all good people necessarily wish to have a share in the government. They would rather entrust it to somebody whom they think more competent.
2. Totalitarianism is a powerful system alike for good & evil, and the purpose for which it will be used depends entirely on the dictators.
3. Totalitarian govts. generally come about because of slow & cumbersome course of democratic procedures.
4. In such situation, the man or the party who seems strong enough "to get things done are elected.
5. To get a party/man elected - they don't need support of huge numbers at occasional elections, but in the absolute & unreserved support of a smaller but more thoroughly organise body.
6. Socialism can be put into practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove of. The old socialist parties were inhibited by their democratic ideal, they didn't possess the ruthlessness to carry out their chosen task.
7. In a planned society, the question is not what do a majority of of the people agree on but what the largest single group is whose members agree sufficiently to make unified direction of all affairs possible
8. There are 3 main reasons why such a numerous and strong group with fairly homogenous views is not likely to be formed by the best but by the worst elements of any society

• The higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and the less likely they are to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. This doesn't mean that majority of people have low moral standards, it merely means that the largest group of people whose vaues are very similar are the people with low standards.
• A dicatator or strongmen would be able to obtain the support of all docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a  readymade system of values if it is drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.
• It is a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program - on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off  - than on any positive task

9. From a totalitarian point of view, intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, the complete disregard for life and happiness of the individual, are essential consequences of the premise that the state comes first, and individuals must keep the interest of the collective/state first, over their own.

10. To help in running a totalitarian state, a man must prepare to actively break any moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to forward the collective goal.

11. And since, it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own.

Thus it is evident that, any leader which rises to the top of a totalitarian regime, he must not have any moral values of his own, which can't be broken. He should be able to engage in a negative program to rally the troops against a common enemy and be willing to convince all those gullible & docile with arguments which don't come under the purview of true or false. The only criteria they must satisfy is that they should forward the goal of the totalitarian state.

It's day 3 of Coronavirus lockdown and things are not getting any better. Yet.

The US has become the country with largest number of Coronavirus cases (~85K) surpassing China and Italy. Given the enormous impact US has on the world economy, I shudder to think what impact this will have on it.

India has slowed down its exponential growth in cases a bit, but it is still growing pretty fast. Or may be its just because of the extremely low number of tests we are doing. Who knows?

Today I was checking the corona cases in different countries and was wondering why doesn't Russia figure somewhere in the top. That's when I stumbled upon this piece. The headline read:

Coronavirus deals blow to Putin's plans to stay in power until 2036​

When I read the article, I found that Putin was planning to make some fundamental changes in the constitution which would give him power till 2036. Yes you read it right!

16 years of unchallenged rule.

Can politicians really do such things? Pass a law which keeps you president for 16 more years, when you have already served 4 terms as president?

Turns out they can. His proposal was already passed by the parliament and the constitutional court, and was pending a vote by people, which is now postponed due to coronavirus.

Apparently Putin runs a "managed democracy". It means that:

power flows from one man: The president has no serious political competition, his friends and allies control the commanding heights of the economy and Putin is the ultimate arbiter of disputes between elites

I was wondering how the Russian people must be feeling. And why are they not fighting back?

But then I recalled that our situation in India is not much different. Before this virus hit us, there were protests in street opposing the absurd CAA-NRC acts.

Are we going down the same path as Russia? Would a time come when our politicians will seek a 16 yr term extension - and "we the people" will not have the vigor to oppose it?

If you think politics as a product, power is the currency and fundamentalism is the growth hack. The need which the product is serving is to make them feel good about themselves (trumpeting past glory, great progress)

The truth is that truth was never high on the agenda of Homo sapiens. Source

In Part 1 of this post, I discussed a particular example - that of decentralised Uber to decipher if a decentralised Uber makes sense, or in general is decentralistion always better?

In this post, we will explore some the theoretical basis of the argument.

Braess's Paradox​

Braess's paradox (often cited as Braess' paradox) is a proposed explanation for the situation where an alteration to a road network to improve traffic flow actually has the reverse effect and impedes traffic through it.

You can find the complete explaination of this example here. I will just suffice to say that the total commute time from Start to End is lower if there is no link from A to B vs when there is. It would be better if a rule is laid down that only a certain number of people are allowed in the road A to B. Keeping it open to independent choices of everyone produces an outcome which is sub-optimal to everyone

Decentralisation is not a value in itself​

I recently came across a very interesting tweet by Simona Pop of Bounties Network.

There is no inherent value in decentralization. What decentralisation enables is of value for some people or in some contexts. Does it make people more efficient? Can theynow do things which government or regulators didn't want them to? Does it give them more control of their lives? These are the questions which actually matter.

Democracy vs Dictatorship​

In context of nations, the tradeoff between democracy and dictatorship is very similar to that between decentralization and centralization.

Though nations have much broader and varied goal, compared to organizations. For example, companies have a clear metric of creating more shareholder value.

What are the metrics on which decentralised organizations should be judged? Is it the value accrued to network participants?

How much value can be assigned to network participants not getting censoured - which is one the key benefits of decentralised orgs.

Countries' metric can be GDP, GINI coefficient or the happiness level ( Bhutan actually uses this metric)

Historically, Decentralisation always emerged as a response to restrictions in centralised systems​

Here's a great post which talks about the rise of decentralization in context of mp3 file sharing. The author points that decentralization always arises in response to the law when a certain use of centralized technology is denied.

A quote from the above post which sums this beautifully

Ask yourself, what can some people not do on centralized systems which they should be able to do? If you look closely, you might be able to spot informal strategies people are using today to get around the rules, and these could help inform what to formalize into a protocol.

What do people really want?​

I think the key question is - What do people really want? Are they OK with sacrificing some privacy and freedom for better user experience and less effort.

If we try to reason with organization of states, most states have high level of centralization. US, China, Russia are some examples which come to mind. Direct democracies in comparison have been few and has only worked for fewer states.

Other advantage of centralization is that it concentrates power on the top layers. These people want to increase their power - leading to more alliances, subjugation or attacks - ultimately leading for the organizations to be more powerful.

Similar dynamics can be seen in corporate orgnizations. The profit motive actually helps them become bigger and concentrate more power. This drive is lacking in decentralised organizations.

Urusula Le Guinn in her book The Dispossesed portrays this beautifully. The book talks about a society born out of anarchism, an extreme form of decentralization. These people establish a society from ground up in a new planet. What was interesting was that even in this anarchist society points of centralization emerged. For example, people were given names by a centralised computer systems. Important people controlled means of production and media. The book is a great portrayal of the dichotomy between centralization and decentralization.

The emergence of miner centralization, high level of control by developers, etc. point to this phenomenon in current crypto ecosytem. It emerges primarily for better coordination and efficiency.

This begs the question:

Isn't the inherent tendency for people to strive for power a deterrent against decentralization? And what has fundamentally changed in the last few years which would tilt the balance towards decentralization?

Below are my notes from the book Underground by Suelette Dryfus & Julian Assange. It's an amazing book if you want to get a glimpse of the early days of the hacking culture. It also explores the culture which created folks like Julian Assange who is a powerful force in the world today.

I mostly focus on the human aspects of the book as the technical aspects are anyways outdated now. But even the human and social aspects throw a lot of light on how these early day hackers used to think.

1. Friendship

When Craig Bowen (aka Thunderbird1) came to believe in 1989 that he had been duped by Gill, he retreated into a state of denial and depression. The PI community had trusted him. He entered his friendship with Gill a bright-eyed, innocent young man looking for adventure. He left the friendship betrayed and gun-shy.

Hackers are after all humans and are driven by a sense of friendship and community. Some people may imagine hackers as people who eat and breath technology, but at some level, the sense of friendship and community is important for everyone. After all, man is a social animal.

1. Hackers would reveal their most prized hacks only to other hackers they trusted the most

The two hackers trusted each other; in fact Gavin was the only person to whom Force revealed the exact address of the CitiSaudi machine.

Even among hackers, there are multiple layers and inner circle and outer circles. You are admitted to these circles once you prove your worth - by hacking difficult systems.

1. Recognition, important for some

Phoenix laughed at how well he had thumbed his nose at Cliffy Stoll. This article would show him up all right. It felt so good, seeing himself in print that way.

1. The High

At home over the next few weeks, Electron struggled to come to terms with the fact that he would have to give up hacking forever. He still had his modem, but no computer. Even if he had a machine, he realised it was far too dangerous to even contemplate hacking again. So he took up drugs instead.

Hacking and owning systems provide a different type of high! :)

1. The motivation

"In your own words, tell me what fascination you find with accessing computers overseas?"

`Well, basically, it's not for any kind of personal gain or anything,' Electron said slowly. It was a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Not because he didn't know the answer, but because it was a difficult answer to describe to someone who had never hacked a computer.

`It's just the kick of getting in to a system. I mean, once you are in, you very often get bored and even though you can still access the system, you may never call back.

1. A clear head

When he was in serious hacking mode, he never smoked. A clear head was much too important. Besides, the high he got from hacking was a hundred times better than anything dope could ever do for him.

1. See and Look hacking as illegal

The Scottish Law Commission issued a 1987 report proposing to make unauthorised data access illegal, but only if the hacker tried to `secure advantage, or cause damage to another person'--including reckless damage.2 Simple look-see hacking would not be a crime under the report's recommendations. However, in 1989 The Law Commission of England and Wales issued its own report proposing that simple unauthorised access should be a crime regardless of intent--a recommendation which was eventually included in the law.

Should simple see and look hacking be made illegal? What damage is it causing? Isn't it just like entering a house and seeing things. It is not nice certainly, but is it a crime?

1. Weird is good

Trax seemed slightly eccentric, and possibly suffered from some sort of anxiety disorder. He refused to travel to the city, and he once made reference to seeing a psychiatrist. But Mendax usually found the most interesting people were a little unusual, and Trax was both.

Eccentric people are the most interesting. Homogeneity is a killer of creativity and genius.

1. Many great discoveries are made by just tinkering

Trax made his great discovery by accident. He was using a phone sprinter, a simple computer program which automatically dialled a range of phone numbers looking for modems. If he turned the volume up on his modem when his computer dialled what seemed to be a dead or non-existent number, he sometimes heard a soft clicking noise after the disconnection message.

This is how Trax, one of the pioneers in phreaking discovered a new hack. Many great discoveries are just happy accidents by prepared minds who keep on tinkering.

1. Music

Techno was musical nihilism; no message, and not much medium either. Fast, repetitive, computer-synthesised beats, completely stripped of vocals or any other evidence of humanity. He liked to go to techno-night at The Lounge, a city club, where people danced by themselves, or in small, loose groups of four or five. Everyone watched the video screen which provided an endless stream of ever-changing, colourful computer-generated geometric shapes pulsing to the beat.

Music has a potential to bring people together. A similar observation was made by Tony Hsieh, founder of Zappos, in his book Delivering Happiness. He observed that dancing to techno music with big crowds made him feel part of a bigger whole, part of the human experience.

1. The Will to Power

The desire for power grew throughout Anthrax's teenage years. He ached to know everything, to see everything, to play with exotic systems in foreign countries. He needed to know the purpose of every system, what made them tick, how they fitted together. Understanding how things worked would give him control.

Hackers are driven by their immense curiosity and a desire to control systems.

1. What is power?

Anthrax defines power as the potential for real world impact.

Great definition of power.

China's history is very complex and interesting and developed in a microcosm which was very different from how other countries developed

Wife brought up the husband in early 19th century​

“Following the custom, my great-grandfather was married young, at fourteen, to a woman six years his senior. It was considered one of the duties of a wife to help bring up her husband.”

China had a fractious history​

Many warlords who kept on fighting with each other. Emperor only in name. There was a golden period in Song dynasty (960-1279 A.D) when China flourished. In 1900s, China was ruled by a weak emperors of Qing Dynasty before the establishment of republic in 1912.

In a way, China shows the complete cycle of greatness to abject poverty and then rising to greatness again.

The practice of feet binding​

“But her greatest assets were her bound feet, called in Chinese 'three-inch golden lilies' (san-tsun-gin-lian). This meant she walked 'like a tender young willow shoot in a spring breeze," as Chinese connoisseurs of women traditionally put it. The sight of a woman teetering on bound feet was supposed to have an erotic effect on men, partly because her vulnerability induced a feeling of protectiveness in the onlooker.”

“In those days, when a woman was married, the first thing the bridegroom's family did was to examine her feet. Large feet, meaning normal feet, were considered to bring shame on the husband's household. The mother-in-law would lift the hem of the bride's long skirt, and if the feet were more than about four inches long, she would throw down the skirt in a demonstrative gesture of contempt and stalk off, leaving the bride to the critical gaze of the wedding guests, who would stare at her feet and insultingly mutter their disdain.”

Strange practices which developed. Also as a way for women to keep weaker?

Thats why communist had uniform dressing. Both men and women wore similar dress with shirts and trousers.

Communist were the good people​

The communist revolution was a peasant revolution which promised to get rid of Koumingtang and Japanese.

Interestingly, when Communist came to power they started abusing power themselves. So it can be argued that power is the cause of corruption

Why democracy doesn't work in China​

“The 804 members of parliament had to be bribed. Xue and General Feng stationed guards on the parliament building and let it be known that there would be a handsome consideration for anyone who voted the right way, which brought many deputies scurrying back from the provinces. By the time everything was ready for the election there were 555 members of parliament in Peking. Four days before the election, after much bargaining, they were each given 5,000 silver yuan, a rather substantial sum. On 5 October 1923, Tsao Kun was elected president of China with 480 votes. Xue was rewarded with promotion to full general. Also promoted were seventeen 'special advisers' all favorite mistresses or concubines of various warlords and generals. This episode has entered Chinese history as a notorious example of how an election can be manipulated. People still cite it to argue that democracy will not work in China.”

People were used to bribe and corruption. The above historical incident was used as an historical example to claim that democracy won't work in China, and to crush any attempts to bring democracy.

Mao made himself God like​

“Mao made himself more godlike by shrouding himself in mystery. He always appeared remote, beyond human approach. He eschewed radio, and there was no television.

Few people, except his court staff, ever had any contact with him. Even his colleagues at the very top only met him in a sort of formal audience.”

Capitalism was villified​

When I was in the boarding nursery and did not want to finish my food, the teacher would say: "Think of all the starving children in the capitalist world!" In school, when they were trying to make us work harder, the teachers often said: "You are lucky to have a school to go to and books to read.In the capitalist countries children have to work to support their hungry families."

Self Criticism​

“Mao had attacked flowers and grass several times before, saying that they should be replaced by cab bales and cotton. But only now was he able to generate enough pressure to get his order implemented but only up to a point. People loved their plants, and some flowerbeds survived Mao's campaign.

I was extremely sad to see the lovely plants go. But I did not resent Mao. On the contrary, I hated myself for feeling miserable. By then I had grown into the habit of self criticism and automatically blamed myself for any instincts that went against Mao's instructions. In fact, such feelings frightened me. It was out of the question to discuss them with anyone. Instead, I tried to suppress them and acquire the correct way of thinking. I lived in a state of constant self-accusation.”

Peasant Revolution​

“The revolution was fundamentally a peasant revolution, and the peasants had an unrelentingly harsh life. They were particularly sensitive about other people enjoying or seeking comfort. Anyone who took part in the revolution was supposed to toughen themselves to the point where they became inured to hardship”

Strict discipline and rules​

“ But he met fierce opposition from my mother's boss, Mrs. Mi, a peasant woman who had been a guerrilla. It was unthinkable for a peasant woman to take a rest if she was pregnant.

She worked right up to the moment of delivery, and there were innumerable stories about women cutting the umbilical cord with a sickle and carrying on. Mrs. Mi had borne her own baby on a battlefield and had had to abandon it on the spot a baby's cry could have endangered the whole unit”

The communist revolution was a bottoms up revolution, and the party members expected everyone to go through the same hardships which a normal peasant would go through.If somebody considers himself better, then he was frowned upon as "capitalist"

What was Mao's philosophy?​

“In the days after Mao's death, I did a lot of thinking. I knew he was considered a philosopher, and I tried to think what his 'philosophy' really was. It seemed to me that its central principle was the need or the desire? for perpetual conflict. The core of his thinking seemed to be that human struggles were the motivating force of history and that in order to make history 'class enemies' had to be continuously created en masse. ”

Programmed Lives?​

“The Chinese seemed to be mourning Mao in a heartfelt fashion. But I wondered how many of their tears were genuine. People had practiced acting to such a degree that they confused it with their true feelings. Weeping for Mao was perhaps just another programmed act in their programmed lives.”

Social conditioning

Use of disinformation and control of media​

“In reality, Mao turned China back to the days of the Middle Kingdom and, with the help of the United States, to isolation from the world. He enabled the Chinese to feel great and superior again, by blinding them to the world outside. Nonetheless, national pride was so important to the Chinese that much of the population was genuinely grateful to Mao, and did not find the cult of his personality offensive, certainly not at first. The near total lack of access to information and the systematic feeding of disinformation meant that most Chinese had no way to discriminate between Mao's successes and his failures, or to identify the relative role of Mao and other leaders in the Communists' achievements.”

Thought Control​

“Many people had been reduced to a state where they did not dare even to think, in case their thoughts came out involuntarily. Even if they did entertain unorthodox ideas, few mentioned them to their children, as they might blurt out something to other children, which could bring disaster to themselves as well as their parents. ”

Creation of myths and models​

“In the learn-from Lei Feng years it was hammered into children that our first and only loyalty should be to Mao. A popular song went: "Father is close, Mother is close, but neither is as close as Chairman Mao." We were drilled to think that anyone, including our parents, who was not totally for Mao was our enemy. Many parents encouraged their children to grow up as conformists, as this would be safest for their future.”

What public issues do you care about today? It can be anything. Like:

• Do you support Aadhar or it is too insecure to be trusted?
• What is the real truth behind Rafale scam? Was preferred treatment given to a particular company or not?
• Should you worry about the Rohingya refugees or they are just too small to worry about?

Do you really have a strong, well-researched viewpoint on any of the above or you have just formed an opinion based on the numerous Whatsapp forwards and Facebook shares you have seen?

To tell you frankly, I am kind of numb. Unless any of these things affect me directly I can't figure out what is true from untrue. There are so many sources of information on every topic, I am not sure who is correct, and who is just taking a particular angle for his own incentives.

Take the case of Aadhar issue before the SC judgement. There were different sources of information. The activists were criticising Aadhar for its security loopholes and citing the different hacks which have come in public light. The government /UIDAI, on the other hand, was pointing to how Aadhar helped in direct benefit transfers to the poor.

I spent a significant amount of time going through the reports of both sides and found that the activists were better researched, while the Govt./UIDAI was just giving evasive statements like "13 feet wall", etc.

But I am sure not many people spent too much time on it. If giving Aadhar helped them get a service easily, they would do it. The underlying assumption is that there are more qualified people who are taking care of the security and privacy aspects of Aadhar.

But, is this assumption well founded?

There was so much information around Aadhar that it was almost impossible for a common person to parse all the arguments and counter-argument. Who was telling the truth and who was not - normal people don't care. They have bigger problems to care about. Most people took one side based on the limited information they had and stuck to it. Irrespective of new facts coming to light. This is the classic tendency to avoid cognitive dissonance. Once you take one side, you want to stick to it.

Has more information led to a more balanced discourse​

I would argue, No.

The advent of so many channels of communication has led to a situation where the information is too much to process. You have WhatsApp forwards, Facebook shares, media websites and TV channels with everone sharing their point of view. What do you do? You choose a point of view and follow channels which confirm your point of view. Less cognitive dissonance, less energy to be spent in understanding new facts. Ezee, Pzee. You live in your own echo chamber.

Interestingly availability of more information has not made the public discourse more balanced. It has made it more polarised. You now have facts to support any point of view you may have. It's immaterial if that is analysed in the complete context or not.

Information Overload - Malady of the new age

Disinformation - The new tool of control​

According to Wikipedia, disinformation is false information spread deliberately to deceive. Disinformation is a tool in the hands of more powerful.

Today, facts are generated to support a point of view. This is the classic phenomena of fake news. This is only possible because the legitimacy of a certain point of view has come to be dictated by how many people hold that point of view - irrespective of the fact whether it is true or not.

This fact is well understood by governments and political parties. They use disinformation as a tool to shape public opinion. Recently Shivam, a young karyakartaa resigned from BJP. In his account, he elaborates how BJP was using propaganda techniques for political gains.

This is an example of UIDAI using emotional appeal to generate public opinion in favor of Aadhar

This numbness from information overload is dissuading people from engaging in public debates. What we don't realise is that why our apathy to engage in public debate and politics is leading to a bleak future for the nation. I have written more about it here.

What could be a possible solution?​

1. Increase public debate on important policy issues with reasons for decisions being explained. Bodies like TRAI already do a public consultation. Similar initiatives should be done by bodies like Niti Aayog, etc. when drafting policy initiatives.
2. Third-party audited metrics to understand if a particular scheme gave the benefits that were expected. Case in point, there has been no 3rd party audit of the benefit claims made by Aadhar.
3. Fix accountability. Who is going to pay the price if some scheme didn't give the expected benefits. Share the results in the public domain.
4. Organize debates in public with people actually taking the decisions and not by political spokesperson etc. Get into details of arguments and don't just appeal to the emotions of the viewer.

TV show debates don't work. They are sensationalised to increase viewership and are often censored by the need to tow a particular party line. I like US Senate hearing formats for this. The parties are well researched and knowledgeable and pointed questions are asked. A sample questioning here.

To summarise​

1. Increase in availability of information has made us numb. We are more inclined to chose sides, then stick to it - than critically evaluate all the facts and reach an informed view.
2. Public discourse has become more partisan (my side vs your side) rather than evaluating facts. It has reduced the overall quality of discourse.
3. Disinformation is a tool which works in favor of the powerful. Govts/political parties can spend money (e.g. BJP whatsapp groups/social media org) and thus have an undue advantage over volunteer-based activist organizations.
4. Possible Solution - Increase in organized public participation and demand for scrutiny in public with experts.

I recently came across this excellent tweet thread on Indian politics and electoral dynamics. One of the things which struck me was that BJP was founded in 1980, but was able to form a long-term government only in 1998. Political ventures take a long time to bear fruits. The changes we want to see, need to be prepared for much in advance.

Today, I see a general apathy towards political activity, at least in youth, or the limited circles I am part of. "Politics" is considered a dirty thing and nobody wants to get into politics as a choice. We all discuss why the government is not doing anything, and why every political party is corrupt, but we hardly do anything about it. I am guilty of this as much as anybody else.

I think somehow we have come to believe that governance and political activity is not for "us". It is something which "other" people will do. One of the often heard comments is that politics is too "dirty" and "corrupt". You have to be a certain type of person to succeed in that game. In fact, during the election result telecast of recent Karnataka Assembly election, the panelists were casually discussing that participants spend around Rs. 5-10 crore together on each assembly seat. Although the Election Commission has a limit on the amount that can be spent (the limit for this years Karnataka Assembly election was 28 lakhs per candidate), I think it is openly known that these guidelines are not followed. So, no wonder people self-select themselves if they can play this game or not.

I wonder if this was still the case when people like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Jayprakash Narayan were young. JP was invited by Pandit Nehru to join Congress when he returned from the US after completing his studies in Berkeley. I don't hear such things happening today. Was that because India was fighting the Independence struggle at that time and people really wanted to involve good people in the movement. And now when we have the country to ourselves, we are much more lax in our attitude?

Wasn't there a time when at least few of the bright young people wanted to get into politics and become the Prime Minister? I no longer hear young folks saying so. Why is that?

Well, just to be sure, I am in no way implying that being a politician is easy. Convincing large number of people to think that you are the right person for the job and vote for you is no mean feat. You need to have empathy for the different sects of people and persuasion skills to make your voice heard.

But so are many other endeavors. For example, doing startups is tough. The failure rate is more than 90% and only a few turn out to be massive success. But still, I see many young people wanting to start a business of their own and bring a change in the world. I remember a time when nobody thought that doing startups was cool. Parents considered it a very risky proposition and didn't want their boy or girl to join a startup. Many early employees of Flipkart still recount their story - how joining a startup in early 2007-2009 was considered a crazy move by their parents and peers.

But no longer so. People know how startups can change society and reward them personally also. Of course, only a few will venture this path - but at least a few do. I think the success of companies like Ola and Flipkart has a lot to do with changing these sentiments.

But why are there no young people excited to join politics?

When I ask this question, some people point me to what happened with Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Many of my friends used to actively volunteer for AAP in its early days when Arvind Kejriwal still hadn't won the Delhi election - and AAP was a movement against corruption. The passion with which people talked about AAP was really inspiring. AAP was seen as a party which would disrupt the political system and inspire honest well-meaning people to participate in the political process.

Though that story turned out a bit differently. Many of my friends are now disappointed with the way things have turned with AAP and sadly its the end of a dream. But if one experiment has failed, why are not more experiments being made?

People often think that whatever happens in politics doesn't affect us. We just need to focus on our career and if need be, shift to a different location where the situation is better. Well, let me tell you - you are still affected. I have felt this myself.

I am a native of Jharkhand (erstwhile Bihar), but most of my professional career I have spent in big cities like Delhi, Hyderabad and now Bangalore. Even if I want to return to my state now, I don't have any company or opportunity which can gainfully employee me. Although Jharkhand is a mineral rich state, the corruption in political setup and administration has ensured that there are no software companies or MNCs which set up shop there. It doesn't have multiple flourishing MNCs or tech ecosystem like Bangalore does. And the price I pay for this is that I have to stay away from my parents and family. People of Karnataka in that way are better off. They can find good employment opportunities in a place close to their home - where their parents and family live. So, if you think that our political apathy doesn't affect us - think again.

But changing cities within a country is still easier. What about changing countries? The same scenario is repeated between countries. People leave India and settle in the US, because the US provides them better opportunities for their talent. Who would not want to stay in their own country if they have the same opportunities as the US? China has done well in this regard. They now have a tech ecosystem which is equivalent to the US and this has led to many Chinese expats returning from the US.

There are glimmers of hope though. I recently came to know that BJP is inviting young leaders from different fields into their cadre. These people are funded by the central fund for contesting elections. So, this allows people fight in elections even though they don't have the ability to raise funds required to fight an election on their own. There are good people like Yogendra Yadav and Jayaprakash Narayan who have started their own political parties and hopefully will attract more youth.

I think the key issue is that of support infrastructure. Today, if there is a young guy/girl who is interested to do something in politics, how does he go about it? Are there any grass route level organizations through which he can begin to test the waters and figure out if politics is really for him or not? I personally don't know of any such bodies/groups - and would be happy to learn more about it.

Let me contrast this with the startup ecosystem since this is the only other high-risk venture I know about. Doing startups is also a fairly risky business - but today we have lots of support infrastructure for people who want to get a better understanding of it. There are many events organized around startups. People can join existing startups or join as an entrepreneur-in-residence in existing venture/angel funds. There are many successful founders who share their experience in meetups. Of course, the journey is still long and arduous - but there are pointers on where to start. But when it comes to political activity, there is a complete void, or maybe I am just not aware of such channels. At least this shows that they are not so accessible. What can be done to make political activity more approachable? What type of organizations should be created to support this?

The word Politics comes from Greek: πολιτικά, (Politiká) which means "affairs of the cities". It is a way to organize people and reach a common decision which the society as a whole follows. For any human society to organize itself and follow a certain path, politics is necessary and so are politicians. It is how societies govern themselves. Note that originally, it didn't have any negative connotation of 'corruption' or 'backstabbing' which this word has come to denote.

How can we make politics accessible to more people and get more bright young people excited about it? I think there are many of us who want to do something about it - but just don't know how to go about it. It is imperative that we as a nation figure this out, before its too late.