Power without Position - New Political Success Story

I have been reading with much interest the recent speculation about Rahul Gandhi not joining the Cabinet despite being requested by everyone in the party starting from the PM. While this is being percieved as a big move for the organization and the fact that he is not interested in power, I have a different perspective on this.
Ministership and position in government has been a symbol of power and influence and showing seniority within the party and peers across the political classes generally. However, if you do not need that symbol of power to show that you lead the party, then it is really not relevant to be in the fight of power.

It is also very convenient to be out of power and still be a power centre because it does not have any responsibility. Sonia Gandhi did not have to bear the brunt of the opposition parties directly because she was not the Prime Minister. She was not criticized directly on any issue because she was not a part of the government. I think Rahul Gandhi is looking to do the same by rising above the rest and therefore forming another club of people in power without position.

I think the first person to follow this would have been Gandhi himself - he led the people but when power came wanted to stay away from it and i think was very sharp to see all the downsides of power with the way he could manouver people against the establishment. He wanted to be loved and respected by all.

On the other side was Advani - who battled the last time on the national scale and was desperate to get power before he retired from public life. Similar was the case of Varun Gandhi and his need to win people over to get elected. This was the contradiction and in the end because of his self ease and confidence in being a power centre anyway - he was less desperate and had the edge.

In all of this, I am not trying to show one better than the other - the point that is being made is that if you do not need to get a position to show that you are successful or powerful in politics, your job can be easier.

I compliment Sonia Gandhi on identifying this at a crucial juncture in 200 and Rahul following that lead. It has some positives and some negatives but it definately sets the Gandhi family apart from the rest of the politcians as everyone else is either trying to be a minister or a position holder in the party organization. The Gandhi's though get an opportunity to show how they are above everyone else without actually being in any official position.

First time for Obama

It was interesting to see the debate today. Having watched the earlier two, i felt today was the first time that Obama got stumped on a couple of big things by Mc Cain. The best was the comment on you should have fought the elections four years back if you wanted to fight Bush - it was a killer. The other was the single biggest negative campaign by Obama. Looking closely at the news sites, I see that this is true, as the number of comments by the online team on CNN stories for example on Joe the plumber shows the PR machinery that is looking to discredit Mc Cain.

Obama came back strongly in the second half of the debate though with healthcare and education. However, I first time saw some innovation in the way Mc Cain approached the debate today.

I think if Mc Cain has to have any chance - he needs to take more such shots directly at what Obama has been trying pin him down with. This is because I do agree that Obama's campaign has been more about why Bush is unsuccessful, which anyway no one is contesting in America right now. Mc Cain might fail at taking these risky stances but it is better than status quo and anyway conceding defeat if he continues the way he has been. The big thing that Mc Cain needs to change is his stand on women related issues and the youth - two big segments, which would not want to be close to what he says.

I wish his advisors work on those two elements in the last few weeks of this long campaign. All the best to both of them!

Entreprenuership during a recession

I am begining my career as a blogger with thoughts on starting a new business venture during a downturn or not. A lot of wide and experienced people started saying that it is foolish to do so and one should remain within the confines of a safe job. I have a few points though that i consider make it better to start a business to start during a downturn.

1. Thinking through your business plan - Since funding and revenue streams are going to be tighter, the promoter of a new business venture thinks through the idea more carefully, refines the positioning of what one is offering and is it really distinctive and appealing more critically and looks for sustaining his business for longer. At the end of the day - these result in a more robust idea.
2. Commitment - Since you start during a downturn, your commitment to the venture is stronger and you are passionate to take risk during difficult times.
3. People - Getting people to join a start up during difficult times is easier to get cause the fat salaries get thinner, hikes get smaller and job offers get lesser.
4. Pressure of a job increases - With a more difficult market, the pressures in a job increase. Getting in business becomes tougher, meeting targets is a pain and patience is lesser
5. Consumers - They become more cost conscious and value focused - so if they get some thing cheaper from a start up, they will go for it rather than paying for the best name because of the brand alone.

Obviousely, we have downsides too because companies have less of an appetite to take risk with a start up and decision making getting longer and tougher terms with start ups. However, i still believe that the upside is better