Monthly Archives: March 2017

The Dutch elections did not herald a populist spring in Europe. So much for the good news.

Contrary to the prevailing coverage in foreign media, the takeaway of the Dutch elections should not be that Wilders' PVV party didn't acquire a leading position - this was to be expected - or that the 30-year-old green candidate, Jesse Klaver, won ten seats (this was, however laudable, largely at the expense of other left-wing parties).

The key takeaway should rather be the consolidation of conservative and right-wing liberal parties in the Netherlands, and the further fragmentation of the political landscape.

The left-wing parties of PvdA (S&D), Groen-Links (Greens) and SP (GUE) have taken fewer seats altogether in the parliament than the PvdA had in its past mandate: 37 vs 38. They now represent less than a quarter of the votes.

How did the left collapse so badly?

One strand of thought considers the disappearing dichotomy between left and right on socio-economic issues. Some see this as a structural tendency, whereas others see this as a temporary phenomenon.

The liberal-conservative VVD and the social-democrat PvdA were the biggest adversaries in the 2012 election, but the coalition government of these two parties minimised the differences between them.

Indeed, a demonstration of the differences on many issues such as tax avoidance, bankers bonus, flexible labour contract, and so on is necessary for the voters to see the dichotomy, and it is necessary for the election campaign to revolve around socio-economic issues.

Another strand of thought points to the ongoing fragmentation of the political landscape.

The Socialist Party of Emile Roemer has been competing with the charismatic new kid, Jesse Klaver, to draw in disenchanted PvdA voters.

Yet only 10 of the 29 seats that were lost went to either of the two left-wing parties according to IPSOS, a research firm.

In fact, it was very clear that neither of these two parties were good alternatives. Some voters turned to Liberal party D66, which takes a position in the middle, and some did not turn up to the ballot boxes at all.

Others found their way to relatively new parties.

For instance, Denk won three seats from voters with non-Dutch ethnic backgrounds, mainly Turkish and Moroccan. 50+, a party that focuses on upset pensioners, increased its share to four seats. Finally, the animal party - a mixed bag of extreme left, ecologists and EU sceptics - captured a further five seats.

Yet, Mr. Rutte did not suffer from the fragmentation, even though there has been a flurry of new right-wing parties. Despite having lost eight seats, his liberal-conservative VVD remains in an unchallenged pole position.

It is surprising to see how tepidly many among the left have responded to this defeat, sharing in the Europe-wide sigh of relief after holding off Geert Wilders.

It could be said that the decline of the left is a mix of both tendencies. The PvdA has not been able to contrast with and confront the right-wing Mark Rutte, and the scattering of the political field into special interest parties has paralysed and diluted the left.

So, we will face a third term of a prime minister whose party has taken no measures on climate change. A party that pursues an active agenda of making our country more unequal. A party that celebrates the blessings of tax avoidance (under the euphemism of positive investment climate).

A party that greedily adopts the belligerent anti-immigration language of Geert Wilders, to pay lip service to his potential voters.

Wilders won five seats and lost any prospect of governing, but his biggest win is that he lured people into believing that the elections were a struggle between right and far-right

After two decades of right-wing prime ministers, there is a tremendous amount of work to do for the left to make the Netherlands more inclusive, more equal and more socially just.

The onus will be on a broad left-wing movement that can connect people beyond special interests and that dares to confront and contrast with the right.

Lets start our fight.

Paul Tang is a Dutch MEP from the Socialists & Democrats Group in the European Parliament and a member of the Labour Party (PvdA) in the Netherlands.

More here:

How to stop the collapse of the Dutch left - EUobserver

Residents in fishing communities along the Lower Volta Basin (LVB) have called on the government to adopt and implement the small-scale cluster fish farm ownership system as a measure to restore their source of livelihood.

They said the lack of political will by successive governments to implement the policy, which formed the core of recommendations of a research work on how to restore the depleting fishery stock in those communities, had posed serious socio-economic challenges to the residents.

The University of Ghana (UG) conducted the research in 1999 to assess the impact the construction of the Akosombo and Akuse dams had on the people.

Specific recommendations were made for the government to design the small-scale aquaculture initiative to support the fisherfolk, but no pragmatic steps have been initiated since the research.

Visit

To press home their demands, two advocacy organisations, the Inland Culture Fisheries Association of Ghana (ICFAG) and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Alliance Network of Ghana (FAANG), last Friday toured some of the communities within the LVB.

They visited communities such as Asutuare, Mepe, Aveyime, Torgome and Dafor-Adidome, where they interacted with the residents.

Government support

The Policy Advocacy Advisor of FAANG, Mr Godwin Awudi, called for immediate steps by the government to tailor its agriculture policy Planting for Food and Jobs to suit the needs of the fisherfolk.

The LVB used to be a booming area for wild fishing and clamp culture. The industry provided economic empowerment to the residents, including women, who survived on clamp culture. But now, the construction of the dams have deprived them of their economic livelihood, he said.

He underscored the need for pragmatic steps to be taken by the government to support the fisherfolk in the area through the small-scale cluster fish ponds programme to resuscitate the local industry.

Concerns

Some residents in the communities visited expressed concern over the activities of Chinese fishermen who had taken over the cage aquaculture activities along the LVB.

According to 30-year-old Edwin Avorganu, the local fishermen did not have enough resources to compete with the Chinese who hired the services of the locals at a cheap cost.

The National Coordinator of the ICFAG, Mr Simon Ogah, pointed out that the collapse of clamp culture and the dwindling fortunes of the fishing industry in the LVB had resulted in social challenges such as increased cases of teenage pregnancy and migration of the youth to urban areas.

He said development had worsened the poverty in those fishing communities and called for urgent adoption of the research recommendations to restore the livelihood of the people.

See the rest here:

Implement new fish farm system urgently - fishing communities appeal - Graphic Online

It was one of those brain storming sessions of the Gujarat government soon after Narendra Modi had taken charge of the state administration after his thumping victory in the 2002 assembly polls. Times were tough and the power situation in the state were grim. The officials had gathered to discuss the problem and how to best to solve it.

Chief minister Modi was present and so were some his cabinet members. For some time, the discussion meandered on. Loud debates and disagreements meant that many proposals did not find favour. Then, one engineer sitting in the back of the room spoke up.

Why not create a separate feeder line especially for farmers which will help them draw as much power, he asked. The proposal was greeted with general laughter and derision. Most people in the room said this can never be done. Two people who remained silent during the discussion, Modi and the Gujarat power minister, later spoke up and wanted to know more. The engineer explained why he thought this idea will work. Modi listened and liked the idea. Despite the objection of the bureaucracy, the Gujarat government went ahead and decided to construct a separate feeder line to give farmers uninterrupted power.

Flash forward to 2014. Its October and the BJP has just won the Maharashtra assembly elections. The BJP always fought the elections together with the Shiv Sena but this was first the time that they had fought alone. The party managed to emerge the single largest in the 288 member assembly besting the Sena and the Congress twins. In Mumbai, various caste factions had begun their hectic lobbying for the chief ministership post. Traditionally, the Marathas had enjoyed an upper hand when it came to the top position in the state and BJP Maratha leaders were perhaps confident that one of their own would be appointed CM. Imagine their shock when Modi picked Devendra Fadnavis, a Brahmin, as the candidate. The state has not seen a Brahmin chief minister since Manohar Joshi of the Shiv Sena in 1995, a reflection of the massive upsurge in Maratha and backward caste dominance in the state politics. But Mr Modi, now prime minister and BJP chief Amit Shah were clear it was Fadnavis they wanted. The decision was final.

Screaming headlines in newspapers and breathless talking heads on TV since last Saturday will try and convince you that Yogi Adityanath, the newly elected chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, is some kind of a scary figure who should never come near any position of power or authority. He has been referred to as `Hindutva mascot, `Hindutva warrior in newspaper headlines and copies and there are various references to incendiary speeches during his career as a five-term MP from Gorakhpur in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Well-known political and socio-economic commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta called the appointment of Yogi Adityanath an odious and ominous development. He added that Adityanath is a mascot of militant Hindu sectarianism, reactionary ideas and thuggery in political discourse.

Mehtas hyperbole is typical of the left-liberal establishment to Adityanath and social media on Saturday buzzed with indignant journalists and political pundits expressing anguish over the move. Has the BJP mistaken a majority verdict for a majoritarian verdict, some asked.

Actually, the decision should not have been surprising if political pundits had been following prime minister Narendra Modis decisions closely since he took over in 2014. Modi has rigorously followed his instincts and his own ideas for reshaping the party based on a unique assessment of the political landscape, current and future. The above mentioned examples show Modis penchant for out-of-the-box thinking and he has followed up his bold Maharashtra experiment with similar `shock moves in other states.

For instance: Vijay Rupani, chief minister of Gujarat is a Jain baniya and belongs to the minority community, Raghubar Das, the chief minister of Jharkhand, is an OBC (other backward caste) from the Teli community in a predominantly tribal state, while ML Khattar, the chief minister of Haryana is Punjabi in a state where the Jats rule the roost.

Some say that this is Modis way of empowering minority castes and communities. Some others believe that this is a good way of keeping chief ministers in check as they would become wholly dependant on Modi without a power base of their own within the state.

The Yogis appointment however doesnt fit both categories. He has a strong base of his own in UP not to mention a loyal and energetic band of followers. And he is certainly not from any of the lower, deprived castes that need to be empowered.

The logic therefore of appointing Yogi is different and is closely tied to BJPs ascendancy and its ability to stay in a dominant position for a long time to come. Think about it this way. Modi knows more than anyone else that the BJPs rise in the past few years to pre-eminent national status is due to strong state-level leadership and the work done by the chief ministers. He himself has been a big beneficiary of this model. Modi 2014 would never have happened without the Gujarat success.

Modi also knows that more high quality state-level leaders, that is leaders who combine charisma, mass appeal with administrative acumen, are needed if the BJP has to have any chance of progressing beyond 2019 as the nations dominant party. The Modi appeal may be shining bright as of now in the aftermath of tremendous success in UP but it could quickly get clouded by missteps and underperformance in key states. Key lieutenants who will helm top-level positions and deliver performance that can win elections are important.

Secondly, strong state-level leaders will also ensure that the party does not fall into the same trap that crippled the Congress party and reduced it to an also-ran status. The dependence on one family, the complete, near-total absence of quality regional leaders who can take the battle to the opposite camp, lack of direction and absence of message means that the Congress is at the edge of precipice. Any more state election losses (and there could be some in 2017 and 18), the party could start losing key people and be a shell of its former self.

So, where does the Yogi Adityanath move fit in amidst all this. Firstly, he is extremely popular in UP, especially among the youth. He is incorruptible and his sanyasi status with no family ties sharply reduces the chances of family-led corruption that has brought many politicians to ruin. He is a Hindutva warrior, the head priest of the centuries-old Gorakhpur Shaivite sect. Unlike some other BJP leaders, he doesn't have to prove his Hindutva credentials to anyone. Add to all this, he is a five-term Gorakhpur MP who was winning elections when there was no Modi and the BJPs popularity was at its nadir. The choice, on paper and the on the ground, was clear.

Critics have slammed Modis move claiming that Adityanath lacks administrative experience and is too polarising a figure. PB Mehtas anguish stems largely from the fact that Modi, having won UP, has failed to appoint a consensus-driven, moderate to the top post and instead appointed an aggressive, in-your-face, Hindutva warrior.

This is just drivel and somebody of Mehtas stature and intellect should know better. All politicians in India are polarising figures, whether it is Bal Thackeray, MK Karunanidhi, Kanshi Ram, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav. Even Mamata Banerjee, whom many people believe will be Modis opponent in 2019, is an intensely polarising figure.

Political movements and parties that last cannot be built on consensus and me-too policies to the sound of gentle media applause and choir singing. The leader of a successful political movement must have the courage and conviction to articulate bold, controversial policies and go out and achieve success by persuading others of the justness of his cause. Great political movements and parties are built this way.

Former RSS leader Balasaheb Deoras recognised how this worked and set out to build the RSS ecosystem and spread the message of Hindutva in the 1970s and 1980s. LK Advani, as the leader of the rejuvenated BJP, built on it with the Ram Janmabhoomi movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Narendra Modi took Advani and Atal Behari Vajpayees work many levels higher with his theme of development and progress. All these people polarised public opinion but they are all accepted by the media and public at large. Why should Yogi Adityanath be any different?

In fact, after the collapse in UP, one would have thought that the intelligentsia and the public would avoid the topic of polarisation. If there is anything that this election proved, it showed how unpopular people were with the Akhilesh Yadav government. The SP govt had polarised public opinion to such an extent with its pro-Yadav, pro-Muslim policies, that the entire state took to the voting machines to throw them out with vengeance. If you want to talk about polarisation, talk about Akhilesh Yadav and his SP coterie.

The second major criticism against Adityanath that he lacks administrative skills is also a weak attack. Modi had little experience when he set out to be Gujarat chief minister in 2001 but he prospered and thrived. What is surprising is that the same people who are now crying hoarse about Adityanath skill sets were looking the other way when the younger Yadav was promoted to the CM post ahead of the 2012 elections. What experience did he have? What skill sets did he bring with him?

The correct way to examine Yogi Adityanath is whether he will follow in the footsteps of Advani and Modi by acquiring administrative skills and demonstrating a commitment to economic progress and prosperity. Whether he will make the transition from a consummate, political warrior with street-smart skills to one who can unite a state and help it out of the economic gloom and morass that it has been pushed into due to years of misgovernance and neglect. The answer to this question will shape BJPs future and Indias economic growth prospects.

Link:

Advani, Modi and...Yogi? Why Adityanath's appointment is a political masterstroke by Modi - Economic Times