December 17, 2011
https://www.facebook.com/notes/rahul-chimanbhai-mehta-rrg/301015b-dear-activist-are-your-actions-sufficient-efficient-and-clone-positive/10150423274641922
301.015B Dear activist - are your actions sufficient, efficient and clone positive?
https://www.facebook.com/notes/rahul-chimanbhai-mehta-rrg/301015b-dear-activist-are-your-actions-sufficient-efficient-and-clone-positive/10150423274641922
15.17 Attempt to overcome clone negativeness by “unity under one leader” is futile
Most activists have felt clone negativeness. They have seen and realized that when several honest activists contested elections, they all end up cutting each others’ votes making it easy for established dishonest parties to win. So many activists do try to form “unity under one leader”. This attempt to “unite under a leader” is futile. Why?
Say there are 20 lakh honest activists in India spread over 543 MP Constituencies, each Constituency having about 3700 honest activists. In each MP Constituency there are about 7 Assembly Constituency, and so each Assembly Constituency has say 500-600 honest activist. Lets say India has 20000 groups each consisting 1-2 activist leaders and 10 to 500 to 5000 honest activists spread across 543 MP Constituencies and 5000 MLA Constituencies.
Now each group will see that because of disunity amongst leaders and groups, none is able to win MLA, MP elections. So many junior activists and leaders will try to create unity under one leader. And since many will try, each will cut the other. Thus, the attempt to unite under one leader negative. This is one of the worst irony in politics --- “lets unite under Mr. XYZ” is the most divisive statement one can make, because he is opposing the person making “lets unite under Mr. ABC” statement.
Establishing “unity under one leader” has one more problem - time needed to decide which leader is too large. The unity under one leader needs trust in that one leader. One has to prove to other that he will be non-corrupt even after winning. And The God did not put stamps on people’s forehead certifying whether he will be honest even after he comes in power. Intense question-answer sessions and prolonged personal observations are must before trust appears. This is viable when group size is small in size and in area. But when two groups each having 20-100 activists spread across a large region try to “unite under one leader”, the amount of time that needs to be spent in communication to establish faith is unviably large. Many say that failure to unite is due to ego problems with leaders. That is only partially true --- there are many who put ego aside to serve nation. But lack of trust is real reason. And lack of trust is not due to lack of trust worthiness, but due to lack of time needed to prove or disprove trustworthiness.
If an activity is possible, but time needed is twice the lifetime, such activity is as good as impossible. So the activity of “lets find one trustworthy leader, and unite under him” is possible as India surely has perhaps over 10000 of trustworthy persons. But if 20 lakh honest junior activists decide to find and agree on which of the 10000 activist leader is most trustworthy, then time they would need to discuss out is several lifetimes. And so “unity under one leader” is clone negative and needs to too much time, and so it futile.
“Unite under leader” has one more pitfall – the media owners can easily destroy the reputation of the leader by throwing false financial allegations against him or 10s of other ways. Those who are trying to unite under a leader are walking on ice floor. If the enemy manages to break that ice floor, then there will be no time to walk back.
=======
15.18 Unite under organization with “good” internal rules is vague and clone-negative
What is an organization? Individuals who have agreed to follow a set of laws inside that organization. Most organization will have something called as their constitution or law-book. Now in many countries, such as Germany, Govt has enacted laws and procedures which make constitution of a political party binding on leaders. E.g. if the Constitution of a political party in Germany says that an election candidates will be elected by inner party primary election, then Germany’s Election Commission has powers to enforce that such inner party elections do happen. Such countries, such as Germany, also have fast/fair courts to resolve disputes that come in the way. In India, no such laws and procedures exist as of today, and our courts are too corrupt and slow to have such laws. In fact, no law empowers Election Commission to force Constitution of a political party on that party leaders. And even if such law exists in some corner of some law-book, Election Commission has no time and man-power to force 950 registered parties to follow their respective Constitutions. And if Election Commission were to try that today, it would only add 100s of litigation that would take years to resolve, given the fact that our courts as of today are very slow and highly corrupt. As of today, a political party has to have Constitution, and they need to give a copy to Election Commission. The Election Commission only puts these papers in files and doesn’t even bother to put these Constitutions on its website. And EC seldom tries to even read forget enforce these inner-party Constitutions.
As of now, when tickets are given in election, EC has one law --- EC will allocate the party symbols to a candidate as told by the Party President. Now even if Party Constitution says that local candidate should be elected by members and even if the Party Chairman did not conduct any local inner party election, the Election Commission has no precedent and practice to enforce such inner party elections. EC simply goes by the letter of the Party Chairman.
So as per today’s laws and practices, the so called organizations are as good as personal and private property of the party leaders. So an organization is as democratic or as good as the leader it has at the apex. So “unite under good organization with good internal rules” becomes no different from “unite under one good leader”, and has same problems. It is clone negative as two good organizations both with good internal rules will cut each other and establishing trust is unviably time consuming.
========
15.19 Taking help of TV-channel-owners to overcome clone negativeness will hurt India
I explained that method to “change laws by winning election” is clone negative. So to overcome this clone negativeness, various activist leaders try several methods such as “unite under one leader” and “unite under one organization”. I explained why both methods are clone negative as well too time consuming.
The third method by which activist leaders try to overcome clone negativeness is use of media-owners. Some activist leaders will try and succeed in getting support of newspaper-owners or TV-channel-owners or other financial heavy weights. Using their support, the activist leader will be able to reach much larger number of honest activists, and thus create a much bigger group than those who don’t have support of media-owners and elitemen. This method will work. But there is a major pitfall – what if the newspaper-owners and TV-channel-owners have dishonest agenda? I do not believe that all newspaper-owners and all TV-channel owners have anti-India agenda. Some may be genuinely good, as we see a few good people everywhere. But most TV-channel owners and most elitemen have nefarious anti-India agenda, because they are dominated by MNC\Missionary funding. Now if the activist leader has overt or covert dependence on newspaper-owners or TV-channel-owners or some elitemen, who is anti-India, then it can backfire.
In fact, only way clone negative methods have moved ahead is when one activist-leader gets projected by newspaper-owners or TV-channel-owners. Eg Anna became The Anna only after MNCs decided to use all its TV channels to project Anna. Mohanbhai-I became great leader only after British deployed all its media funds to project Mohanbhai-I as great leader. So far, an activist leader never became great leader, or became great leader ONLY after TV-channel-owners or newspaper-owners or elitemen pulled money and media to create his monopoly on media and push out other activists.
So those who think that TV-channels owners etc are all honest may approach them. I personally think that activist leaders should not take any help from TV-channel owners and newspaper-owners and other assorted elitemen. IMO, the decision to take help from media-owners will backfire and will hurt India.
========
15.20 So is there any sufficient and clone positive approach?
So far, I have explained why
==========
15.21 Multi-lead leaderless mass movement for law-draft is sufficient and clone positive
Mass movement (aka aandolan) is event when thousands or lakhs or crores of citizens India are forcing Mayor, CM, PM to make a change in the Government. The change demanded can be expelling (or bringing back) an officer or a Minister or a judge, OR, the change demanded can be print a in Gazette. Of this, the former one, namely change in person is grossly insufficient and I am not interested in it. But demand to enact a law-draft, depending on the draft of the law, can be sufficient. If the law-draft is well written, then enacting that draft can bring several long lasting positive changes in the lives of citizens. One such example is the Ration Card System (aka Public Distribution System). The drafts of the Gazette Notifications that created PDS in 1940s were good that the problem of hunger deaths nearly vanished in India from 1945 till today. Another example is mass movements which started for land reforms. The movement partially succeeded and partially failed. They failed because citizens did not create a draft themselves but asked MLAs/MPs to create drafts. The MLAs and MPs took bribes from landlords and created weak drafts, and so land reforms did not happen to fullest possible extent.
The “mass movement for system change without law-drafts” have been total failure. The worst example is 1977 where Janata Party was a mass movement led by Jay Prakash Narayan and one of the key goal was bringing Right to Recall. The mass movement succeeded in getting 2/3rd majority in the Loksabha. But since there was no draft of the proposed Recall law, the MPs claimed that they need time to write law and thus spent away 2 years and then cancelled the plan of enacting Right to Recall laws completely. The movement was a complete failure.
The “multi-lead leaderless mass movement (aandolan) for law-draft” that I am proposing is as follows
The “leaderlessness” and organization-less-ness is important. i.e. there may be 100s of leads but no and 10s of organization, and none should have administrative control over other, and non should have monopoly. If the whole movement is under one or a few leaders, then established Indian and foreign elitemen can easily kill, force or bribe out those leaders or his advisors or his deputies. Or will implicate the leaders in false allegations and destroy their images. However if thousands or lakhs of activists have only law-draft as an item, and leads to give information, then the Indian or foreign elitemen will see that killing or bribing out that leader will not help anymore.
In the leaderless multi-lead mass movement, the law-draft is the leader and the citizens are deputy leaders. The citizens can change the draft and thus change the leader. But the leader cannot change itself and later become corrupt.
How multi-lead leaderless mass movement (aandolan) for law-drafts is clone positive
The “leaderless multi-lead mass movement for law-draft” is clone positive as more people join with demand for same or even different laws, they don’t cut each other but only add the strength.
For example consider my proposed leaderless mass movement to force PM, CM to sign “Right to Recall PM, CM, judges etc” law-drafts. I use several actions to create this mass movements, and I have described these actions in the previous chapter titled as “With just 1 hour a week, YOU can help bringing RTR laws in India”.
I can explain that each action is clone positive. I will put a detailed explanation showing that each and every action item is clone positive on my website soon. In this chapter, I will explain some of the items.
========
15.22 Multi-lead leaderless mass movement for law-draft will also take less time
The leaderless multi-lead mass movement (aka aandolan) for law draft is event where thousands or lakhs or crores of citizens India are forcing Mayor, CM, PM to sign a law draft. The activist or citizen has decided not to follow anyone and has only agreed to apply full force in enacting that draft. The draft is their leader.
This method is time-efficient compared to “mass movement under a leader”. Because one has to spend immense time in convincing a person that Leader Mr. XYZ is a good person. And even when follower Mr. ABC is convinced that Mr. XYZ is a good leader, then it is not easy for Mr. ABC to convince Mr. DEF, who has never seen or spoken to Mr. YXZ, that Mr. XYZ is a good leader. Whereas if Mr. ABC has understood a law-draft, he can easily convince Mr. DEF that the law-draft is good and Mr. DEF can take it further. So a “leaderless movement for law-draft” is more time-efficient than a “movement under a leader”.
========
15.23 Is continuity a must?
In many methods such as running charities or building new political party, everyone needs to give N hours a week on a continuous basis. Break in continuity washes away work done in past. This is important plus point of “mass movement for RTI2 law-draft” that lack of continuity will not wash away the work done in past. Because in “mass movement for RTI2 law-draft”, the main activity is convincing the fellow activists and citizens about the merits of RTI2, MRCM, RTR etc laws. Once a person is convinced, break in continuity will not un-convince him. Whereas in charity work and building new party, one has to work almost everyday. If there is a break in continuity in one organization, there is a possibility that supporters and activists will move away to other organizations. This is merely an effect of clone-negativity : when one clone takes a break, a competing clone may end up destroying organization he has built.
In real world, activists have tens of important tasks. And so break in continuity is inevitable. And activist will work for a few weeks and then he may not be able to spend time for next few weeks, and will be ready to work again after his personal crisis have been taken care of. In such case, when he resumes, capital created by previous activities should not get washed away. The “mass-movement for RTI2 law draft” has this plus point. The main activity is to explain the fellow citizens the merits of RTI2, RTR and MRCM laws. And once a person is informed about these laws, some capital is created. This capital doesn’t get washed away if the activist takes a break of a few weeks.
=======
15.24 Summary
I am requesting all junior activists as well as activist leaders to prepare the DRAFTS of the laws they want. And I am requesting them to see if their method to enact those law-drafts is clone-positive and time-viable. Of all methods I studied, “leaderless multi-lead mass movement for a law-draft” is most clone positive and most time efficient, and least prone to subversion by enemy.
In some other article, I will show that RTI2 is the most efficient law-draft of all possible law-draft. As a simple proof, I will request the reader to write draft of the law which he thinks is more efficient than RTI2. And then I will request him to add RTI2 clauses below his draft as a new section. Now is the new draft better or worse in his opinion?
========
15.25 Purpose of this chapter - revisited
This chapter and next chapter is dialogue with activists,. In this and next chapter, I have tried to show that my proposed method (that activists should ask citizens to force PM, CMs, Mayor to pass RTI2 law) is less expensive and more efficient than most other methods other activist leaders are proposing. Because my method is sufficient as well as clone positive. The purpose to explain this is not to ask activists to leave their organizations and join mine. But my purpose is to convince activists that they should ask their activist leaders to add RTI2, RTR etc in the agenda of their groups.
Why do I ask activists to add RTR etc in their groups rather than leave their groups and join my groups? Because asking activists to add RTI2, RTR in their organization’s agenda is clone positive, where as asking activists to leave their organizations and join mine is clone negative and hence lesser in efficiency.
Likewise, I seldom ask voters to stop voting for whom they voted last time and vote for me. I always asked them to ask their favorite candidate to add RTI2, RTR in his manifesto. This again is clone positive step and hence more efficient.
Most activists have felt clone negativeness. They have seen and realized that when several honest activists contested elections, they all end up cutting each others’ votes making it easy for established dishonest parties to win. So many activists do try to form “unity under one leader”. This attempt to “unite under a leader” is futile. Why?
Say there are 20 lakh honest activists in India spread over 543 MP Constituencies, each Constituency having about 3700 honest activists. In each MP Constituency there are about 7 Assembly Constituency, and so each Assembly Constituency has say 500-600 honest activist. Lets say India has 20000 groups each consisting 1-2 activist leaders and 10 to 500 to 5000 honest activists spread across 543 MP Constituencies and 5000 MLA Constituencies.
Now each group will see that because of disunity amongst leaders and groups, none is able to win MLA, MP elections. So many junior activists and leaders will try to create unity under one leader. And since many will try, each will cut the other. Thus, the attempt to unite under one leader negative. This is one of the worst irony in politics --- “lets unite under Mr. XYZ” is the most divisive statement one can make, because he is opposing the person making “lets unite under Mr. ABC” statement.
Establishing “unity under one leader” has one more problem - time needed to decide which leader is too large. The unity under one leader needs trust in that one leader. One has to prove to other that he will be non-corrupt even after winning. And The God did not put stamps on people’s forehead certifying whether he will be honest even after he comes in power. Intense question-answer sessions and prolonged personal observations are must before trust appears. This is viable when group size is small in size and in area. But when two groups each having 20-100 activists spread across a large region try to “unite under one leader”, the amount of time that needs to be spent in communication to establish faith is unviably large. Many say that failure to unite is due to ego problems with leaders. That is only partially true --- there are many who put ego aside to serve nation. But lack of trust is real reason. And lack of trust is not due to lack of trust worthiness, but due to lack of time needed to prove or disprove trustworthiness.
If an activity is possible, but time needed is twice the lifetime, such activity is as good as impossible. So the activity of “lets find one trustworthy leader, and unite under him” is possible as India surely has perhaps over 10000 of trustworthy persons. But if 20 lakh honest junior activists decide to find and agree on which of the 10000 activist leader is most trustworthy, then time they would need to discuss out is several lifetimes. And so “unity under one leader” is clone negative and needs to too much time, and so it futile.
“Unite under leader” has one more pitfall – the media owners can easily destroy the reputation of the leader by throwing false financial allegations against him or 10s of other ways. Those who are trying to unite under a leader are walking on ice floor. If the enemy manages to break that ice floor, then there will be no time to walk back.
=======
15.18 Unite under organization with “good” internal rules is vague and clone-negative
What is an organization? Individuals who have agreed to follow a set of laws inside that organization. Most organization will have something called as their constitution or law-book. Now in many countries, such as Germany, Govt has enacted laws and procedures which make constitution of a political party binding on leaders. E.g. if the Constitution of a political party in Germany says that an election candidates will be elected by inner party primary election, then Germany’s Election Commission has powers to enforce that such inner party elections do happen. Such countries, such as Germany, also have fast/fair courts to resolve disputes that come in the way. In India, no such laws and procedures exist as of today, and our courts are too corrupt and slow to have such laws. In fact, no law empowers Election Commission to force Constitution of a political party on that party leaders. And even if such law exists in some corner of some law-book, Election Commission has no time and man-power to force 950 registered parties to follow their respective Constitutions. And if Election Commission were to try that today, it would only add 100s of litigation that would take years to resolve, given the fact that our courts as of today are very slow and highly corrupt. As of today, a political party has to have Constitution, and they need to give a copy to Election Commission. The Election Commission only puts these papers in files and doesn’t even bother to put these Constitutions on its website. And EC seldom tries to even read forget enforce these inner-party Constitutions.
As of now, when tickets are given in election, EC has one law --- EC will allocate the party symbols to a candidate as told by the Party President. Now even if Party Constitution says that local candidate should be elected by members and even if the Party Chairman did not conduct any local inner party election, the Election Commission has no precedent and practice to enforce such inner party elections. EC simply goes by the letter of the Party Chairman.
So as per today’s laws and practices, the so called organizations are as good as personal and private property of the party leaders. So an organization is as democratic or as good as the leader it has at the apex. So “unite under good organization with good internal rules” becomes no different from “unite under one good leader”, and has same problems. It is clone negative as two good organizations both with good internal rules will cut each other and establishing trust is unviably time consuming.
========
15.19 Taking help of TV-channel-owners to overcome clone negativeness will hurt India
I explained that method to “change laws by winning election” is clone negative. So to overcome this clone negativeness, various activist leaders try several methods such as “unite under one leader” and “unite under one organization”. I explained why both methods are clone negative as well too time consuming.
The third method by which activist leaders try to overcome clone negativeness is use of media-owners. Some activist leaders will try and succeed in getting support of newspaper-owners or TV-channel-owners or other financial heavy weights. Using their support, the activist leader will be able to reach much larger number of honest activists, and thus create a much bigger group than those who don’t have support of media-owners and elitemen. This method will work. But there is a major pitfall – what if the newspaper-owners and TV-channel-owners have dishonest agenda? I do not believe that all newspaper-owners and all TV-channel owners have anti-India agenda. Some may be genuinely good, as we see a few good people everywhere. But most TV-channel owners and most elitemen have nefarious anti-India agenda, because they are dominated by MNC\Missionary funding. Now if the activist leader has overt or covert dependence on newspaper-owners or TV-channel-owners or some elitemen, who is anti-India, then it can backfire.
In fact, only way clone negative methods have moved ahead is when one activist-leader gets projected by newspaper-owners or TV-channel-owners. Eg Anna became The Anna only after MNCs decided to use all its TV channels to project Anna. Mohanbhai-I became great leader only after British deployed all its media funds to project Mohanbhai-I as great leader. So far, an activist leader never became great leader, or became great leader ONLY after TV-channel-owners or newspaper-owners or elitemen pulled money and media to create his monopoly on media and push out other activists.
So those who think that TV-channels owners etc are all honest may approach them. I personally think that activist leaders should not take any help from TV-channel owners and newspaper-owners and other assorted elitemen. IMO, the decision to take help from media-owners will backfire and will hurt India.
========
15.20 So is there any sufficient and clone positive approach?
So far, I have explained why
- An activist leader who refuses to oppose MNC domination, corruption in judges/Ministers etc, and insists on confining to schools, hospitals, local work is following insufficient method. He is like a doctor who is not giving most required medicine to the patient.
- An activist leader who opposes MNC domination, corruption, but refuses to work to change the law-drafts is also following insufficient methods. He too is like a doctor who is not giving required medicine to the patient.
- An activist leader who proposes that they will run charities, do local work etc, get votes, win election and then change law-drafts is following a clone negative. He is like a doctor who is yet aware or unaware, that the medicine cant work at Tahsil, District, State or National scale.
- An activist leader who is trying to “unite activists under one leader” is also unaware that his method is clone negative and that communication time needed to agree is more lifetime. Those who give call for unity are causing biggest divisions.
- An activist leader who is trying to “unite activists under one organization” is also unaware that his method is clone negative and his method needs too much communication time.
- An activist leader who tries and succeeds in getting support of newspaper-owners, TV-channel-owners and is trying to “unite activists under one organization” may work, but only if the TV-channels who are helping him are pro-commons. If the TV-channels who are helping him are anti-common then the step to take support from them will backfire. As of now TV-channels in India are run by MNCs and Missionaries. And so a leader who plans to expel
==========
15.21 Multi-lead leaderless mass movement for law-draft is sufficient and clone positive
Mass movement (aka aandolan) is event when thousands or lakhs or crores of citizens India are forcing Mayor, CM, PM to make a change in the Government. The change demanded can be expelling (or bringing back) an officer or a Minister or a judge, OR, the change demanded can be print a in Gazette. Of this, the former one, namely change in person is grossly insufficient and I am not interested in it. But demand to enact a law-draft, depending on the draft of the law, can be sufficient. If the law-draft is well written, then enacting that draft can bring several long lasting positive changes in the lives of citizens. One such example is the Ration Card System (aka Public Distribution System). The drafts of the Gazette Notifications that created PDS in 1940s were good that the problem of hunger deaths nearly vanished in India from 1945 till today. Another example is mass movements which started for land reforms. The movement partially succeeded and partially failed. They failed because citizens did not create a draft themselves but asked MLAs/MPs to create drafts. The MLAs and MPs took bribes from landlords and created weak drafts, and so land reforms did not happen to fullest possible extent.
The “mass movement for system change without law-drafts” have been total failure. The worst example is 1977 where Janata Party was a mass movement led by Jay Prakash Narayan and one of the key goal was bringing Right to Recall. The mass movement succeeded in getting 2/3rd majority in the Loksabha. But since there was no draft of the proposed Recall law, the MPs claimed that they need time to write law and thus spent away 2 years and then cancelled the plan of enacting Right to Recall laws completely. The movement was a complete failure.
The “multi-lead leaderless mass movement (aandolan) for law-draft” that I am proposing is as follows
- There may be lead, but no leaders. The “lead” is a person, who is well informed about law-drafts, has ability to analyze what changes in what clauses of which law can cause which positive or negative impact. And has ability to explain and is willing to spend his time in explaining to others. A leader is someone who tells people what they should not do in the name of timing, strategy and discipline !! The movement I propose must have no leaders but should have 1000s of leads.
- The activists have read the drafts of the laws they want. The laws need not be RTI2, RTR, MRCM etc. It can be any law-drafts in which the activists have read, understood and believe in. But fully written drafts must be present.
- The activists are asking citizens to ask CM, PM, Mayors etc to print these law-drafts in Gazette
- Most important : The goal is not to enact draft via winning elections but to enact draft via forcing existing PM, CMs, Mayors.
- The activists are sending information about law-drafts to the citizens
The “leaderlessness” and organization-less-ness is important. i.e. there may be 100s of leads but no and 10s of organization, and none should have administrative control over other, and non should have monopoly. If the whole movement is under one or a few leaders, then established Indian and foreign elitemen can easily kill, force or bribe out those leaders or his advisors or his deputies. Or will implicate the leaders in false allegations and destroy their images. However if thousands or lakhs of activists have only law-draft as an item, and leads to give information, then the Indian or foreign elitemen will see that killing or bribing out that leader will not help anymore.
In the leaderless multi-lead mass movement, the law-draft is the leader and the citizens are deputy leaders. The citizens can change the draft and thus change the leader. But the leader cannot change itself and later become corrupt.
How multi-lead leaderless mass movement (aandolan) for law-drafts is clone positive
The “leaderless multi-lead mass movement for law-draft” is clone positive as more people join with demand for same or even different laws, they don’t cut each other but only add the strength.
For example consider my proposed leaderless mass movement to force PM, CM to sign “Right to Recall PM, CM, judges etc” law-drafts. I use several actions to create this mass movements, and I have described these actions in the previous chapter titled as “With just 1 hour a week, YOU can help bringing RTR laws in India”.
I can explain that each action is clone positive. I will put a detailed explanation showing that each and every action item is clone positive on my website soon. In this chapter, I will explain some of the items.
- Say I contest Loksabha election where-in my goal is not to win election but to ask maximal citizens to ask existing MP, MLA, Mayor etc to enact Right to Recall over PM, CM, judges law-drafts. Say using newspaper advertisements etc I reached 100,000 citizens and gave them information about RTR over PM, CM, judges law drafts. Say one more person contests election in same constituency on RTR law-drafts. Then due to his efforts, the information will reach several thousand more voters and thus possibility that RTR laws would come increases. Now we may cut each other’s votes but since goal is not to win election but to ask citizens to force existing PM, CMs etc to pass RTR laws that goal had been positively served by both contestants. Thus contesting election to force existing PM, CM to print a draft in Gazette is clone positive. Though contesting election with goal of making the chosen candidate win and hoping that that candidate will enact RTR law is clone negative.
- Say I am distributing pamphlets explaining RTR drafts If one more activist distributes the draft, then possibility of getting RTR laws signed increases.
- Now say a group of activists-A are campaigning for Draft-A And another group activists-B comes and starts campaign for Draft-B. Then either of activist-A can subsume Draft-B or activist-B can subsume draft-A or some third group-C will come and put a draft-C which covers both A and B. And the fear that activists-A will add Draft-B, and fear of vice versa or fear that activist-C will come and subsume both Drafts-A and Drafts-B will ensure that each group creates a subsuming draft. And if two drafts remain un-united, a citizen can support both drafts and thus there will be no division. Whereas a citizen cannot vote for two candidates. Eg I have been campaigning for Right to Recall drafts since 1998. In Oct-2010, Anna’s group came and started a campaign for Janlokpal draft. I immediately drafted a page titled as “Right to Recall over Janlokpal” and asked activists to add that page
========
15.22 Multi-lead leaderless mass movement for law-draft will also take less time
The leaderless multi-lead mass movement (aka aandolan) for law draft is event where thousands or lakhs or crores of citizens India are forcing Mayor, CM, PM to sign a law draft. The activist or citizen has decided not to follow anyone and has only agreed to apply full force in enacting that draft. The draft is their leader.
This method is time-efficient compared to “mass movement under a leader”. Because one has to spend immense time in convincing a person that Leader Mr. XYZ is a good person. And even when follower Mr. ABC is convinced that Mr. XYZ is a good leader, then it is not easy for Mr. ABC to convince Mr. DEF, who has never seen or spoken to Mr. YXZ, that Mr. XYZ is a good leader. Whereas if Mr. ABC has understood a law-draft, he can easily convince Mr. DEF that the law-draft is good and Mr. DEF can take it further. So a “leaderless movement for law-draft” is more time-efficient than a “movement under a leader”.
========
15.23 Is continuity a must?
In many methods such as running charities or building new political party, everyone needs to give N hours a week on a continuous basis. Break in continuity washes away work done in past. This is important plus point of “mass movement for RTI2 law-draft” that lack of continuity will not wash away the work done in past. Because in “mass movement for RTI2 law-draft”, the main activity is convincing the fellow activists and citizens about the merits of RTI2, MRCM, RTR etc laws. Once a person is convinced, break in continuity will not un-convince him. Whereas in charity work and building new party, one has to work almost everyday. If there is a break in continuity in one organization, there is a possibility that supporters and activists will move away to other organizations. This is merely an effect of clone-negativity : when one clone takes a break, a competing clone may end up destroying organization he has built.
In real world, activists have tens of important tasks. And so break in continuity is inevitable. And activist will work for a few weeks and then he may not be able to spend time for next few weeks, and will be ready to work again after his personal crisis have been taken care of. In such case, when he resumes, capital created by previous activities should not get washed away. The “mass-movement for RTI2 law draft” has this plus point. The main activity is to explain the fellow citizens the merits of RTI2, RTR and MRCM laws. And once a person is informed about these laws, some capital is created. This capital doesn’t get washed away if the activist takes a break of a few weeks.
=======
15.24 Summary
I am requesting all junior activists as well as activist leaders to prepare the DRAFTS of the laws they want. And I am requesting them to see if their method to enact those law-drafts is clone-positive and time-viable. Of all methods I studied, “leaderless multi-lead mass movement for a law-draft” is most clone positive and most time efficient, and least prone to subversion by enemy.
In some other article, I will show that RTI2 is the most efficient law-draft of all possible law-draft. As a simple proof, I will request the reader to write draft of the law which he thinks is more efficient than RTI2. And then I will request him to add RTI2 clauses below his draft as a new section. Now is the new draft better or worse in his opinion?
========
15.25 Purpose of this chapter - revisited
This chapter and next chapter is dialogue with activists,. In this and next chapter, I have tried to show that my proposed method (that activists should ask citizens to force PM, CMs, Mayor to pass RTI2 law) is less expensive and more efficient than most other methods other activist leaders are proposing. Because my method is sufficient as well as clone positive. The purpose to explain this is not to ask activists to leave their organizations and join mine. But my purpose is to convince activists that they should ask their activist leaders to add RTI2, RTR etc in the agenda of their groups.
Why do I ask activists to add RTR etc in their groups rather than leave their groups and join my groups? Because asking activists to add RTI2, RTR in their organization’s agenda is clone positive, where as asking activists to leave their organizations and join mine is clone negative and hence lesser in efficiency.
Likewise, I seldom ask voters to stop voting for whom they voted last time and vote for me. I always asked them to ask their favorite candidate to add RTI2, RTR in his manifesto. This again is clone positive step and hence more efficient.
No comments:
Post a Comment