Of Celebrity MPs and Performance
Actually, “Non-Performance”. Thanks to Srinivasan-ji for alerting me to this spreadsheet detailing performance of individual MPs, courtesy PRS. (emphasis added). The performance has been measured along a number of dimensions including
debates participated, private bills introduced and questions raised…
PRS believes
This reflects how the members take interest in presenting the problems of the constituency/ country in the Lok Sabha.
The top five performers (in terms of total of debates, private bills and questions) are:
- Ananda Rao Adsul (Shiva Sena, Maharashtra – 516)
- Hansraj Gangaram Ahir (BJP, Maharashtra -513)
- Asaduddin Owaisis (AIMM, Andhra – 473)
- Pradeep Kumar (Congress, Orissa – 468) and
- S S Ramasubbu (Congress, Tamilnadu – 466)
The national average for the total tally for the entire lok sabha is 115.5 (activities) per member in the current Lok Sabha till date…Surprisingly and interestingly, 24 members are yet to open their ‘mouth’ either in debates, private bills or raising questions. That means, their participation is ‘zero‘ while the average of the Lok Sabha is 115 per member.
This 24 members include celebrities like Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Bhajan Lal, Shibu Soren.
Question for all: How would such “performance” be treated in a private company or any other organisation? And isn’t it amazing that someone in this list of 24 makes it to “Politician of the Year”?
Image courtesy: Congress (I) website
In private organizations in India, such performance is tolerated if you are a family member of or closer to the top boss. Or if you are a lady in short dress. So, yes, parliament and private companies are in sync.
I am wondering whether there is a universally accepted linear Performance Measure to judge an MP.
Compare two persons, for example, one who drives a car, and other, who travels in a other-driven vehicle (chauffeur-driven perhaps, but remember, train is also an example of that). Not driving a car doesn’t imply not travelling. Similarly, not asking a question shouldn’t necessarily mean ‘no performance’. Some of the celebrities you have mentioned can be better described as facilitators. There is nothing wrong with being one.
Indian politics is far too complicated. These preliminary measures don’t quite work the way they might in a small country like Denmark or Holland. Still, you could easily say that those who asked close to 500 questions have done some serious work. Manohar Joshi, for example, was one of the most productive Speakers of Loksabha. I am not at all surprised that the one who raised maximum questions is a Shiv Sena member, just like Manohar Joshi was.
Not raising any question, IMHO, isn’t a reflection on performance.
Well Prakash, I may agree with you to an extent that the formulation introduced in this article to judge the MPs may not be a satisfactory standard.
But I believe it may provide atleast a rough basis for evaluating the MPs. And on that scale we do have a basis for ascertaining the actual work of some of them.
And another point worth noticing here is the link to CNN IBN.
At the time of good political fortunes, the media is so much sycophant and lacks even the basic self to be maintained at/as a mediahouse/mediaperson.
In this particular case it praises Mr. Gandhi no end and after the Bihar and NSUI debacle throws him to the depths of political misery.
Pity the state with such biased media.
Journalism largely consists in saying “Lord Jones is dead” to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive. ~G.K. Chesterton
@Prakash: Hurried comment…MPs have been judged on several dimensions, I believe: “debates participated, private bills introduced and questions raised…“
While such a metric gives some idea regarding the performance of a MP, it is not enough and could lead one to incorrect conclusions. For example, what was in the bills that were introduced by a MP? Did those bills further empower the people or achieve the opposite? Was the bill instrumental in cutting down bureaucracy or introducing more of it? Did the bill strengthen censorship, or strengthen free speech?
to the extreme left in the picture in this post is the man who walks like a robot from Hollywood movies in the 80’s…
*** COMMENT EDITED ***
Note by Moderator: No personal abuse please…The person is after all the Prime Minister. Thanks.
In BFN I have outlined a series of KPIs that we, the citizens, must set for our agents (servants), the MPs. These do not relate to output measures (such as the ones we are talking about here), but outcome measures such as the level of corruption in government, the level of poverty, the growth in per capita GDP, level of freedom, etc. etc.
The measures on these key outcome measures should be determined through independently commissioned public surveys (e.g. of the quality of Gallup, Transparency International, etc.) and rewards pegged to these outcomes.
I do feel though, that some output measures (of the sort suggested in this blog post) may also be necessary to help distinguish the relative contributions of individual members, noting that these output measures have severe limitations as a measure of quality.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea if someone could start working out these measures that FTI could then implement once its members are elected to parliament.
And of course, the first thing is to find good leaders. So please join FTI at once!
Regards
Sanjeev
#6 I reject the premise that there aren’t good leaders but possibly, there aren’t that many young leaders at the national level.
Congress is trying to examine the suitability of some and that process needs to be commended. I am not aware whether BSP, BJP, CPM are doing anything to promote any of their younger members who have done well at local levels. Blind opposition of one party or one family isn’t going to help. You can find dozens of metric to prove that one person or one family is bad, but till you prove, on the same metric, that someone else is capable of taking the country forward, has the adequate support at the national level, and is young enough to lead for at least for a decade, all such metrics are irrelevant.
@Prakash
When you raise a question, answer a question and ask a question is called participation. And is very important review of performance. Now one more dimension is also there sharing of knowledeg on the subject, not withholding your opinion and understanding when importnat matter is on the table.
#8 Indian. You need to study the bhagvadgita to understand some of these issues. I would like to draw you attention to chapter 4, Verse 17 and 18. Lord Krishna discusses the issue of Karma, Akarma, and Vikarma in those verses.
You need to convince other that your interpretation of participation and performance and such attributes is objective and consistent. Nothing that is not agreed by many is either important or material.
@Prakash
So I need to read Bhagwad Gita to understand the issue…I really liked it. Did all young who are so and so of family politics you are mentioning in #7 have read it? Can you confirm that. Silence on political level? What are you suggesting?
Dont try to show your overwhelemed love for congress or any family politics on me. My comment was what I understand as and it is importnat review… what I though if you are missing this point. Cool down! Your love alone for any party or family cannot do anything for the country. I dont see any future if youngster from particlar political family is ruling the country.
Its my take, I dont need to open the pages of Bhagwad Gita to understand as these simple.
Your take, keep it to yourself, then.
@Prakash
I am not selling it to you. Its Shantanu’s blog and I am discussing, there are many others readers and takers. Let other read it. Hope you understand what debate and discussion is all about.
Good one! I liked the performance comparison of Leaders drawn between the Political and the private/public owned companies.
I don’t agree with the measurements as it seems rudimentary as if one measuring the performance of school students.
Keep in mind that largely the political leaders are elected based on their popularity (??) and their loyalty (??).
Performance of the leaders in the corporate sectors depends on the numbers. The profit and growth of the org. This is the performance measure of the CEO who is constantly under observation of the Board.
Pros: Cutting edge management, Growth of the company and its employees, satisfied shareholders.
For e.g.: Birla, Infosys, Reliance, Tata, etc
Cons: Wipe-out of entire org. and loss to the employees and shareholders as well as the nation too.
For e.g.: BRC, Enron, Gokul, Hindustan Motors, etc.
I believe the performance of the political leaders need to be measured somewhere along these lines. When they contest they had their agenda and promises to the voters. Their goals and objectives should be aligned with the overall goals and objectives of the party and their representatives. We need to have an independent board that should guard the interest of the nation and its citizens.
How to achieve that is a big?
||Namo Bhartam, Namo Sanskritam||
Incidentally, the link provided to the original excel file takes you to a login screen and introduces a hurdle between you and the page.
I just visited the main PRSINDIA website instead. The PRS initiative seems to be a very well conceived party-neutral effort and the excel file itself merely provides a record of MP participation. Such recordkeeping will definitely improve Indian political processes and help an average Indian understand what goes on in the parliament. (Media will just show the walkouts and dramatic scenes).
@ Shantanu,
My apologies for the below comment, nothing personal.
Your question does not have any significance to the politics of development in India. It also shows that you have been theoritical in understanding real politics.
Note: I am not saying an MP or MLA should not ask questions concerning their constituency.
Politics of develeopment in India however strange can be defined in following categories:
1. Development of the constituency – Predominantly infrastructure related or about bringing certain schemes to their respective constituencies
2. Development of the individuals in the constituency – Helping individulas of the constituency/or those from ones caste/creed/religion/vote bank
3. Development gimicks or playing to the crowd! – launching schemes/projects to bragg but never completing
4. Development of MPs/MLAs followers – by getting them government contracts. Followers are the foot soliders of the politician, if they dont wholehearteadly supprt him/her then the results could be loss of seat for the politician.
None of these per say require the politician to speak up or raise questions in the parliament or assembly. If a politician is smart, all he needs to do is to co-ordinate with the various departments and government officials to make sure or ensure that the above points are covered. So technically an MP/MLA does not need to ask questions and yet deliver for his constituency and constituents.
Given the above context, your question is not correctly phrased. probably it can be constructed based on how efficiently has the MP used MPLAD funds? Or based on how is the constituency rated on various performance metrics as opposed to asking questions.
Raising questions would certainly helep raise the profile of the MP/MLA provided they are combative and can debate the issue. Frakly the current state of affairs there are hardly any quality debates in the parliament or assembly.
” Frakly the current state of affairs there are hardly any quality debates in the parliament or assembly”
Totally wrong. Try hearing some debates first.
@ Sandeep
I do get to hear else, try to catch up with the proceedings of the parliament! I have seen may live debates previously!
@Ashwin: No need to apologise…no offence taken…
I disagree with your premise around the “politics of development” in India. Your comment reflects a very cynical (although fairly accurate) view of the current situation in India.
I am more interested in change. Not business as usual..as I am sure you know.
@Shantanu,
The business of change cant be brought from top – it has the happen from bottom up. One needs a urge for the change at the ground level unless that happens, the need for change will be in a bit of quango!
Real politics is far from what we discuss here on blogs or the discussions we tend to have at dinner tables and even that of your hard work in re-educating the youth of india on political enagegment.
My recent trip to India, not only gave me a real taste of politics as all this while i was seeign politics from close quarters but yet not got myself involved at the ground level.
The local Taluk Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat elections, opened up a whole new page of political learning, though i knew about it the manifestations of the complex situation on ground was something worth the experience (I still owe you an account of my experience).
In summary what really dawned to me was if a change needs to be brought, there needs to be an apetitie for it at the ground level. I can see there is a need, but quatifying that into something real and tangible will take time.
@Ashwin: Oh I do know “real politics”!(have seen it first hand…in several elections, different states and at different levels over the last 20+ years; right from Panchayat – which was a sham to the Lok Sabha – but that is a story for another day)..and although different, it is not all that off from what we are discussing here.
There is appetite for change even at the ground level but it is not being articulated…and the voice is still weak…and somehow the will to change, the confidence that things can improve is missing…that is what I am focusng on in my meetigs/talks and travels.
@ Shantanu,
At a very high level people always want change. But the question is often they are not sure about the sort of change they want.
Like you, having seen elections first hand, i had built up a set of assumptions that had based my ideas and views. But the reality was surprisingly different.
If i can classify India into:
1. Rural India – different set of needs, levels of expectations re change gets varied based on constituencies/sections of society/caste/creed!
2. Urban India – diametrically opposite to Rural India, here one can find some elements of coherence re change.
But a common binding factor is, i genuinely find there is lack of honesty in the society at the very high level, when it comes to choosing their representatives.
For E.g. In rural india, when on campaigning people would welcome politicians from all parties to their village and chant their slogans, place demands (personal and constituency related), expect politicians to give money for food, drinks and gifts! This they do irrespective who the candidates are. If a candidate does not do this, then suddenly a sense of negative wave is created in the constituency (unless the candidate is of impecable record and well known in the constituency – he is sure to end up on the losoing side).
In Short, there is moral bankruptancy right through the society. This brings to the point that i always make – Politicians are a cross section of the society. Unless you change the society one cant expect better politicians!
E.g.: In one particular constituency that i know off, the ex-MLA is a very honest man and carried out a lot of developmental work for his constituency. But he still lost the elections to a candidate who is well known as a someone who is bot bothered about the constituency and more importantly a goon! When questioned why the people voted for a goon to be a MLA, their answer was “We had nothign against the honest MLA, But caste/creed/money/individual appeasement during elections played the turning point”. So there was nothing against the honest MLA in person or his work, but still people wanted change – because of moral bankruptancy! The goon MLA got elected after spending Rs XX crores and how can people ask him for development of the constituency when he literally bought his votes? SO people are bringing change, but not exactly the ones which are for the country!
It would really be great if we can plan our next trip to India together, so that we can try to get some more live experiences during elections!