The Worst Organisations

"You get into public life to better someone else's life - not your own. "

Nice words these are, by Vijay Amritraj. They leave no ambiguity as for the substance of Public Life; its sad, however, that it has come to signify a Utopian scenario, rather than the normal walks of life.

Talking of the 'substance' of public life, what we see these days are the haggles and scrambles in places supposed to be the centres of power and the hubs of activities. Should I say, a total disorientation and a complete lack of strategy? When one finds oneself in the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, the Representative can only be expected to take some time before he/she comes to the grips of what's going on around. Faced with huge responsibilities, loads of data and a total chaos for ambience, organising oneself can be a daunting task, let alone doing something productive.

"What are the roles and responsibilities? What is the job description? Who am I reporting to? What is the order of priority among the scores of issues? What is at stake? What is the law? How will my argument be evaluated? . . . " These could be a few questions facing a Representative who's just joined the Parliament. Doesn't he need an orientation?

How about framing a few rules of conduct, in the first place, and enforcing them? To begin with, introducing the position of the 'speaker' to the members and explaining who he is, why he is there and how he is supposed to be treated? I suppose there is a 'leader' of the ruling party and a 'leader' of the Opposition. How about making sure that they are the two people who can bring issues forward and the rest are not supposed to clap or thud or boo(ze) when either of them talks? Of course, they do not have to have their fingers on their lips, but might just as well be instructed to remain silent. I wonder if anyone in a corporate meeting room would exhibit any sort of misdemeanour while at the discussion tables. And definitely, the members may be taught of the dangers of plunging right into the 'well'.

The numbers in the Parliament are overwhelming! Are they being broken into Teams to discuss issues? Do the parties apprise the members of the 'agendas' that are to be brought to the table and expect the 'teams' to bring in perspectives, before they go to the Parliament? Does every person inside the nice, spacious room know what is happening in there?

When people get together to discuss matters of lives and deaths of a billion people, the first thing to be expected of them is to get themselves organised. Would any private organisation dare to adapt the structure in the Parliament for its Sales Meeting? Are we not being crazy to let this happen for so long?

Political parties are organisations - and they are supposed to be organised. Garnering a specified number of votes must not be the only criterion for parties to make it to the Chair. They have to prove that they can be productive, that they have a working organisational structure with proper hierarchies in place, that they can come up with new ideas, that they have the structures to generate ideas from every person in the organisation, that there is complete freedom of expression, and that the functioning of the parties that get to run a democracy are, indeed democratic. We do not need a group of people in the Parliament, who when left to themselves with their present structure and resources in the corporate world, would not even be able to raise a single Rupee from shares in the market or turn a paisa in profits.