#a novice to the electoral contest

[mariacallous]

The left-wing SYRIZA party decided at the weekend not to hold elections for a new president, although the party’s congress failed to heal the deep divisions that have seen many members resign since Stefanos Kasselakis became leader in the wake of last year’s election defeat.

Alexis Tsipras, the former president of the party and former prime minister of Greece, had urged a new leadership election in a post on social media. Kasselakis initially said he accepted the challenge and was confident of being re-elected as party leader. The new elections were planned to be held on March 10.

“The historical leader of our faction, albeit from afar, is asking for a new ballot for president, and I could become president on March 10, with national elections on the horizon, with a clear mandate to transform SYRIZA into a modern party with an efficient mechanism even if it shakes up the [party] offices,” said Kasselakis.

But Tsipras’s call for a new ballot met with stiff resistance from congress delegates. MP Olga Gerovasili, a Tsipras ally, was willing to run against Kasselakis, but then stepped back after interventions from party officials.

Kasselakis then said that there would be no internal ballot as Tsipras wanted, and insisted that the party was “moving forward”.

Sokratis Famellos, president of the SYRIZA parliamentary group of MPs, told Kokkino radio that he was against new leadership polls “because we have European elections ahead of us” and a battle with the government over a private universities bill.

After defeat in general elections in June 2023 by the New Democracy party, Tsipras resigned as SYRIZA’s leader. Kasselakis, a businessman and political novice, was elected in his place in September 2023.

His election caused mass resignations and the formation of a new left-wing party, Nea Aristera (New Left). His opponents have accused Kasselakis of wanting to transform Syriza into a liberal party.

Manos Papazoglou, associate professor in Political Systems at the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Peloponnese, told BIRN that the leadership dispute was part of a wider malaise affecting SYRIZA.

“What is happening today in SYRIZA has its roots in the party’s great difficulty with transforming itself and its party structures, developing strong identification with the party among the electorate, and of course dealing with the very diverse political context,” said Papazoglou.

A few days before the start of the congress, Kasselakis, invited Syriza members to answer a questionnaire about the party’s future. They were asked whether SYRIZA should define itself as centre-left or left, and whether it should change its logo and name. They were also asked if they consider SYRIZA’s current structure effective and what they want Kasselakis to change in the party.

The questionnaire provoked criticism from party officials. MP Olga Gerovasili said that key issues should not be raised in the public arena if they have not been discussed among party officials.

Following this incident, Tsipras called for new leadership elections, accusing former SYRIZA members of undermining the party and Kasselakis of asking for a three-year blank cheque as leader, regardless of the outcome of the European elections in June.

Tsipras also criticised party members who oppose Kasselakis and are “silently waiting for electoral failure to come so they can blame him, not caring what this will mean for the faction and the country”.

Papazoglou said that the party needs change, but questioned whether Kasselakis will be able to deliver it.

“Kasselakis does not have the support of senior [party] officials and does not have the know-how; he has no political experience, and it is difficult to do it because of the EU elections,” he said.

“Even if he tries to do it, the electorate will not quickly assimilate it, he will not have time to do anything until the European elections, those who question him want his head on a plate now. That didn’t happen in the congress, but I imagine with voter leakage [at the European polls], the issue will come back up again in June,” he added.

In his opening speech at the congress, Kasselakis sought to defy his critics inside the party.

“Whoever thinks he can fix a party that collapsed and split twice in a few months, let him come and take over. They’re asking that I be held accountable for the bad opinion polls – those who have never been held accountable for the collapse of SYRIZA from 32 per cent to 18 per cent [in last year’s elections],” he said.

[ds4techofficial]

Bypolls: Munirathna, others file nomination papers, declare assets

Bypolls: Munirathna, others file nomination papers, declare assets

[ad_1]

As BJP candidate in Rajarajeshwarinagar Assembly segment, Munirathna seems to have emerged as the richest candidate so far in the byelection fray, his Congress opponent, Kusuma H., a novice to the electoral contest, has declared assets worth ₹2.5 crore.

While she does not own any vehicle or agricultural land, Ms. Kusuma has declared 1.1 kg of gold jewellery that has been gifted, and…

[emblem-333]

In Retrospect, William Jennings Bryan and the Election of 1896

What we are currently seeing in the infancy of the 2020 Presidential Election is the focusing of the electorate on economics rather than foreign policy or a less pressing issue, like “honesty” and “integrity” which usually dominate campaigns. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are the favorites to win the nomination in a hotly contested Democratic primary that isn’t yet finished fielding potential candidates. But these two specifically have declared unapologetic warfare against Wall Street. They put in simple terms explaining why the middle class is in its dilapidated state is the aristocratic class hoards all the capital amassed by the proletariat. While centrist candidates Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand dance around whether they’ll dismantle the private insurance industry, Sanders is the only one decisively saying yes, he would go as far to implement his Medicare-For-All legislation.

There are many imitators, but only one O.G. What we’re seeing is the beginning stages of the fruits of the labor the Sanders 2016 campaign planted turning over the establishments apple cart and paving the way for likeminded, younger representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and IIhan Omar to carry on the mantle for his various causes like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt did for William Jennings Bryan. Championing the cause for the downtrodden middle class and poor masses left behind by an oligarchic United States.

Before William Jennings Bryan the Democratic Party was made up of fiscal conservatives laissez-faire style of economics, strict adherent to the gold standard and primarily the party of big business. The Republicans of the late 19th century weren’t different in anyway besides treating black people objectively better than the Democrats. Though in this era Jim Crow laws ran rampant in the south and the GOP did little to resist the disengagement of blacks. Any progress accomplished by the Union winning the American Civil War, the subsequent Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1875 and the concurrent Reconstruction Era in the South became undone completely in this time period of the 1890’s.

Just like their predecessors both parties kicked the can down the road when it came to the plight of blacks. As both parties stomaches fattened as a result of getting cozier with Wall Street, the railroad industry and the gold standard, the southern and midwestern farmer wasted away thanks to rampant inflation and bearing the brunt of the various panics and depressions in the 1870’s and 1890’s. Historians rather assume flatly Reconstruction ended because of the American people’s and the Republican Party losing collective interest in protecting blacks in the Deep South, when in actuality the Panic of 1873 cost the U.S serious capital and thus by 1877 federal troops were withdrawn from the Confederate states.

Debates ragged on whether the United State should do the unthinkable: become the first country to abandon the gold standard for a currency system favoring silver. The topic arose multiple times since the 1870s. You’d find silver leaning men in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Populist James B. Weaver won 8.5 percent of the popular vote campaigning on the free coinage of silver. But the movement truly came of age under the man William Jennings Bryan. The 36-year-old former Nebraskan representative commanded the Democratic Party and held a tight grip around its throat from 1896 up until his retirement in 1915. In those sixteen-years Bryan transformed the Democrats from a party of fiscal conservatism to pro-labor with more emphasis on aiding the yeomen farmer. While Bryan himself would never see the White House, his likeminded followers Woodrow Wilson and F.D.R carried the torch for him.

Playing the ultra-boring, but simultaneously fun “Campaign Trail” choose your own adventure game on AmericanHistoryusa.com I played as Bryan and in order to win I toned down the radical rhetoric somewhat. Instead of advocating on the unlimited free coinage of silver, I pivoted to a moderate stance of coinage at a 30-to-1 ratio to allow the treasury time to adjust to the effects of bimetallism and to avoid another run on the hoards of gold the U.S held. Taking home 248 electoral votes and 51.8 percent of the popular vote Bryan steals Illinois from the establishment candidate William McKinley to secure the presidency. The is the text the game reads upon victory.

Congratulations! You have won the 1896 election.

"The Great Commoner" will soon be President of the United States! Nobody with your political views has ever sniffed the Presidency, let alone won it, and with that in mind your supporters are rioting frenziedly in the streets. The sweetest speech of all will be your victory speech tomorrow in Lincoln, Nebraska. Prepare to enact your reform agenda and most importantly the free coinage of silver.”

Yup. I sure will. If only the game allowed you to be president after securing the Oval Office then I can try out this radical departure from the norm. But, alas, somethings are meant to be left to the imagination.

So, Jennings Bryan is President. Instantly the United States financial sectors panic and rally around opposition to halt Bryan’s measures. In the midterm election of 1898 the Democrats, fully taken over by Silverites, wrangler control of the House from the Republicans and a moderate, but nonetheless, radical change to our currency system is implemented. By 1899 the United States is off of the gold standard. Soon, Japan, Great Britain and France follows. Albeit reluctantly. This is how it happened in real life. Only the United States was the last to be brought to heel eventually in 1933 when Franklin Roosevelt did what Bryan dreamt of for so long.

Even in defeat Bryan’s hold on the party became so strong he purged the gold standard Democrats out of the party solidifying his silver coalition of politicians sympathetic towards the farmer and laborers. No reason to believe this doesn’t happen if Bryan is elected President. In fact, it probably happens sooner than it did in real-life.

Bryan was a staunch advocate of a federal income tax, which fully was realized in the certification of the sixteenth amendment in 1909 under William Howard Taft. Initially, Bryan opposed the creation of the Federal Reserve, which happened under Woodrow Wilson. Bryan worries the Fed it gave bankers too much control of the monetary system. The bill was promptly rewritten to suit Bryan’s needs and he voted for the creation of the Federal Reserve. I think this still happens in a timeline which Bryan is election and probably sooner. Swept into office amidst populistic fervor unseen since the days of Andrew Jackson Bryan, though a novice, most likely utilizes the bully pulpit and we see Henry Teller lead the charge on the Republican side and we are witnessed to the most eventful first term of a U.S President in the country’s history.

Bryan calls for the direct election of senators once in office, subtlety supports women’s suffrage and usually this is the part in alternate history articles where the radical, moralistic protagonists falls for his idealism. Except this is all happening during the Spanish-American War and Bryan could have been blind, deaf and dumb while serving in office and the U.S still decisively runs the imperials out of Cuba and the Philippians. Only Bryan had little interest in cultivating an American Empire. An anti-imperialist and pacifist, Bryan saw war as necessary but never actively sought a fight. He saw the United States as the moral arbiter in the Cubans fight for independence. If elected there is no subsequent Philippine-American War and no further bloodshed. The United States gains serious credit among future generations.

Hawaii is not annexed and probably never really is. For all the good I can say about Bryan he was an anti-imperialist, but since he and his party didn’t want to absolve any country not made up of predominantly Whites. Hawaii therefore becomes the smallest independent country on Earth... until a later administration absorbs it or some other imperialist country, like Russia, Japan or Great Britain does it. Most likely Japan. So Bryan inadvertently washes away U.S military involvement in World War Two.

The war carries Bryan to a second-term of the presidency... only to be cut short by a bullet months after his inauguration. His vice-President former Silver Republican Henry M. Teller succeeds him.

If the United States were to abandon the gold Standard, thirty-five-years prior to Japan were the first to do it, this helps the farmer and for a brief time the country recognizes Jefferson’s dream of a country built and supported off the backs of the Yeomen farmer. Again, for a brief time. The loss of their vigorous champion Bryan farmers cannot find a suitable replacement to rally around and this allows for the big business friendly, gold standard leaning Democrats to repopulate the party nominating New York judge Alton B. Parker. A moderate trust busting advocate for labor, Parker benefits from the meteoric rise of Theodore Roosevelt and swings into the presidency since both of the main parties are fractured in the aftermath of Bryan’s effects on the political scene.

No Roosevelt means no William Howard Taft. Meaning no splitting of the Republican Party in 1912. With neither close enough to sniff the presidency Wisconsin senator Robert La. Follette is nominated in 1912 and defeats Democratic Speaker of the House Champ Clark and becomes America’s first President to serve two consecutive terms since Ulysses S. Grant. Since Wisconsin is populated with German immigrants, La Follette interferes into World War One on the side of the Central Powers. Theodore Roosevelt is given the role of Secretary of State and the German Empire crushes the Allied Powers at the Marne near Paris with the help of the United States.

A victorious Germany means no rise of Adolph Hitler. No Third Reich. No Holocaust. Great Britain’s awesome power is greatly diminished, never to recover. The ninetieth century is the German century. As it originally was supposed to be.

Back to the gold versus silver debate. I am sorry.

Eventually the gold standard is readopted and the silver versus gold issue goes on until Richard Nixon flatly ditches gold in favor of neither metal backed currency. Still you see Bryan’s ideas infecting the parties for decades after his death.

Instead of Bryan’s ideas manifesting themselves in Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, they do so in Robert La Follette. The U.S becomes an economic power house rather a military one. Perhaps we’re all better off because of this.

[loverajnishyadavblog]

My salute to Tejashwi Yadav, the great general of Bihar ..

 The victory of the NDA i.e. BJP and Janata Dal (U) coalition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly is not surprising at all by the mainstream media and some political analysts as it is a miraculous victory.  Turning the visible defeat into a victory in the last moments of counting with the help of mechanism ie Election Commission and then describing that victory as the victory of democracy can only be called a miracle.

 The mandate has been changed on several occasions with the help of the Election Commission during the last few years, so it does not surprise at all in Bihar.  The Election Commission has once again proved that its autonomy has been hijacked and now its status has become like the kitchen of the government, where only the government cooks.

 Whatever it is, however, it is believed that the NDA is the winner.  The mainstream media has also started calling Prime Minister Narendra Modi invincible and a superhero, with all the BJP leaders making noise.  Though the victory of the NDA somehow may be called a great victory under adverse circumstances and Narendra Modi as the great hero of this election, it is not a reality.  The facts that emerged in the election results show that, whether technically or officially, the NDA has won, but the superintendent of this election is not Narendra Modi, but Tejashwi Yadav, whose alliance stopped or stopped at a few steps from the majority  Given.

 It is not only a matter of satisfaction for the BJP that the NDA has got a majority, it is even more satisfying for them that it has now become the largest party of the NDA in Bihar.  However, his desire to become the largest party in the assembly could not be fulfilled.  This status has been attained by the Rashtriya Janata Dal, whose leader Tejashwi Yadav was being told as a novice, illiterate, prince of the jungle raj, etc.  The Rashtriya Janata Dal not only won more seats in the assembly but also got the most votes.  Not only this, the total votes polled by the Tejashwi-led grand alliance are no less than the votes polled by the NDA.  Both the NDA and the Grand Alliance have got 38–38 percent votes.

 According to official figures of the Election Commission, 23.1 per cent of the nearly four crore people who exercised their franchise supported the RJD.  That means a total of 97 lakh 36 thousand 242 people pressed the button in front of the lantern.  The BJP was second in the case after the RJD.  It was voted by 19.46 percent people.  That is, 82 lakh 01 thousand 408 people pressed the lotus button.

 If you look at the last assembly election data, then BJP, which was at number three, was in the forefront of getting votes.  In that election, the BJP had got only 53 seats, but it had 24.42 percent i.e. 93 lakh 08 thousand 15 voters had made their choice.  At the same time, RJD, which won 81 seats, got 18.35 percent votes.  That means a total of 69 lakh 95 thousand 509 people had voted.

 The RJD got 4.75 votes i.e. 27 lakh, 40 thousand, 733 votes more than the last election, while BJP got 11 lakh 06 thousand 607 votes less this time, with the vote share falling by more than six percent compared to the last election.

 Nitish Kumar and his party are preparing to take oath as Bihar Chief Minister for the seventh time.  However, there is still a doubt on his becoming Chief Minister.  His Janata Dal (U) could get just 43 seats this time as against 72 seats won in the last assembly election.  He contested 122 seats and 15.4 percent ie 64 lakh 84 thousand 414 people have voted for him.  Whereas in the last election, it had won 16.83 per cent votes by contesting 100 seats.  Apparently, there has been a huge drop in the popular votes in this election as compared to the previous elections.

 Chirag Paswan's Lok Janshakti Party also suffered a lot of damage to Nitish Kumar's party in many seats, which was clearly reflected in the BJP's top leadership's decision to contest separate elections.  Though initially only speculations were being made that the BJP leadership's motive is to weaken Nitish Kumar in the elections and Chirag's decision to go to the polls separately is only part of the BJP's strategy, but when many senior BJP leaders  After a Lok Janshakti Party ticket started to field against the Janata Dal (U), the matter became clear.  Chirag had already made it clear that his party will contest only those seats where the Janata Dal (U) candidates will be in the fray.  It was clear that 'Modi is not hating you, Nitish is not yours!'

 Although criticizing this decision of BJP's second and third tier leader Chirag, he continued to call Nitish Kumar the leader of his alliance, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not say anything in his speech on Chirag's decision.  While Chirag Paswan kept targeting Narendra Modi as his leader during the entire election.  Modi's silence on the lamp - the end of the doubt also ended.

 Nitish Kumar understood this BJP's stance well, but he could not find any cut till the last.  However, he did not take any action in sending this message to his mass base along with Modi and BJP that they are understanding this bet of BJP very much.  Many leaders of the Janata Dal (U) publicly stated that Chirag Paswan is just jumura, Madari is someone else who is making jamure.  Needless to say that this gesture was towards the top leadership of BJP.

 However, Chirag Paswan's party may have won only one seat, but its presence in about 20 seats has clearly led to the defeat of the Janata Dal (U).  It has also reduced the margin of victory of Janata Dal (U) in many seats.  The Lok Janshakti Party fielded candidates for 123 seats.  He got 5.66 percent ie a total of 23 lakh 83 thousand 457 votes.

 Congress proved to be the weakest link of the Grand Alliance in the elections.  He took 70 seats for himself by pressurizing Tejashwi Yadav before the election process started, which was 30 more than the 40 seats he had contested in the last election.  The Congress contested the last election with the RJD and the Janata Dal (U) in a grand alliance and won 27 seats.

 This time the Congress could win only 19 seats out of 70.  Although the Congress has increased the total votes and vote percentage, but this time it was due to its high number of candidates.  In the last election, the Congress got 6.66 percent votes, but this time it got 9.5 percent of the votes.  A total of 39 lakh 95 thousand 03 people voted for him.  This electoral performance of the Congress is going to tell the strong position of its organization in the state.

 The Left parties involved in the Grand Alliance certainly did better in Bihar elections after a long time.  He had 29 seats to contest the election, of which he has won 18.  It can be said that if there were few more seats to fight in part, resources would have been available and Congress would not have won more seats than its capacity, then the picture of the election results would have been different.

 However, at the moment, the power of Bihar has once again been handed over to the merchants of dreams.  It will be interesting to see now whether the BJP accepts Nitish Kumar as the Chief Minister as promised.  Nitish Kumar resigned from the post of Chief Minister, taking responsibility for his party's crushing defeat in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.  Therefore, it will be more interesting to see whether this time he takes responsibility for his party's very poor performance.  The question is also that even after being badly defeated, will he claim to lead a coalition government in line with morality?

 However, this question does not matter much who will be the Chief Minister of Bihar or who will not.  For now, the biggest achievement of this election is that Bihar has got a leader in the form of Tejashwi Yadav for the next few decades.  He contested the election raising the basic questions of Bihar, responded politely to the levelless personal attacks of Prime Minister and Chief Minister level leaders and proved his abilities by making his party the largest party.  Therefore, they are the real heroes of this election.

 Jai Bihar  Jai RJD

#TejaswiYadav #RJD #politics #political

[margdarsanme]

NCERT Class 12 Political Science (India) Chapter 5 Challenges and Restoration of Congress System

NCERT Class 12 Political Science Solutions (India Since Independence)

Chapter 5 Challenges and Restoration of Congress System 

TEXTBOOK QUESTIONS SOLVED :

Q 1. Which of these statements about the 1967 elections is/are correct? (a) Congress won the Lok Sabha elections but lost the Assembly elections in many states. (b) Congress lost both Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. (c) Congress lost majority in the Lok Sabha but formed a coalition government with the s upport of some other parties. (d) Congress retained power at the Centre with an increased majority. Ans. (a) Congress won the Lok Sabha elections but lost the Assembly elections in many states.

Answer: (a) Congress won the Lok Sabha elections but lost the Assembly elections in many states. (c) Congress lost majority in the Lok Sabha but formed a coalition government with the support of some other parties. Q 2. Match the following:

Answer: (a)-(ii), (b)-(i), (c)-(iv), (d)-(iii). Q 3. Whom would you identify with the following slogans/phrases? (a) Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan (b) Indira Hatao! (c) Garibi Hatao!

Answer: (a) Lai Bahadur Shastri: Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan (b) Syndicate: Indira Hatao! (c) Indira Gandhi: Garibi Hatao! Q 4. Which of the following statement about the Grand Alliance of 1971 is correct? The Grand Alliance … (а) was formed by non-Communist, non-Congress parties. (b) had a clear political and ideological programme. (c) was formed by all non-Congress parties.

Answer: (a) was formed by non-Communist, non-Congress parties. Q 5. How should a political party resolve its internal differences? Here are some suggestions. Think of each and list out their advantages and shortcomings? (a) Follow the footsteps of the party president (b) Listen to the majority group (c) Secret ballot voting on every issue (d) Consult the senior and experienced leaders of the party

Answer: 

(a) Advantage: If the party follows the footsteps of the party president, there will be discipline and unity within the party. Shortcoming: The party president can take its decision without taking into consideration the views of its party members. So, the inner democracy may get weakened.

(b) Advantage: If the party listens to the majority group, there will be more confidence among the party members and inner democracy will be strengthened. Shortcoming: If the party listens to the majority group, factionalism may increase in the party. One faction may try to back another faction to gather support.

(c) Advantage: Secret ballot voting is an appropriate system. It is more democratic. Through it, any member can express his views. Shortcoming: Sometimes, the party members may vote through secret ballot by ignoring the whip of the party issued by the party president. It may prove fatal to the party.

(d) Advantage: The novice and less experienced candidates will be benefited if they consult the senior and experienced leaders of the party and also follow their guidelines. Shortcoming: If the party members only consult the senior and experienced leaders and follow their guidelines, their hold will get strengthened in the party. Q 6. State which of these were reasons for the defeat of the Congress in 1967. Give reasons for your answer? (a) The absence of a charismatic leader in the Congress party. (b) Split within the Congress party. (c) Increased mobilisation of regional, ethnic and communal groups. (d) Increasing unity among non¬Congress parties. (e) Internal differences within the Congress party.

Answer: 

(a) It may not be the reason of the defeat of Congress party. Because there were so many experienced and charismatic leaders in the party.

(b) It was one of the main reasons of the defeat of Congress party. Now party was split into two groups. Syndicate had strong hold over the Congress party while Indira supporters were more inclined to their leader. One group was in support of capitalism and liberalisation while others opposed it.

(c) Due to the emergence of the Akali Dal in Punjab, D.M.K. in Tamil Nadu got and other regional parties, Congress setback. The party could not get majority at the centre and had to be deprived of power in various states.

(d) There was no unity among non¬Congress parties. So the non¬Congress parties got benefit in other provinces.

(e) Internal differences within the party were one of the major causes of its defeat. Q 7. What were the factors which led to the popularity of Indira Gandhi’s Government in the early 1970s?

Answer: Because: 1. Socialist credentials became main projects during this period. 2. Indira Gandhi campaigned to implement land reform legislations and land ceiling legislations. 3. She ended her dependence on other political parties by strengthening her party’s position and recommended the dissolution of Lok Sabha in December’ 1970. 4. The crisis in East Pakistan and Indo- Pak war to establish Bangladesh as an independent one, also enhanced the popularity of Indira Gandhi. 5. Indira Gandhi’s government was not accepted only as a protector of the poor and underprivileged but as a strong government also. 6. Congress became popular among different social sections and restored dominance again. 8. What does the term ‘syndicate’ mean in the context of the Congress party of the . sixties? What role did the Syndicate play in the Congress party?

Answer: Syndicate was a group of powerful and influential leaders from within the Congress: 1. Syndicate was led by K. Kamraj, former chief minister of Tamilnadu and the then president of Congress party. It also includes some powerful leaders like S.K. Patil, S. Nijalingappa, N. Sanjeeva Reddy and Atulya Ghosh. 2. In the sixties, Syndicate played a decisive role by installing both Lai Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi as a Prime Minister. 3. Syndicate played decisive say in Indira Gandhi’s first council of Ministers and formation and implementation of policies. 4. After a split, two groups in Congress were created i.e. Congress (O), led by Syndicate and Congress (R), led by Indira Gandhi. 5. Congress (R), won popularity after 1971 and Syndicate lost power and prestige. Q 9. Discuss the major issue which led to the formal split of the Congress Party in 1969.

Answer: The formal split in Congress took place in 1969 on the issue of nomination of the candidate during presidential elections: 1. Despite, Indira Gandhi’s reservations, the Syndicate nominated Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, as the official Congress candidate for ensuing Presidential elections. 2. Indira Gandhi retaliated the situation by encouraging Mr. V.V. Giri, the then Vice-President, to be nominated as an independent candidate. 3. During election, the then Congress President S. Nijalingappa issued a whip asking all Congress MPs. MLAs to vote for N. Sanjeeva Reddy. 4. On the other hand, after silently supporting V.V. Giri, the Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi openly called for a conscience vote to vote the way they want. 5. Elections went in favour of V.V. Giri due to this diplomatic effort and N. Sanjeeva Reddy was defeated. 6. The defeat of N. Sanjeeva Reddy, the formal Congress candidate, formalised the split of party into two: (a) Congress (O), i.e. organisation led by syndicate, known as Old Congress. (b) Congress (R) i.e. requisitionists led by Indira Gandhi, known as New Congress. Q 10. Read the passage and answer the questions below: “… Indira Gandhi changed the Congress into highly centralised and undemocratic party organisation, from the earlier federal, democratic and ideological formation that Nehru had led. … But this … could not have happened had not Indira Gandhi changed the entire nature of politics. This new, populist politics turned political ideology … into a mere electoral discourse, use of various slogans not meant to be translated into government policies…. During its great electoral victories in early 1970s, amidst the celebration, the Congress party as a political organisation died —Sudipta Kaviraj (a) What according to the author is the difference between the strategies of Nehru and Indira Gandhi? (b) Why does the author say that the Congress party ‘died’ in the seventies? (c) In what way, did the change in the Congress party affect other political parties also? Answer: (a) According to author, main difference between the strategies of Nehru and Indira Gandhi is that Jawahar Lai Nehru led the Congress into federal, democratic and ideological nature whereas Indira Gandhi converted it into highly centralised and undemocratic party. (b) Congress party died in the seventies due to changed nature of Congress, the new populist politics turned political ideology into a mere electoral discourage and the use of various slogans never meant to be translated into government policies i. e. electoral victories of 1970s. (c) The change in the Congress party affected other political parties also as they formed SVD (Samyukt Vidhayak Dal) in the form of coalitions and grand alliance.

Very Short Answer Type Questions[1 Mark]

Q 1. Which major factor was responsible for the dramatic victory of Indira Gandhi in 1971 elections? 

Answer: Although the Congress’s position was very weak in the electroal contest of 1971, it had something that its big opponents lacked—it had an issue, an agenda and a positive slogan: Garibi Hatao in contrast to opposition’s Indira Hatao. This proved to be a major factor responsible for the dramatic victory of Indira Gandhi. Q 2. Who represented Congress (O) and Congress (R) after the split of Congress Party? 

Answer: Congress (O) was represented by K. Kamraj, former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu and the then President of Congress Party whereas Congress (R) was led by Indira Gandhi. Q 3. What is meant by term ‘Congress Syndicate?

Answer: ‘Congress Syndicate’, implied a group of powerful and influential leaders within Congress to be known as Old Congress. Q 4. In 1966, who contested against Indira Gandhi for the post of Prime Minister from among Congress MPs?

Answer: Morarji Desai, earlier Chief Minister of Bombay State. Q 5. What was the Slogan of Indira Gandhi during the elections of 1971?

Answer: ‘Garibi Hatao’. Q 6. After the death of Lai Bahadur Shastri which two leaders of Congress Party contested against each other to become leader of Congress parliamentary party?

Answer: Morarji Desai and Indira Gandhi. Q 7. Name the leaders who gave the following slogans. 1. Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan 2. Garibi Hatao

Answer: 1. Lai Bahadur Shastri 2. Indira Gandhi Q 8. Which theoretical argument did Ram j Manohar Lohia give in defence on non- Congressism?

Answer: “Congress rule was undemocratic and opposed to the interest of ordinary poor people, therefore, the coming together of the non-Congress parties was necessary for reclaiming democracy for the people”. Q 9. The results of which, elections were called j ��Political Earthquake”?

Answer. February 1967, Fourth General Elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Q 10. When and where was the first non- j Congress state government formed after India’s independence?

Answer: Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh in 1967. Q ll. Why are the results of 1967 elections in India called Political Earthquake?

Answer: Because it jolted the Congress at both the central and state levels as Congress did not get majority in Congress ruled states. Q 12. What challenges were faced by India between 1964 to 1966 during Prime- ministership of Lai Bahadur Shastri?

Answer: 1. Economic crisis due to Indo-China War 1962 and Indo-Pak War 1965. 2. Failed Monsoons, drought, serious food crisis presented a grave challenge. Q 13. What do you mean by SVD?

Answer: SVD stands for Samyukt Vidhayak Dal i. e. Joint Legislative Parties formed by various non-Congress parties called as coalitions after fourth general elections. Q 14. Why were 1960s, called as the dangerous decade?

Answer: Due to some unresolved problems like poverty, inequality, communal and regional divisions led a failure of democratic projects or disintegration of country.

Very Short Answer Type Questions [2 Marks]

Q 1. What does ‘Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram’ stand for in Indian politics?

Answer: 1. The phrase ‘Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram’ implied frequent floor crossing by legislators in the party which was developed by Haryana MLA Gaya Lai in 1967. 2. He changed his party thrice in fortnight from Congress to United Front back to Congress and then within nine hours to United Front again. 3. This incident later became a political joke and develop the culture of defection in Indian politics to create instability among the political parties. 4. Now, the Constitution has been amended to prevent this practice under ‘Anti Defection Law’. Q 2. Why did senior Congress leader support Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister after the death of Lai Bahadur Shastri?

Answer: Because: 1. Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru and she had been Congress president in the past and had also been Union Minister for Information in Shastri Cabinet. 2. The senior leaders presumed that her administrative and political inexperience would compel her to dependent on them for support and guidance. Q 3. What is meant by Grand Alliance?

Answer: Grand Alliance was an electoral alliance of all the major Non-communist, non¬Congress opposition parties. The SSP, PSP, Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Swatantra Party and the Bharatiya Kranti Dal came together under this Umbrella. Q 4. Why did Indira Gandhi government devalue the Indian Rupee in 1967?

Answer: Indira Gandhi government devalued Indian rupee to check economic crisis of 1967. Consequently, one US dollar could be purchased for less than ? 5 after devaluation, it cost more than ?  1. The economic situation triggered a price rise. 2. People started protest against increase in prices of essential commodities and unemployment etc. 3. The Communist and Socialist parties launched struggle to avail greater equality. Q 5. How did Congress face challenge of political succession second time?

Answer: The Congress party faced the challenge of succession for second time in 1966 after the death of Lai Bahadur Shastri: 1. This challenge started with an intense competition between Morarji Desai and Indira Gandhi to be resolved through a secret ballot. 2. Indira Gandhi defeated Morarji Desai by securing support of more than two-third of the party’s MPs. 3. Thus, a peaceful transition of power despite intense competition for leadership was seen as a sign of maturity of India’s democracy. Q 6. What was the status of SVD in the new era of coalition?

Answer: The elections of 1967 brought the coalitions when no single party got the majority and joint legislator parties called ‘Samyukt Vidhayak Dal’ came together to form government to support non-Congress government: 1. The SVD government in Bihar included two socialist parties—SSP and PSP along-with CPS on left and Jana Sangh on right. 2. In Punjab, it was called the popular United Front and comprised the two rival Akali Parties at that time. Q 7. ‘1960s were labelled as the dangerous decade’. Explain.

Answer: Due to some unresolved problems like poverty, inequality, communal and regional divisions and the was speculations that all these could lead to a failure of the democratic project or even disintegration of country.

Short Answer Type Questions [4 Marks]

Q l. Explain any two reasons for the popularity of Indira Gandhi during 1971 elections. Or Analyse any three factors which enhanced popularity of Indira Gandhi in the early 1970s.

Answer: Because: 1. Indira Gandhi campaigned to implement land reforms legislations and land ceiling legislation during elections. 2. She ended her dependence on other political parties by strengthening her party’s position and recommended the dissolution of Lok Sabha in December 1970. 3. The crisis in East Pakistan and Indo- Pak war to establish Bangladesh as an independent one, also enhanced the popularity of Indira Gandhi. Q 2. What does ‘defection’ stand for in Indian politics? Highlight any two demerits of this practice?

Answer: Defection refers to an elected representative leaves the party on whose symbol he/she is elected and joins another party. This culture developed in Indian Politics after 1967 elections. Its two demerits were as follows: 1. It played an important role in making and unmaking of government frequently. 2. The constant realignments and shifting political loyalties in this period gave rise to the expression “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram”. Q 3. Why was the year 1967 considered a landmark year in India’s political and electoral history? Explain.

Answer: The fourth general election was held in 1967 for the first time without Nehru: 1. The election verdict was not in favour of Congress and results jolted the Congress both at the national and state levels. 2. Half the ministers in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet were defeated including K. Kamraj in Tamilnadu, S.K. Patil in Maharashtra, Atulya Ghosh in West Bengal, K.B. Sahay in Bihar. 3. Congress did not lose majority in seven states only but two other states also prevented it to form government due to defections. 4. For the first time any non-Congress party secured majority in any state and in other eight states different non-Congress parties formed the coalitions. Q 4. These election results were called as a ‘Political Earthquake’.4. How can we see re-emergence of Indira Gandhi to power in 1971?

Answer: Congress (R) under Indira Gandhi had an issue, an agenda and a positive slogan which was lacked by its opponents. The ‘Grand Alliance’ had only one common i programme ‘Indira Hatao’: 1. In contrast to this, Indira Gandhi put forward a positive slogan ‘Garibi Hatao’. 2. By this, she generated a support base among poor, minorities, landless labourers, dalit, women and unemployed youth. 3. Except it, she focused on the growth of public sector, imposition of ceiling on rural land holdings and urban property, removal of disparity etc. 4. Thus, the slogan of Garibi Hatao and programmes became the part of Indira Gandhi’s political strategy of building an independent nationwide political support base during the electoral contest of 1971. Q 5. What is meant by ‘Privy Purses’? Why did Indira Gandhi insist on abolishing them in 1970?

Answer:‘Privy Purses’ was the form of grant in heredity given to the rulers and their families: 1. The grant or ‘Privy Purse’ was measured on the basis of extent revenue and potential of the merging state in the assurance given at the time of integration of princely states. 2. Privy purses were criticised, the privileges given to princely states at the time of accession, integration and consolidation were protested. 3. Hence, some leaders like Indira Gandhi insisted on abolishing the privy purses because hereditary privileges were not constant with the principle of equality, social and economic justice laid down in the constitution. 4. Hence in the elections of 1971, Indira Gandhi made this a major election issue and got a lot of public support and alongwith massive victory in 1971 election, the constitution was amended to remove legal obstacles for abolition of privy purses. Q 6. How did the outcome of 1971 elections help in restoration of Congress?

Answer: Congress (R) under Indira Gandhi had an issue an agenda and a positive slogan which was lacked by its opponents. The ‘Grand Alliance’ had only one common programme ‘Indira Hatao’: 1. In contrast to this, Indira Gandhi put forward a positive slogan ‘Garibi Hatoa’. 2. By this, she generated a support base among poors, minorities, landlors labourers, dalits, women and unemployed bye youth. 3. Except it, she focused on the growth of public sector, imposition of ceiling on rural land holdings and urban property, removal of disparity etc. 4. Thus, the slogan of Garibi Hatao and programmes became the part of Indira Gandhi’s political strategy of building an independent nationwide political support base during the electoral contest of 1971. Q 7. Write a short note on: (a) Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan (b) Garibi Hatao (c) Indira Hatao (d) Grand Alliance

Answer: 

(a) Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan (i) A slogan given by Lai Bahadur Shastri in 1965. (ii) To symbolise to resolve country’s challenge of food crisis and external threat.

(b) Garibi Hatao (i) A slogan given by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1970 to symbolise removal of poverty. (ii) Through this slogan, Indira Gandhi generated a support base among women, unemployed youth, minorities, landless labourers, dalits, etc.

(c) Indira Hatao A slogan given by Grand Alliance alongwith one programme of‘Indira Hatao’ only i.e. remove Indira Gandhi from Political arena. (d) Grand Alliance (i) An alliance formed by non-communist and non-Congress parties to be formed against Congress (R). (ii) It did not focus on multiple strategies of development rather included only ‘Indira Hatao’.

Passage Based Questions |5 Marks]

1. Read carefully the passage given below and answer the following questions: The New Congress had something that its big opponents lacked—it had an issue, an agenda and a positive slogan. The Grand Alliance did not have a coherent political programme. Indira Gandhi said that the opposition alliance had only one common programme ‘Indira Hatao’. In contrast to this, she put forward a positive programme captured in the famous slogan ‘Garibi Hatao’.

Questions 1. Which Congress is being referred to as ‘the New Congress’? 2. Highlight any two steps taken by Indira Gandhi to remove poverty. 3. How far is it justified to call the ‘opposition alliance’ as the ‘Grand Alliance’?

Answer: 1. Congress (O) is being referred to as the ‘New Congress’. 2. She focused on the growth of the public sector. She focused on the removal of dis-parities in income and opportunity. 3. It is justified to call the ‘opposition alliance’ as the ‘Grand Alliance’ because it came into existence to make matters worse for Indira Gandhi. 2. Read the passage given below carefully and answer the questions: The defeat of the official Congress candidate formalised the split in the party. The Congress President expelled the Prime Minister from the party; she claimed that her group was the real Congress. By November 1969, the Congress group led by the ‘syndicate’ came to be referred to as the Congress (Organisation) and the group led by Indira Gandhi came to be called the Congress (Requisitionists). These two parties were also described as Old Congress and New Congress. Indira Gandhi projected the split as an ideological divide between socialists and conservatives, between the pro-poor and the pro-rich.

Questions 1. What formalised the split of Congress? 2. Mention two groups created after the split. 3. How did Indira Gandhi project the split?

Answer: 1. The defeat of official candidate during presidential elections in 1969. 2. Congress (O) i.e. Organisation led by syndicate known as old Congress, Congress (R) i.e. requisitionists led by Indira Gandhi known as new Congress. 3. Indira Gandhi projected the split as an ideological divide between socialists and conservatives, between pro-rich and pro-poor. 3. Read the passage given below carefully and answer the questions: But does it mean that the Congress system was restored? What Indira Gandhi had done was not a revival of the old Congress party. In many ways she had re-invented the party. The party occupied a similar position in terms of its popularity as in the past. But it was a different kind of a party. It relied entirely on the popularity of the supreme leader. It had a somewhat weak organisational structure. This Congress party now did not have many fanctions ,Thus it could not accommodate all kind of options and interests .While it won elections,it depends more on some social groups: the poor, the women,Dalits, Adivasis and the minorities.It was a new congress system by changing the nature of the congress system itself.

Questions 1. Had Indira Gandhi revived Congress? 2. How did Indira Gandhi restore the Congress system? 3. Why did Congress not have all kinds of opinions and interests?

Answer: 1. No, whatever had been done by Indira Gandhi, was not a revival of old Congress system but it was a re¬invention of party. 2. Indira Gandhi restored the Congress system changing the nature of Congress system itself, to be dependent more on poor, women, dalits, adivasis and minorities. 3. It had a somewhat weak organisational structure and it did not have many factions also to accommodate all kinds of opinions and interests.

Long Answer Type Questions [6 Marks]

Q l. Analyse any three major factors which led the popularity of Indira Gandhi’s Government in the early 1970s.

Answer: (i) The fifth general elections to Lok Sabha were held in February 1971. The electoral contest appeared to be loaded against Congress (R). After all, the new Congress was just one faction of an already weak party. Everyone believed that the real organizational strength of the Congress Party was under the command of Congress (O). To make i matters worse for Indira Gandhi, all the major non-Communist, non Congress opposition parties formed an electoral alliance known as the Grand Alliance. Yet the new Congress had something that its big opponents lacked — it had an issue, an agenda and a positive slogan. The Grand Alliance did not have a coherent political programme. Indira Gandhi said that the opposition alliance had only one common programme Indira Hatao (Remove Indira). In contrast to this, she put forward a positive programme captured in the famous slogan: Garibi Hatao (Remove poverty). (ii) Indira Gandhi focussed on the growth of the public sector, imposition of ceiling on rural land holdings and urban poverty, removal of disparities in income and opportunity, and abolition of princely privileges. Thus, the slogan Garibi Hatao and the programmes that followed it were part of Indira Gandhi’s political strategy of building an Independent nationwide political support base. As a result, she won 352 seats with about 44 per cent of the popular votes on its own in the Lok Sabha elections of 1971. (iii) Soon after the 1971 Lok Sabha election, a major political and military crises broke out in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The 1971 elections were followed by the crisis in East Pakistan and the Indo- Pak war leading to the establishment of Bangladesh. These events added to the popularity of Indira Gandhi. Even the opposition leaders admired her statesmanship. Q 2. Examine the three main reasons responsible for the split in Congress during 1969. Or Describe the various aspects of presidential election of 1969.

Answer: The formal split in Congress took place in 1969 on the issue of nomination of the candidate during presidential elections: 1. Despite, Indira Gandhi’s representatives, the syndicate nominated Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, as the official Congress candidate for ensuring presidential elections. 2. Indira Gandhi retaliated the situation by encouraging Mr. V.V. Giri, the then Vice President, to be nominated as an independent candidate. 3. During election, the then Congress president S. Nijalingappa issue a ‘Whip’ asking all Congress MPs, MLAs to vote for N. Sanjeeva Reddy. 4. On the other hand, after silently supporting V.V. Giri, the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi openly called for a conscience vote to vote the way they want. 5. Elections went in favour of V.V. Giri due to this diplomatic effort and N. Sanjeeva Reddy was defeated. 6. The defeat of N. Sanjeeva Reddy, the formal Congress candidate, formalised the split of party into two: (a) Congress (0) i.e organisation led by Syndicate, known as Old Congress. (b) Congress (R) i.e. requisitionists led by Indira Gandhi, known as New Congress. Q 3. Which six factors contributed to the popularity of Indira Gandhi’s government in the decade of 1970s?

Answer: Because: 1. Socialist credentials became main projects during this period. 2. Indira Gandhi campaigned to implement land reform legislation and land ceiling legislations. 3. She ended her dependence on other political parties by strengthening her party’s position and recommended the dissolution of Lok Sabha in December 1970. 4. The crisis in East Pakistan and Indo- Pak war to establish Bangladesh as an independent one, also enhanced the popularity of Indira Gandhi. 5. Indira Gandhi and her government was not accepted only as a protector of the poor and under privileged but as a strong government also. 6. Congress became popular among different social sections and restored dominance again. Q 4. Examine the grave economic crisis prior to fourth general election of 1967. Assess the electoral verdict also.

Answer: Indira Gandhi government devalued Indian rupee to check economic crisis of 1967. Consequently, one US dollar could be purchased for less than ? 5 after devaluation, it cost more than ?  1. The economic situation triggered a price rise. 2. People started protest against increase in prices of essential commodities and unemployment etc. 3. The Communist and Socialist parties launched struggle to avail greater equality.

The fourth general election was held in 1967 for the first time without Nehru: 1. The election verdict was not in favour of Congress and results jolted the Congress both at the national and state levels. 2. Half the ministers in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet were defeated including K. Kamraj in Tamilnadu, S.K. Patil in Maharashtra, Atulya Ghosh in West Bengal, K.B. Sahay in Bihar. 3. Congress did not lose only majority in seven states but two other states also prevented it to form government due to defections. 4. For the first time any non-Congress party secured majority in any state and in other eight states different non-Congress parties formed the coalitions. 5. These election results were called as a ‘Political Earthquake’.

Picture/Map Based Questions [5 Marks]

Q 1. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:

Questions

1. What is meant by ‘Keep Right, No Left Turn”? 2. In the picture what does the following stand for: (а) LD (b) BKS (c) SSP (d) BKD 3. What is a hung assembly?

Answer: 1. United Front Party was formed on the basis of non-Communist ideology and supposed to follow the ‘rightist’ only. 2. (a) Lok Dal (b) Bihar Kranti Sabha (c) Samyukt Socialist Party (d) Bharatiya Kranti Dal 3. It is dominated by coalition government where no single party gets majority and this is very uncertain also. Q 2. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:

Questions 1. Which year is being referred by cartoon? 2. Who is being commented by the phrase ‘Aya Ram Gaya Ram’?

Answer: 1. 1967 2. Haryana’s MLA ‘Gaya LaP who changed the party thrice in a fortnight from Congress to United Front, back to Congress and then within nine hours to United Front again. Q 3. Study the picture given below and answer the questions

Questions 1. What does the cartoon represent? 2. Identify the lady in the cartoon and give reason for her pleasure. 3. Identify the person wearing garland in winning position. 4. Who is lying on the ground?

Answer: 1. Presidential elections of 1969. 2. Indira Gandhi on winning of her candidate V.V. Giri in presidential elections. 3. V.V. Giri. 4. N. Sanjeeva Reddy.

from Blogger http://www.margdarsan.com/2020/08/ncert-class-12-political-science-india_12.html

[baoanhwin]

The case for making “personality” ratings a good electoral indicator

A guest slot from isam

Last month, Keir Starmer appeared on the television in my front room to give his response to the Prime Minister’s Covid-19 statement. A few seconds later my eyes glazed over,  a few more passed and I switched the tv off saying “Jesus, he is dull”. It set me thinking that in a world of Reality tv, tiktok, snapchat, (none of which I am a fan of), and general instant gratification, (which I kind of am) Starmer was too boring to be Prime Minister. Those with a keen interest in politics scrutinise policies, but it could be that a significant minority, perhaps even a small majority, of the public prefer someone they can imagine mucking in on I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here. The polls are tightening, and this weeks IPSOS-MORI political monitor has Starmer ahead of Boris Johnson in favourability by 14 points, albeit with over a third not yet knowing enough about him to express an opinion. So does charisma matter?

Pondering recent UK General Elections, I noticed the winning party tended to be led by the candidate with more personality than their main rival, whether I were favourably inclined to them or not. Fortunately, IPSOS-MORI have put this question to their respondents a couple of times a year since the late seventies,  so I was able to objectively test my hypothesis against contemporary opinion. In the days of three, four or five tv channels only, and no internet, the effect was not really pronounced; Margaret Thatcher shaded Jim Callaghan, thrashed Michael Foot and was about even with Neil Kinnock, who was in turn considered to have way more personality than John Major. Then, in the era of Sky tv, social media, and what some might say was a general cultural dumbing down, things start to change 

Tony Blair was undoubtedly smoother than the three Conservative leaders he defeated, John Major, whom he beat 29-5, on average, on personality, William Hague (35-5), and Michael Howard (22-7), even when Howard’s Conservatives led on voting intention and Howard himself on net satisfaction in September 2004, before his Chancellor Gordon Brown was ousted as PM by David Cameron. Labour actually made a point of highlighting Cameron’s charisma by comparing him to TV detective Gene Hunt, dubbed ” a “national hero”, an unlikely sex symbol and a “top cop” ‘ by critics. The Government wanted to make the distinction between the incumbent safe pair of hands who had looked after the economy for over a decade, and a risky, lightweight, novice. Unwittingly they had made their already more attractive opponent look even sexier. Cameron beat Brown 24-3 on personality and became PM by way of Coalition with the Lib Dems (whose leader, Nick Clegg, scored 19)

Ed Miliband was an earnest, nice guy – a bit of a nerd who found it easier to finish a rubiks cube than a bacon sandwich. Left wing critics of Cameron accused the PM of resembling posh boy bully Lord Flashman, but, again, this was an error.  In Sep 2012, Labour led the polls 40-31, and Ed was 13 points clear of Cameron on net satisfaction, but when it came to “Who would be more fun to meet in person?”  dashing Dave was trouncing him 34-21. For the rest of the Coalition’s time in office Cameron was ahead by an average of 40 to 20 on personality, and won the Conservatives a majority in 2015 when NOM was “nailed on”.

Cameron never faced the left’s left field choice as his next challenger at the ballot box. Jeremy Corbyn matched him 41-41 in the only personality poll during their time together, in September 2015, and led the PM by 7 in terms of net satisfaction. Possibly of greater significance in that poll was UKIP leader Nigel Farage’s personality score of 66…  nine months later, Leave won the referendum.

Now to Theresa May vs Jezza. In September 2016 the Conservatives had a 6 point lead in the polls, and May led Corbyn by 58 points in net satisfaction. Good times! Scratch the surface, though, and things were not quite as rosy as they seemed; on personality her lead was just 5 points. Nevertheless in April 2017, TM the PM’s Tories led Labour by 21 points in the polls so, to put the Brexit issue to bed, she called a General Election. Her campaign was horrendous; while she was stiff, and ducking debates, the kids at Glastonbury were chanting “Oh Jeremy Corbyn” to the tune of “Seven Nation Army”. May lost Cameron’s majority, as fellow unelected, uncharismatic PM Brown did Blair’s. By September, Corbyn led in the charisma stakes by 47-21, and was favourite to be next PM, until…

Along came Boris. May’s personality rating was down to 16 (to Corbyn’s 39) by April 18, and when the Cons came 4th with less than 9% of the vote at the Euros, it was all over. The Brexit Party won, Farage was rated 61 in June 2019, trouble for the Tories… time for a new leader. It boiled down to Boris Johnson (79) or Jeremy Hunt (21). They made the correct choice Relative to May, Corbyn was a charismatic maverick. Up against Boris he was on a hiding to nothing, losing 79-22 & 76-25 on the occasions they were compared. May’s fragile arrangement with the DUP became an 80 seat majority for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

Now back to where we started,  Keir Starmer QC leader of the Labour Party. Smarter than Jez, cleverer than Ed, better looking than Gordon…  while he has narrowed the gap to Boris on favourability, he loses the personality test 64-30. You know the rest.

Two bets spring to mind on the back of this. Firstly, Sir Keir will not be the next PM; if he is up against Boris, unless he develops a side to his character we have yet to see (possible this early in his stewardship), Boris wins. If Boris quits/retires/is ousted before the next GE, maybe Keir will beat his successor; but then he wont have been the next PM. Lay him on Betfair at 2/1 ish (previously tipped by David Herdson)

A more exciting bet is Next Labour Leader. Surely they will learn their lesson if the dullard loses to the maverick yet again. There is only one personality to take on Boris in the Labour ranks who is outspoken, has the potential to be known by first name only, and appears to have the common touch. You could imagine her being a character in a soap opera or a contestant on a reality tv show, and I am of the opinion that trumps political philosophy in the 21st Century – 50/1 with Ladbrokes, Betfred and Coral to get the gig – Jess Phillips. 

isam

Isam, who works in the betting industry. has been a poster on PB for several years. This is his first header

from politicalbetting.com https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/06/the-case-for-making-personality-ratings-a-good-electoral-indicator/ https://dangky.ric.win/

[harmukhnews-blog]

Kashmiri youth should get same opportunities as everyone else in country: Gambhir

Kashmiri youth should get same opportunities as everyone else in country: Gambhir

NEW DELHI

The rough and tumble of the electoral arena is quite different from a cricket pitch but it’s game on for star bat and political novice Gautam Gambhir, who says he is up for the challenge notwithstanding the controversies that have sprung up since he joined the BJP.

The cricketer-turned-politician, who is contesting his first Lok Sabha election as a BJP candidate from East Delhi, said he…

[malalawnews]

Rahul And Congress Can Win It Alone

The following is a translation of the original article written in Hindi that appeared on the front page of the Rashtradoot daily newspaper on India’s independence day:

http://epaper.rashtradoot.com/m5/1777026/RASHTRADOOT-JAIPUR/15august2018#page/1/1

Independence Day is as good a time as any to take stock of the state of the nation’s political parties and leaders.   With advance surveys predicting Congress victories in three Hindi belt States where assembly elections are due this year-end, it is safe to say that Narendra Modi’s bluff of a Congress-mukt Bharat has been well and truly exposed.

Indeed, the last nine months have a time of resurgence for the Congress party particularly since the close contest in last year’s Gujarat elections and the installation of Rahul Gandhi as the new president.  

Rahul himself has busted another myth – that he is an inarticulate political novice.   In his public speeches inside and outside Parliament he has shown he has the ability to make stinging verbal attacks when he wants to and with each passing week his oratory has only got better and better.  Another remarkable aspect of his leadership profile is his youthful energy and mobility - lately there has been virtually no newsworthy event, whether tragic or celebratory, where he has not been actively present.  

Prime Minister Modi on the other hand gives the impression of having lost some of his luster and bluster - his reply in Lok Sabha to the no-confidence motion was indisputably boring apart from being too long-winded.  Even his election rally speeches, especially during the Karnataka poll campaign, lacked the earlier ability to create a wave as was evident from the cold fact that the BJP is not in power in the State.

The weight of responsibility seems to have eroded his self-confidence at least to some extent, more so because of his government’s failure to deliver on the many rosy promises he had made four years ago.  Despite his propaganda team’s insistence that all is well and the promised achche din have arrived,  the reality on the ground is that the youth are jobless, the famers are agitated and the Dailt community is simmering with suppressed rage.

As things stand, that is the scenario on the occasion of the last Independence Day before the next general elections.  The ruling dispensation still firmly controls the levers of power with an iron hand – but the image of invincibility in a free and fair electoral contest is no longer a certainty.  

Sensing the increasing vulnerability of the BJP, the Opposition parties have begun to flex their muscles and to devise new strategies to prevent Modi getting a second term.  

However, the endeavour to forge a unified front, a maha gatbandhan, against the BJP and its NDA allies is proving more difficult in practice than in theory.  

Apart from the Congress, each of the other parties involved in the unity effort is regional or caste-based.   About the only glue that keeps them together is antipathy towards the RSS Hindutva ideology and to Modi’s authoritarian style of functioning.  

In some cases that antipathy is deep-rooted - as in the case of genuinely secular parties like Trinamool, RJD and the Left.  

In contrast, Chandrababu Naidu’s new-found aversion to Modi is barely skin-deep – till a few months ago his Telegu Desam was very much a part of the BJP-dominated NDA alliance.  

In Uttar Pradesh, both Mayawati and Akhilesh Yadav are essentially leaders of caste-based political entities.   Their decision to join hands was as astonishing as it was sudden and is founded on purely arithmetical calculations and driven by the compulsions of political survival.  

There is no telling what the DMK under MK Stalin will decide in the post-Karunanidhi era.  Today, the Dravidian party is an integral part of the would-be maha gatbandhan – but that is largely because the rival Dravidian party is in Modi’s good books.  Tomorrow,  if the political climate changes,  it will surprise no one if the DMK joins the NDA just as Nitish Kumar’s JD(U) in Bihar did.  The late Kalaignar had developed a theory that it is essential for a regional party government in a State like Tamil Nadu to have a stake in the central government irrespective of whoever was in power.  The son is very likely to follow the teachings of his father,  whenever the situation arises.

The same line of thinking is behind Navin Patnaik’s equations with the Modi government.  Nine MPs of the Biju Janata Dal voted in favour of NDA nominee Harivansh Narayan Singh in the election to the post of Rajya Sabha deputy chairman.   The 18 or so BJP MPs in the Lok Sabha had earlier abstained from voting with other Opposition members in the no-confidence motion.  

That tells its own story.  The maha gatbandhan, if and when it becomes a reality, will be Minus BJD.    It will also be Minus TRS (Telangana Rashtra Samiti) whose leader and Chief Minister K.  Chandrasekhar Rao has no intention whatsoever of joining any anti-BJP formation.

When illusions are shed, therefore,  it is easy to see that, apart from the Congress, the only genuinely anti-BJP parties in the proposed maha gatbandhan are the Trinamool Congress and the CPI-CPI(M).   Given that Mamata Banerjee and the Left are at daggers drawn in West Bengal, there is virtually no unity to be expected between those two adversaries.  

Even in the case of NCP in Maharashtra, there will always be the lurking suspicion that party supremo Sharad Pawar is only waiting to see if the Shiv Sena actually breaks ranks with the BJP and the moment that happens the NCP will fill the void in the NDA.  

In other words, Independence Day is as good a time as any for the Congress party to take stock of the real motives of potential friends and allies and also potential allies who might turn adversaries overnight.

On the road to the upcoming Assembly and Parliament elections, it is also the appropriate moment for the Congress and its youthful leader Rahul Gandhi to ponder deeply about long-term goals and objectives.

To tell the truth, the Congress does not need allies like TDP and TMC or even BSP and SP.   Alliances with regional parties are always counter-productive for national parties.   It stifles growth and demoralizes the local workers and leaders.  Above all, caste-based parties like the Bahujan Samaj and the Samajwadi are propelled by doctrines that are inherently contradictory to the all-embracing national vision of a party like the Congress.

Rahul Gandhi’s rapid evolution into a formidable political leader is unstoppable.  He has already demonstrated his potential.  He heads a grand old party whose ideological world view would only be hampered by alliances with sectarian or regional parties for short-term gains.  Age is on his side.   He can afford to wait.

In any case, the Congress is poised for a dramatic revival in 2019 even if it goes it alone and fields its own candidates in all or most of the constituencies.  

Ekla chalo would be the best bet for the coming Lok Sabha elections.  That would be a far better strategy than striking deals with other parties and leaders who are looking to use the Congress to further their own interests and ambitions. 

As the poet said:  

Meri shikast ke peeche hazaar chehre hain,

Har ek shakhs mera istemaal karta hai.  

[party-hard-or-die]

Maduro Wins Venezuela Election Amid Widespread Disillusionment

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Nicolás Maduro won a second term as president of Venezuela, a country in the midst of a historic economic collapse marked by soaring prices, widespread hunger, rampant crime, a failing health system and a large-scale exodus of its citizens.

Electoral officials declared Mr. Maduro the victor Sunday night, in a contest that critics said was heavily rigged in his favor.

In the capital and around the country, the turnout was extremely low, reflecting both a call from many opposition leaders for a boycott of the vote and the disillusionment of longtime government supporters.

Voting centers in pro-government strongholds and opposition areas alike often had no lines of voters waiting to cast ballots — a significant change from previous presidential elections, and a sign that many Venezuelans repudiated the candidacies of both Mr. Maduro and the two opposition candidates. More than half of registered voters did not cast ballots.

Election officials said Mr. Maduro, the political heir of Hugo Chávez, the leftist firebrand who led this oil-rich country until his death in 2013, received 5.8 million votes. That was nearly 68 percent of the votes cast, The Associated Press reported.

His main rival, Henri Falcón, a former state governor who was once an acolyte of Mr. Chávez’s but broke with him to join the opposition, received 1.8 million votes. A third candidate, Javier Bertucci, a political novice and an evangelical minister, received 925,000. Mr. Maduro’s current term continues until the end of the year; his new term will last six years.

Despite his triumph in a tainted contest, there is little relief in sight for Mr. Maduro, and his re-election could make the situation in the country even worse.

The United States — which condemned the election as unfair and anti-democratic even before it happened — has threatened stricter sanctions. Also likely to increase pressure on Mr. Maduro’s government even before his next term begins: He has largely been cut off from international financing, and the government-run oil industry, which provides virtually all of the country’s hard currency, is in free-fall, with plummeting production.

Some may point to the low turnout and vote totals and question his leadership. Mr. Maduro has shown no signs so far that he has the ability to solve the country’s deep problems and his response to the crisis has often been to crack down harder on adversaries — including the traditional opposition as well as rivals on his side of the political divide.

The official turnout figure was given as 46 percent.

Mr. Falcón accused the governing party of pressuring voters and said he would not recognize the election results.

“We don’t recognize this electoral process as valid,” Mr. Falcón said, speaking at his campaign center after 9:30 p.m., before official results were made public. “For us, there was no election. There must be a new election in Venezuela.”

Mr. Falcón had defied a broad call to boycott the election over expectations of just the sort of unfairness that he denounced after the polls closed.

The United States and many countries in the region have said they would not recognize the results. Colombia and Brazil have received huge influxes of economic refugees from Venezuela.

Mr. Maduro’s victory was certain to set off a new round of infighting and finger pointing within the opposition. Some accused Mr. Falcón of giving legitimacy to the president’s re-election. Others asked if the opposition might have missed a chance to displace Mr. Maduro, given his falling popularity among his own supporters, many of whom failed to turn out.

Venezuela, which is estimated to have the world’s largest oil reserves, is in the throes of one of the worst economic crises in recent history in the Western Hemisphere. The International Monetary Fund estimates that inflation this year could reach 13,000 percent, by far the highest rate in the world.

With soaring prices and shortages of basic goods of all kinds, many Venezuelans are malnourished. It is common to find families who eat just twice a day, and with little protein, fresh fruit or vegetables in those meals. Two pounds of chicken or beef costs as much as the monthly minimum wage package, which, including food coupons, is worth about $2.50.

That is hardly a recipe for a president to win re-election, but Mr. Maduro sought to give himself every advantage in Sunday’s vote.

The electoral authorities banned the largest opposition political parties from taking part in the election, and key politicians were barred from running. Brutal repression of anti-government protests, and the arrests of many activists and leaders also weakened the opposition.

Electoral authorities also moved up the election to May, allowing little time for the opposition to organize and campaign. They even eliminated the requirement that voters dip a finger in indelible ink, which is used to keep people from voting more than once.

In response, many opposition leaders called for an election boycott.

Mr. Falcón ultimately decided to break with the rest of the opposition and run against Mr. Maduro.

Mr. Maduro attributes the country’s problems to what he calls an economic war waged against Venezuela by the United States. But most economists place the blame on poor government management, corruption and broken policies, like tight controls over foreign exchange, an overvalued currency and price controls on goods.

The government has responded to the crisis by providing people with boxes of food, including powdered milk and pasta, although most people say they arrive irregularly and do not contain nearly enough to sustain a household. The food boxes became both an incentive and a threat during the campaign, with many voters fearful that they could be cut off if they didn’t support the government.

At many polling places on Sunday, people cast their vote and then visited a so-called Red Spot — named for the ruling Socialist Party’s color — set up nearby.

At the Red Spot, voters presented the special identity card needed to receive the food boxes and other services and gave their names to workers who were keeping lists of those who had voted. Workers at the Red Spots said that there was no effort to pressure voters or link a pro-Maduro vote to future food deliveries.

Mr. Falcón accused the government of violating campaign rules through the use of these Red Spots.

A woman waiting outside a polling station in a Caracas slum, La Vega, said she worked for a government agency and feared losing her job if she did not vote and report afterward at the Red Spot. The woman, who would not give her name out of fear of reprisals, also said that she felt compelled to vote for Mr. Maduro, even though she did not support him, because she was sure that government computers tracked people’s votes — a common notion here.

One of the most striking aspects of the day was the large number of voters who appeared to have stayed away.

“I’m surprised by the low turnout,” said Loreima Henríquez, a National Electoral Council employee, who was overseeing a polling place in Dos Caminos, a middle-class area of Caracas. There were about 4,200 voters registered to cast ballots there, but by 1 p.m. only 313 had done so.

“We were aware of the calls to abstain from voting, but many fewer people than we expected are coming out,” Ms. Henríquez said.

Rosa Rodríguez, 50, a former Chávez and Maduro supporter, said that this time she voted for Mr. Falcón and volunteered to work as a poll watcher.

“People are not voting on both sides and I think this is a silent message that they’re giving the country today,” said Ms. Rodriguez, who lives in a working-class area in the center of Caracas. “They have to realize that the people are protesting in silence. For me that says it all.”

In a slum abutting the main airport outside Caracas, Marielis Idimas, a mother of two, said she had voted for Mr. Maduro despite the economic hardships — but she showed more resignation than enthusiasm.

“My life is not good,” she said, sitting at a small stand where she sold eggs for 60,000 bolívars each (the currency’s devaluation makes that only about 6 cents although it is a vast sum for poor Venezuelans). “But who lives comfortably now?”

Another slum resident, María García, 63, said that she had not voted because doing so would have been supporting a sham.

“I’m not going to be part of this,” Ms. García said. “I hate everything about this government and I don’t want anything to do with them.”

Patricia Torres contributed reporting.

The post Maduro Wins Venezuela Election Amid Widespread Disillusionment appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2IVwxpy via Breaking News

[margdarsanme]

NCERT Class 12 Political Science (India) Chapter 5 Challenges and Restoration of Congress System

NCERT Class 12 Political Science Solutions (India Since Independence)

Chapter 5 Challenges and Restoration of Congress System 

TEXTBOOK QUESTIONS SOLVED :

Q 1. Which of these statements about the 1967 elections is/are correct? (a) Congress won the Lok Sabha elections but lost the Assembly elections in many states. (b) Congress lost both Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. (c) Congress lost majority in the Lok Sabha but formed a coalition government with the s upport of some other parties. (d) Congress retained power at the Centre with an increased majority. Ans. (a) Congress won the Lok Sabha elections but lost the Assembly elections in many states.

Answer: (a) Congress won the Lok Sabha elections but lost the Assembly elections in many states. (c) Congress lost majority in the Lok Sabha but formed a coalition government with the support of some other parties. Q 2. Match the following:

Answer: (a)-(ii), (b)-(i), (c)-(iv), (d)-(iii). Q 3. Whom would you identify with the following slogans/phrases? (a) Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan (b) Indira Hatao! (c) Garibi Hatao!

Answer: (a) Lai Bahadur Shastri: Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan (b) Syndicate: Indira Hatao! (c) Indira Gandhi: Garibi Hatao! Q 4. Which of the following statement about the Grand Alliance of 1971 is correct? The Grand Alliance … (а) was formed by non-Communist, non-Congress parties. (b) had a clear political and ideological programme. (c) was formed by all non-Congress parties.

Answer: (a) was formed by non-Communist, non-Congress parties. Q 5. How should a political party resolve its internal differences? Here are some suggestions. Think of each and list out their advantages and shortcomings? (a) Follow the footsteps of the party president (b) Listen to the majority group (c) Secret ballot voting on every issue (d) Consult the senior and experienced leaders of the party

Answer: 

(a) Advantage: If the party follows the footsteps of the party president, there will be discipline and unity within the party. Shortcoming: The party president can take its decision without taking into consideration the views of its party members. So, the inner democracy may get weakened.

(b) Advantage: If the party listens to the majority group, there will be more confidence among the party members and inner democracy will be strengthened. Shortcoming: If the party listens to the majority group, factionalism may increase in the party. One faction may try to back another faction to gather support.

(c) Advantage: Secret ballot voting is an appropriate system. It is more democratic. Through it, any member can express his views. Shortcoming: Sometimes, the party members may vote through secret ballot by ignoring the whip of the party issued by the party president. It may prove fatal to the party.

(d) Advantage: The novice and less experienced candidates will be benefited if they consult the senior and experienced leaders of the party and also follow their guidelines. Shortcoming: If the party members only consult the senior and experienced leaders and follow their guidelines, their hold will get strengthened in the party. Q 6. State which of these were reasons for the defeat of the Congress in 1967. Give reasons for your answer? (a) The absence of a charismatic leader in the Congress party. (b) Split within the Congress party. (c) Increased mobilisation of regional, ethnic and communal groups. (d) Increasing unity among non¬Congress parties. (e) Internal differences within the Congress party.

Answer: 

(a) It may not be the reason of the defeat of Congress party. Because there were so many experienced and charismatic leaders in the party.

(b) It was one of the main reasons of the defeat of Congress party. Now party was split into two groups. Syndicate had strong hold over the Congress party while Indira supporters were more inclined to their leader. One group was in support of capitalism and liberalisation while others opposed it.

(c) Due to the emergence of the Akali Dal in Punjab, D.M.K. in Tamil Nadu got and other regional parties, Congress setback. The party could not get majority at the centre and had to be deprived of power in various states.

(d) There was no unity among non¬Congress parties. So the non¬Congress parties got benefit in other provinces.

(e) Internal differences within the party were one of the major causes of its defeat. Q 7. What were the factors which led to the popularity of Indira Gandhi’s Government in the early 1970s?

Answer: Because: 1. Socialist credentials became main projects during this period. 2. Indira Gandhi campaigned to implement land reform legislations and land ceiling legislations. 3. She ended her dependence on other political parties by strengthening her party’s position and recommended the dissolution of Lok Sabha in December’ 1970. 4. The crisis in East Pakistan and Indo- Pak war to establish Bangladesh as an independent one, also enhanced the popularity of Indira Gandhi. 5. Indira Gandhi’s government was not accepted only as a protector of the poor and underprivileged but as a strong government also. 6. Congress became popular among different social sections and restored dominance again. 8. What does the term ‘syndicate’ mean in the context of the Congress party of the . sixties? What role did the Syndicate play in the Congress party?

Answer: Syndicate was a group of powerful and influential leaders from within the Congress: 1. Syndicate was led by K. Kamraj, former chief minister of Tamilnadu and the then president of Congress party. It also includes some powerful leaders like S.K. Patil, S. Nijalingappa, N. Sanjeeva Reddy and Atulya Ghosh. 2. In the sixties, Syndicate played a decisive role by installing both Lai Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi as a Prime Minister. 3. Syndicate played decisive say in Indira Gandhi’s first council of Ministers and formation and implementation of policies. 4. After a split, two groups in Congress were created i.e. Congress (O), led by Syndicate and Congress (R), led by Indira Gandhi. 5. Congress (R), won popularity after 1971 and Syndicate lost power and prestige. Q 9. Discuss the major issue which led to the formal split of the Congress Party in 1969.

Answer: The formal split in Congress took place in 1969 on the issue of nomination of the candidate during presidential elections: 1. Despite, Indira Gandhi’s reservations, the Syndicate nominated Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, as the official Congress candidate for ensuing Presidential elections. 2. Indira Gandhi retaliated the situation by encouraging Mr. V.V. Giri, the then Vice-President, to be nominated as an independent candidate. 3. During election, the then Congress President S. Nijalingappa issued a whip asking all Congress MPs. MLAs to vote for N. Sanjeeva Reddy. 4. On the other hand, after silently supporting V.V. Giri, the Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi openly called for a conscience vote to vote the way they want. 5. Elections went in favour of V.V. Giri due to this diplomatic effort and N. Sanjeeva Reddy was defeated. 6. The defeat of N. Sanjeeva Reddy, the formal Congress candidate, formalised the split of party into two: (a) Congress (O), i.e. organisation led by syndicate, known as Old Congress. (b) Congress (R) i.e. requisitionists led by Indira Gandhi, known as New Congress. Q 10. Read the passage and answer the questions below: “… Indira Gandhi changed the Congress into highly centralised and undemocratic party organisation, from the earlier federal, democratic and ideological formation that Nehru had led. … But this … could not have happened had not Indira Gandhi changed the entire nature of politics. This new, populist politics turned political ideology … into a mere electoral discourse, use of various slogans not meant to be translated into government policies…. During its great electoral victories in early 1970s, amidst the celebration, the Congress party as a political organisation died —Sudipta Kaviraj (a) What according to the author is the difference between the strategies of Nehru and Indira Gandhi? (b) Why does the author say that the Congress party ‘died’ in the seventies? (c) In what way, did the change in the Congress party affect other political parties also? Answer: (a) According to author, main difference between the strategies of Nehru and Indira Gandhi is that Jawahar Lai Nehru led the Congress into federal, democratic and ideological nature whereas Indira Gandhi converted it into highly centralised and undemocratic party. (b) Congress party died in the seventies due to changed nature of Congress, the new populist politics turned political ideology into a mere electoral discourage and the use of various slogans never meant to be translated into government policies i. e. electoral victories of 1970s. (c) The change in the Congress party affected other political parties also as they formed SVD (Samyukt Vidhayak Dal) in the form of coalitions and grand alliance.

Very Short Answer Type Questions[1 Mark]

Q 1. Which major factor was responsible for the dramatic victory of Indira Gandhi in 1971 elections? 

Answer: Although the Congress’s position was very weak in the electroal contest of 1971, it had something that its big opponents lacked—it had an issue, an agenda and a positive slogan: Garibi Hatao in contrast to opposition’s Indira Hatao. This proved to be a major factor responsible for the dramatic victory of Indira Gandhi. Q 2. Who represented Congress (O) and Congress (R) after the split of Congress Party? 

Answer: Congress (O) was represented by K. Kamraj, former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu and the then President of Congress Party whereas Congress (R) was led by Indira Gandhi. Q 3. What is meant by term ‘Congress Syndicate?

Answer: ‘Congress Syndicate’, implied a group of powerful and influential leaders within Congress to be known as Old Congress. Q 4. In 1966, who contested against Indira Gandhi for the post of Prime Minister from among Congress MPs?

Answer: Morarji Desai, earlier Chief Minister of Bombay State. Q 5. What was the Slogan of Indira Gandhi during the elections of 1971?

Answer: ‘Garibi Hatao’. Q 6. After the death of Lai Bahadur Shastri which two leaders of Congress Party contested against each other to become leader of Congress parliamentary party?

Answer: Morarji Desai and Indira Gandhi. Q 7. Name the leaders who gave the following slogans. 1. Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan 2. Garibi Hatao

Answer: 1. Lai Bahadur Shastri 2. Indira Gandhi Q 8. Which theoretical argument did Ram j Manohar Lohia give in defence on non- Congressism?

Answer: “Congress rule was undemocratic and opposed to the interest of ordinary poor people, therefore, the coming together of the non-Congress parties was necessary for reclaiming democracy for the people”. Q 9. The results of which, elections were called j “Political Earthquake”?

Answer. February 1967, Fourth General Elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Q 10. When and where was the first non- j Congress state government formed after India’s independence?

Answer: Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh in 1967. Q ll. Why are the results of 1967 elections in India called Political Earthquake?

Answer: Because it jolted the Congress at both the central and state levels as Congress did not get majority in Congress ruled states. Q 12. What challenges were faced by India between 1964 to 1966 during Prime- ministership of Lai Bahadur Shastri?

Answer: 1. Economic crisis due to Indo-China War 1962 and Indo-Pak War 1965. 2. Failed Monsoons, drought, serious food crisis presented a grave challenge. Q 13. What do you mean by SVD?

Answer: SVD stands for Samyukt Vidhayak Dal i. e. Joint Legislative Parties formed by various non-Congress parties called as coalitions after fourth general elections. Q 14. Why were 1960s, called as the dangerous decade?

Answer: Due to some unresolved problems like poverty, inequality, communal and regional divisions led a failure of democratic projects or disintegration of country.

Very Short Answer Type Questions [2 Marks]

Q 1. What does ‘Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram’ stand for in Indian politics?

Answer: 1. The phrase ‘Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram’ implied frequent floor crossing by legislators in the party which was developed by Haryana MLA Gaya Lai in 1967. 2. He changed his party thrice in fortnight from Congress to United Front back to Congress and then within nine hours to United Front again. 3. This incident later became a political joke and develop the culture of defection in Indian politics to create instability among the political parties. 4. Now, the Constitution has been amended to prevent this practice under ‘Anti Defection Law’. Q 2. Why did senior Congress leader support Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister after the death of Lai Bahadur Shastri?

Answer: Because: 1. Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru and she had been Congress president in the past and had also been Union Minister for Information in Shastri Cabinet. 2. The senior leaders presumed that her administrative and political inexperience would compel her to dependent on them for support and guidance. Q 3. What is meant by Grand Alliance?

Answer: Grand Alliance was an electoral alliance of all the major Non-communist, non¬Congress opposition parties. The SSP, PSP, Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Swatantra Party and the Bharatiya Kranti Dal came together under this Umbrella. Q 4. Why did Indira Gandhi government devalue the Indian Rupee in 1967?

Answer: Indira Gandhi government devalued Indian rupee to check economic crisis of 1967. Consequently, one US dollar could be purchased for less than ? 5 after devaluation, it cost more than ?  1. The economic situation triggered a price rise. 2. People started protest against increase in prices of essential commodities and unemployment etc. 3. The Communist and Socialist parties launched struggle to avail greater equality. Q 5. How did Congress face challenge of political succession second time?

Answer: The Congress party faced the challenge of succession for second time in 1966 after the death of Lai Bahadur Shastri: 1. This challenge started with an intense competition between Morarji Desai and Indira Gandhi to be resolved through a secret ballot. 2. Indira Gandhi defeated Morarji Desai by securing support of more than two-third of the party’s MPs. 3. Thus, a peaceful transition of power despite intense competition for leadership was seen as a sign of maturity of India’s democracy. Q 6. What was the status of SVD in the new era of coalition?

Answer: The elections of 1967 brought the coalitions when no single party got the majority and joint legislator parties called ‘Samyukt Vidhayak Dal’ came together to form government to support non-Congress government: 1. The SVD government in Bihar included two socialist parties—SSP and PSP along-with CPS on left and Jana Sangh on right. 2. In Punjab, it was called the popular United Front and comprised the two rival Akali Parties at that time. Q 7. ‘1960s were labelled as the dangerous decade’. Explain.

Answer: Due to some unresolved problems like poverty, inequality, communal and regional divisions and the was speculations that all these could lead to a failure of the democratic project or even disintegration of country.

Short Answer Type Questions [4 Marks]

Q l. Explain any two reasons for the popularity of Indira Gandhi during 1971 elections. Or Analyse any three factors which enhanced popularity of Indira Gandhi in the early 1970s.

Answer: Because: 1. Indira Gandhi campaigned to implement land reforms legislations and land ceiling legislation during elections. 2. She ended her dependence on other political parties by strengthening her party’s position and recommended the dissolution of Lok Sabha in December 1970. 3. The crisis in East Pakistan and Indo- Pak war to establish Bangladesh as an independent one, also enhanced the popularity of Indira Gandhi. Q 2. What does ‘defection’ stand for in Indian politics? Highlight any two demerits of this practice?

Answer: Defection refers to an elected representative leaves the party on whose symbol he/she is elected and joins another party. This culture developed in Indian Politics after 1967 elections. Its two demerits were as follows: 1. It played an important role in making and unmaking of government frequently. 2. The constant realignments and shifting political loyalties in this period gave rise to the expression “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram”. Q 3. Why was the year 1967 considered a landmark year in India’s political and electoral history? Explain.

Answer: The fourth general election was held in 1967 for the first time without Nehru: 1. The election verdict was not in favour of Congress and results jolted the Congress both at the national and state levels. 2. Half the ministers in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet were defeated including K. Kamraj in Tamilnadu, S.K. Patil in Maharashtra, Atulya Ghosh in West Bengal, K.B. Sahay in Bihar. 3. Congress did not lose majority in seven states only but two other states also prevented it to form government due to defections. 4. For the first time any non-Congress party secured majority in any state and in other eight states different non-Congress parties formed the coalitions. Q 4. These election results were called as a ‘Political Earthquake’.4. How can we see re-emergence of Indira Gandhi to power in 1971?

Answer: Congress (R) under Indira Gandhi had an issue, an agenda and a positive slogan which was lacked by its opponents. The ‘Grand Alliance’ had only one common i programme ‘Indira Hatao’: 1. In contrast to this, Indira Gandhi put forward a positive slogan ‘Garibi Hatao’. 2. By this, she generated a support base among poor, minorities, landless labourers, dalit, women and unemployed youth. 3. Except it, she focused on the growth of public sector, imposition of ceiling on rural land holdings and urban property, removal of disparity etc. 4. Thus, the slogan of Garibi Hatao and programmes became the part of Indira Gandhi’s political strategy of building an independent nationwide political support base during the electoral contest of 1971. Q 5. What is meant by ‘Privy Purses’? Why did Indira Gandhi insist on abolishing them in 1970?

Answer:‘Privy Purses’ was the form of grant in heredity given to the rulers and their families: 1. The grant or ‘Privy Purse’ was measured on the basis of extent revenue and potential of the merging state in the assurance given at the time of integration of princely states. 2. Privy purses were criticised, the privileges given to princely states at the time of accession, integration and consolidation were protested. 3. Hence, some leaders like Indira Gandhi insisted on abolishing the privy purses because hereditary privileges were not constant with the principle of equality, social and economic justice laid down in the constitution. 4. Hence in the elections of 1971, Indira Gandhi made this a major election issue and got a lot of public support and alongwith massive victory in 1971 election, the constitution was amended to remove legal obstacles for abolition of privy purses. Q 6. How did the outcome of 1971 elections help in restoration of Congress?

Answer: Congress (R) under Indira Gandhi had an issue an agenda and a positive slogan which was lacked by its opponents. The ‘Grand Alliance’ had only one common programme ‘Indira Hatao’: 1. In contrast to this, Indira Gandhi put forward a positive slogan ‘Garibi Hatoa’. 2. By this, she generated a support base among poors, minorities, landlors labourers, dalits, women and unemployed bye youth. 3. Except it, she focused on the growth of public sector, imposition of ceiling on rural land holdings and urban property, removal of disparity etc. 4. Thus, the slogan of Garibi Hatao and programmes became the part of Indira Gandhi’s political strategy of building an independent nationwide political support base during the electoral contest of 1971. Q 7. Write a short note on: (a) Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan (b) Garibi Hatao (c) Indira Hatao (d) Grand Alliance

Answer: 

(a) Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan (i) A slogan given by Lai Bahadur Shastri in 1965. (ii) To symbolise to resolve country’s challenge of food crisis and external threat.

(b) Garibi Hatao (i) A slogan given by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1970 to symbolise removal of poverty. (ii) Through this slogan, Indira Gandhi generated a support base among women, unemployed youth, minorities, landless labourers, dalits, etc.

(c) Indira Hatao A slogan given by Grand Alliance alongwith one programme of‘Indira Hatao’ only i.e. remove Indira Gandhi from Political arena. (d) Grand Alliance (i) An alliance formed by non-communist and non-Congress parties to be formed against Congress (R). (ii) It did not focus on multiple strategies of development rather included only ‘Indira Hatao’.

Passage Based Questions |5 Marks]

1. Read carefully the passage given below and answer the following questions: The New Congress had something that its big opponents lacked—it had an issue, an agenda and a positive slogan. The Grand Alliance did not have a coherent political programme. Indira Gandhi said that the opposition alliance had only one common programme ‘Indira Hatao’. In contrast to this, she put forward a positive programme captured in the famous slogan ‘Garibi Hatao’.

Questions 1. Which Congress is being referred to as ‘the New Congress’? 2. Highlight any two steps taken by Indira Gandhi to remove poverty. 3. How far is it justified to call the ‘opposition alliance’ as the ‘Grand Alliance’?

Answer: 1. Congress (O) is being referred to as the ‘New Congress’. 2. She focused on the growth of the public sector. She focused on the removal of dis-parities in income and opportunity. 3. It is justified to call the ‘opposition alliance’ as the ‘Grand Alliance’ because it came into existence to make matters worse for Indira Gandhi. 2. Read the passage given below carefully and answer the questions: The defeat of the official Congress candidate formalised the split in the party. The Congress President expelled the Prime Minister from the party; she claimed that her group was the real Congress. By November 1969, the Congress group led by the ‘syndicate’ came to be referred to as the Congress (Organisation) and the group led by Indira Gandhi came to be called the Congress (Requisitionists). These two parties were also described as Old Congress and New Congress. Indira Gandhi projected the split as an ideological divide between socialists and conservatives, between the pro-poor and the pro-rich.

Questions 1. What formalised the split of Congress? 2. Mention two groups created after the split. 3. How did Indira Gandhi project the split?

Answer: 1. The defeat of official candidate during presidential elections in 1969. 2. Congress (O) i.e. Organisation led by syndicate known as old Congress, Congress (R) i.e. requisitionists led by Indira Gandhi known as new Congress. 3. Indira Gandhi projected the split as an ideological divide between socialists and conservatives, between pro-rich and pro-poor. 3. Read the passage given below carefully and answer the questions: But does it mean that the Congress system was restored? What Indira Gandhi had done was not a revival of the old Congress party. In many ways she had re-invented the party. The party occupied a similar position in terms of its popularity as in the past. But it was a different kind of a party. It relied entirely on the popularity of the supreme leader. It had a somewhat weak organisational structure. This Congress party now did not have many fanctions ,Thus it could not accommodate all kind of options and interests .While it won elections,it depends more on some social groups: the poor, the women,Dalits, Adivasis and the minorities.It was a new congress system by changing the nature of the congress system itself.

Questions 1. Had Indira Gandhi revived Congress? 2. How did Indira Gandhi restore the Congress system? 3. Why did Congress not have all kinds of opinions and interests?

Answer: 1. No, whatever had been done by Indira Gandhi, was not a revival of old Congress system but it was a re¬invention of party. 2. Indira Gandhi restored the Congress system changing the nature of Congress system itself, to be dependent more on poor, women, dalits, adivasis and minorities. 3. It had a somewhat weak organisational structure and it did not have many factions also to accommodate all kinds of opinions and interests.

Long Answer Type Questions [6 Marks]

Q l. Analyse any three major factors which led the popularity of Indira Gandhi’s Government in the early 1970s.

Answer: (i) The fifth general elections to Lok Sabha were held in February 1971. The electoral contest appeared to be loaded against Congress (R). After all, the new Congress was just one faction of an already weak party. Everyone believed that the real organizational strength of the Congress Party was under the command of Congress (O). To make i matters worse for Indira Gandhi, all the major non-Communist, non Congress opposition parties formed an electoral alliance known as the Grand Alliance. Yet the new Congress had something that its big opponents lacked — it had an issue, an agenda and a positive slogan. The Grand Alliance did not have a coherent political programme. Indira Gandhi said that the opposition alliance had only one common programme Indira Hatao (Remove Indira). In contrast to this, she put forward a positive programme captured in the famous slogan: Garibi Hatao (Remove poverty). (ii) Indira Gandhi focussed on the growth of the public sector, imposition of ceiling on rural land holdings and urban poverty, removal of disparities in income and opportunity, and abolition of princely privileges. Thus, the slogan Garibi Hatao and the programmes that followed it were part of Indira Gandhi’s political strategy of building an Independent nationwide political support base. As a result, she won 352 seats with about 44 per cent of the popular votes on its own in the Lok Sabha elections of 1971. (iii) Soon after the 1971 Lok Sabha election, a major political and military crises broke out in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The 1971 elections were followed by the crisis in East Pakistan and the Indo- Pak war leading to the establishment of Bangladesh. These events added to the popularity of Indira Gandhi. Even the opposition leaders admired her statesmanship. Q 2. Examine the three main reasons responsible for the split in Congress during 1969. Or Describe the various aspects of presidential election of 1969.

Answer: The formal split in Congress took place in 1969 on the issue of nomination of the candidate during presidential elections: 1. Despite, Indira Gandhi’s representatives, the syndicate nominated Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, as the official Congress candidate for ensuring presidential elections. 2. Indira Gandhi retaliated the situation by encouraging Mr. V.V. Giri, the then Vice President, to be nominated as an independent candidate. 3. During election, the then Congress president S. Nijalingappa issue a ‘Whip’ asking all Congress MPs, MLAs to vote for N. Sanjeeva Reddy. 4. On the other hand, after silently supporting V.V. Giri, the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi openly called for a conscience vote to vote the way they want. 5. Elections went in favour of V.V. Giri due to this diplomatic effort and N. Sanjeeva Reddy was defeated. 6. The defeat of N. Sanjeeva Reddy, the formal Congress candidate, formalised the split of party into two: (a) Congress (0) i.e organisation led by Syndicate, known as Old Congress. (b) Congress (R) i.e. requisitionists led by Indira Gandhi, known as New Congress. Q 3. Which six factors contributed to the popularity of Indira Gandhi’s government in the decade of 1970s?

Answer: Because: 1. Socialist credentials became main projects during this period. 2. Indira Gandhi campaigned to implement land reform legislation and land ceiling legislations. 3. She ended her dependence on other political parties by strengthening her party’s position and recommended the dissolution of Lok Sabha in December 1970. 4. The crisis in East Pakistan and Indo- Pak war to establish Bangladesh as an independent one, also enhanced the popularity of Indira Gandhi. 5. Indira Gandhi and her government was not accepted only as a protector of the poor and under privileged but as a strong government also. 6. Congress became popular among different social sections and restored dominance again. Q 4. Examine the grave economic crisis prior to fourth general election of 1967. Assess the electoral verdict also.

Answer: Indira Gandhi government devalued Indian rupee to check economic crisis of 1967. Consequently, one US dollar could be purchased for less than ? 5 after devaluation, it cost more than ?  1. The economic situation triggered a price rise. 2. People started protest against increase in prices of essential commodities and unemployment etc. 3. The Communist and Socialist parties launched struggle to avail greater equality.

The fourth general election was held in 1967 for the first time without Nehru: 1. The election verdict was not in favour of Congress and results jolted the Congress both at the national and state levels. 2. Half the ministers in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet were defeated including K. Kamraj in Tamilnadu, S.K. Patil in Maharashtra, Atulya Ghosh in West Bengal, K.B. Sahay in Bihar. 3. Congress did not lose only majority in seven states but two other states also prevented it to form government due to defections. 4. For the first time any non-Congress party secured majority in any state and in other eight states different non-Congress parties formed the coalitions. 5. These election results were called as a ‘Political Earthquake’.

Picture/Map Based Questions [5 Marks]

Q 1. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:

Questions

1. What is meant by ‘Keep Right, No Left Turn”? 2. In the picture what does the following stand for: (а) LD (b) BKS (c) SSP (d) BKD 3. What is a hung assembly?

Answer: 1. United Front Party was formed on the basis of non-Communist ideology and supposed to follow the ‘rightist’ only. 2. (a) Lok Dal (b) Bihar Kranti Sabha (c) Samyukt Socialist Party (d) Bharatiya Kranti Dal 3. It is dominated by coalition government where no single party gets majority and this is very uncertain also. Q 2. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:

Questions 1. Which year is being referred by cartoon? 2. Who is being commented by the phrase ‘Aya Ram Gaya Ram’?

Answer: 1. 1967 2. Haryana’s MLA ‘Gaya LaP who changed the party thrice in a fortnight from Congress to United Front, back to Congress and then within nine hours to United Front again. Q 3. Study the picture given below and answer the questions

Questions 1. What does the cartoon represent? 2. Identify the lady in the cartoon and give reason for her pleasure. 3. Identify the person wearing garland in winning position. 4. Who is lying on the ground?

Answer: 1. Presidential elections of 1969. 2. Indira Gandhi on winning of her candidate V.V. Giri in presidential elections. 3. V.V. Giri. 4. N. Sanjeeva Reddy.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/2DSZ3XY

[cleopatrarps]

Maduro Wins Venezuela Election Amid Widespread Disillusionment

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Nicolás Maduro won a second term as president of Venezuela, a country in the midst of a historic economic collapse marked by soaring prices, widespread hunger, rampant crime, a failing health system and a large-scale exodus of its citizens.

Electoral officials declared Mr. Maduro the victor Sunday night, in a contest that critics said was heavily rigged in his favor.

In the capital and around the country, the turnout was extremely low, reflecting both a call from many opposition leaders for a boycott of the vote and the disillusionment of longtime government supporters.

Voting centers in pro-government strongholds and opposition areas alike often had no lines of voters waiting to cast ballots — a significant change from previous presidential elections, and a sign that many Venezuelans repudiated the candidacies of both Mr. Maduro and the two opposition candidates. More than half of registered voters did not cast ballots.

Election officials said Mr. Maduro, the political heir of Hugo Chávez, the leftist firebrand who led this oil-rich country until his death in 2013, received 5.8 million votes. That was nearly 68 percent of the votes cast, The Associated Press reported.

His main rival, Henri Falcón, a former state governor who was once an acolyte of Mr. Chávez’s but broke with him to join the opposition, received 1.8 million votes. A third candidate, Javier Bertucci, a political novice and an evangelical minister, received 925,000. Mr. Maduro’s current term continues until the end of the year; his new term will last six years.

Despite his triumph in a tainted contest, there is little relief in sight for Mr. Maduro, and his re-election could make the situation in the country even worse.

The United States — which condemned the election as unfair and anti-democratic even before it happened — has threatened stricter sanctions. Also likely to increase pressure on Mr. Maduro’s government even before his next term begins: He has largely been cut off from international financing, and the government-run oil industry, which provides virtually all of the country’s hard currency, is in free-fall, with plummeting production.

Some may point to the low turnout and vote totals and question his leadership. Mr. Maduro has shown no signs so far that he has the ability to solve the country’s deep problems and his response to the crisis has often been to crack down harder on adversaries — including the traditional opposition as well as rivals on his side of the political divide.

The official turnout figure was given as 46 percent.

Mr. Falcón accused the governing party of pressuring voters and said he would not recognize the election results.

“We don’t recognize this electoral process as valid,” Mr. Falcón said, speaking at his campaign center after 9:30 p.m., before official results were made public. “For us, there was no election. There must be a new election in Venezuela.”

Mr. Falcón had defied a broad call to boycott the election over expectations of just the sort of unfairness that he denounced after the polls closed.

The United States and many countries in the region have said they would not recognize the results. Colombia and Brazil have received huge influxes of economic refugees from Venezuela.

Mr. Maduro’s victory was certain to set off a new round of infighting and finger pointing within the opposition. Some accused Mr. Falcón of giving legitimacy to the president’s re-election. Others asked if the opposition might have missed a chance to displace Mr. Maduro, given his falling popularity among his own supporters, many of whom failed to turn out.

Venezuela, which is estimated to have the world’s largest oil reserves, is in the throes of one of the worst economic crises in recent history in the Western Hemisphere. The International Monetary Fund estimates that inflation this year could reach 13,000 percent, by far the highest rate in the world.

With soaring prices and shortages of basic goods of all kinds, many Venezuelans are malnourished. It is common to find families who eat just twice a day, and with little protein, fresh fruit or vegetables in those meals. Two pounds of chicken or beef costs as much as the monthly minimum wage package, which, including food coupons, is worth about $2.50.

That is hardly a recipe for a president to win re-election, but Mr. Maduro sought to give himself every advantage in Sunday’s vote.

The electoral authorities banned the largest opposition political parties from taking part in the election, and key politicians were barred from running. Brutal repression of anti-government protests, and the arrests of many activists and leaders also weakened the opposition.

Electoral authorities also moved up the election to May, allowing little time for the opposition to organize and campaign. They even eliminated the requirement that voters dip a finger in indelible ink, which is used to keep people from voting more than once.

In response, many opposition leaders called for an election boycott.

Mr. Falcón ultimately decided to break with the rest of the opposition and run against Mr. Maduro.

Mr. Maduro attributes the country’s problems to what he calls an economic war waged against Venezuela by the United States. But most economists place the blame on poor government management, corruption and broken policies, like tight controls over foreign exchange, an overvalued currency and price controls on goods.

The government has responded to the crisis by providing people with boxes of food, including powdered milk and pasta, although most people say they arrive irregularly and do not contain nearly enough to sustain a household. The food boxes became both an incentive and a threat during the campaign, with many voters fearful that they could be cut off if they didn’t support the government.

At many polling places on Sunday, people cast their vote and then visited a so-called Red Spot — named for the ruling Socialist Party’s color — set up nearby.

At the Red Spot, voters presented the special identity card needed to receive the food boxes and other services and gave their names to workers who were keeping lists of those who had voted. Workers at the Red Spots said that there was no effort to pressure voters or link a pro-Maduro vote to future food deliveries.

Mr. Falcón accused the government of violating campaign rules through the use of these Red Spots.

A woman waiting outside a polling station in a Caracas slum, La Vega, said she worked for a government agency and feared losing her job if she did not vote and report afterward at the Red Spot. The woman, who would not give her name out of fear of reprisals, also said that she felt compelled to vote for Mr. Maduro, even though she did not support him, because she was sure that government computers tracked people’s votes — a common notion here.

One of the most striking aspects of the day was the large number of voters who appeared to have stayed away.

“I’m surprised by the low turnout,” said Loreima Henríquez, a National Electoral Council employee, who was overseeing a polling place in Dos Caminos, a middle-class area of Caracas. There were about 4,200 voters registered to cast ballots there, but by 1 p.m. only 313 had done so.

“We were aware of the calls to abstain from voting, but many fewer people than we expected are coming out,” Ms. Henríquez said.

Rosa Rodríguez, 50, a former Chávez and Maduro supporter, said that this time she voted for Mr. Falcón and volunteered to work as a poll watcher.

“People are not voting on both sides and I think this is a silent message that they’re giving the country today,” said Ms. Rodriguez, who lives in a working-class area in the center of Caracas. “They have to realize that the people are protesting in silence. For me that says it all.”

In a slum abutting the main airport outside Caracas, Marielis Idimas, a mother of two, said she had voted for Mr. Maduro despite the economic hardships — but she showed more resignation than enthusiasm.

“My life is not good,” she said, sitting at a small stand where she sold eggs for 60,000 bolívars each (the currency’s devaluation makes that only about 6 cents although it is a vast sum for poor Venezuelans). “But who lives comfortably now?”

Another slum resident, María García, 63, said that she had not voted because doing so would have been supporting a sham.

“I’m not going to be part of this,” Ms. García said. “I hate everything about this government and I don’t want anything to do with them.”

Patricia Torres contributed reporting.

The post Maduro Wins Venezuela Election Amid Widespread Disillusionment appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2IVwxpy via News of World

[newestbalance]

Maduro Wins Venezuela Election Amid Widespread Disillusionment

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Nicolás Maduro won a second term as president of Venezuela, a country in the midst of a historic economic collapse marked by soaring prices, widespread hunger, rampant crime, a failing health system and a large-scale exodus of its citizens.

Electoral officials declared Mr. Maduro the victor Sunday night, in a contest that critics said was heavily rigged in his favor.

In the capital and around the country, the turnout was extremely low, reflecting both a call from many opposition leaders for a boycott of the vote and the disillusionment of longtime government supporters.

Voting centers in pro-government strongholds and opposition areas alike often had no lines of voters waiting to cast ballots — a significant change from previous presidential elections, and a sign that many Venezuelans repudiated the candidacies of both Mr. Maduro and the two opposition candidates. More than half of registered voters did not cast ballots.

Election officials said Mr. Maduro, the political heir of Hugo Chávez, the leftist firebrand who led this oil-rich country until his death in 2013, received 5.8 million votes. That was nearly 68 percent of the votes cast, The Associated Press reported.

His main rival, Henri Falcón, a former state governor who was once an acolyte of Mr. Chávez’s but broke with him to join the opposition, received 1.8 million votes. A third candidate, Javier Bertucci, a political novice and an evangelical minister, received 925,000. Mr. Maduro’s current term continues until the end of the year; his new term will last six years.

Despite his triumph in a tainted contest, there is little relief in sight for Mr. Maduro, and his re-election could make the situation in the country even worse.

The United States — which condemned the election as unfair and anti-democratic even before it happened — has threatened stricter sanctions. Also likely to increase pressure on Mr. Maduro’s government even before his next term begins: He has largely been cut off from international financing, and the government-run oil industry, which provides virtually all of the country’s hard currency, is in free-fall, with plummeting production.

Some may point to the low turnout and vote totals and question his leadership. Mr. Maduro has shown no signs so far that he has the ability to solve the country’s deep problems and his response to the crisis has often been to crack down harder on adversaries — including the traditional opposition as well as rivals on his side of the political divide.

The official turnout figure was given as 46 percent.

Mr. Falcón accused the governing party of pressuring voters and said he would not recognize the election results.

“We don’t recognize this electoral process as valid,” Mr. Falcón said, speaking at his campaign center after 9:30 p.m., before official results were made public. “For us, there was no election. There must be a new election in Venezuela.”

Mr. Falcón had defied a broad call to boycott the election over expectations of just the sort of unfairness that he denounced after the polls closed.

The United States and many countries in the region have said they would not recognize the results. Colombia and Brazil have received huge influxes of economic refugees from Venezuela.

Mr. Maduro’s victory was certain to set off a new round of infighting and finger pointing within the opposition. Some accused Mr. Falcón of giving legitimacy to the president’s re-election. Others asked if the opposition might have missed a chance to displace Mr. Maduro, given his falling popularity among his own supporters, many of whom failed to turn out.

Venezuela, which is estimated to have the world’s largest oil reserves, is in the throes of one of the worst economic crises in recent history in the Western Hemisphere. The International Monetary Fund estimates that inflation this year could reach 13,000 percent, by far the highest rate in the world.

With soaring prices and shortages of basic goods of all kinds, many Venezuelans are malnourished. It is common to find families who eat just twice a day, and with little protein, fresh fruit or vegetables in those meals. Two pounds of chicken or beef costs as much as the monthly minimum wage package, which, including food coupons, is worth about $2.50.

That is hardly a recipe for a president to win re-election, but Mr. Maduro sought to give himself every advantage in Sunday’s vote.

The electoral authorities banned the largest opposition political parties from taking part in the election, and key politicians were barred from running. Brutal repression of anti-government protests, and the arrests of many activists and leaders also weakened the opposition.

Electoral authorities also moved up the election to May, allowing little time for the opposition to organize and campaign. They even eliminated the requirement that voters dip a finger in indelible ink, which is used to keep people from voting more than once.

In response, many opposition leaders called for an election boycott.

Mr. Falcón ultimately decided to break with the rest of the opposition and run against Mr. Maduro.

Mr. Maduro attributes the country’s problems to what he calls an economic war waged against Venezuela by the United States. But most economists place the blame on poor government management, corruption and broken policies, like tight controls over foreign exchange, an overvalued currency and price controls on goods.

The government has responded to the crisis by providing people with boxes of food, including powdered milk and pasta, although most people say they arrive irregularly and do not contain nearly enough to sustain a household. The food boxes became both an incentive and a threat during the campaign, with many voters fearful that they could be cut off if they didn’t support the government.

At many polling places on Sunday, people cast their vote and then visited a so-called Red Spot — named for the ruling Socialist Party’s color — set up nearby.

At the Red Spot, voters presented the special identity card needed to receive the food boxes and other services and gave their names to workers who were keeping lists of those who had voted. Workers at the Red Spots said that there was no effort to pressure voters or link a pro-Maduro vote to future food deliveries.

Mr. Falcón accused the government of violating campaign rules through the use of these Red Spots.

A woman waiting outside a polling station in a Caracas slum, La Vega, said she worked for a government agency and feared losing her job if she did not vote and report afterward at the Red Spot. The woman, who would not give her name out of fear of reprisals, also said that she felt compelled to vote for Mr. Maduro, even though she did not support him, because she was sure that government computers tracked people’s votes — a common notion here.

One of the most striking aspects of the day was the large number of voters who appeared to have stayed away.

“I’m surprised by the low turnout,” said Loreima Henríquez, a National Electoral Council employee, who was overseeing a polling place in Dos Caminos, a middle-class area of Caracas. There were about 4,200 voters registered to cast ballots there, but by 1 p.m. only 313 had done so.

“We were aware of the calls to abstain from voting, but many fewer people than we expected are coming out,” Ms. Henríquez said.

Rosa Rodríguez, 50, a former Chávez and Maduro supporter, said that this time she voted for Mr. Falcón and volunteered to work as a poll watcher.

“People are not voting on both sides and I think this is a silent message that they’re giving the country today,” said Ms. Rodriguez, who lives in a working-class area in the center of Caracas. “They have to realize that the people are protesting in silence. For me that says it all.”

In a slum abutting the main airport outside Caracas, Marielis Idimas, a mother of two, said she had voted for Mr. Maduro despite the economic hardships — but she showed more resignation than enthusiasm.

“My life is not good,” she said, sitting at a small stand where she sold eggs for 60,000 bolívars each (the currency’s devaluation makes that only about 6 cents although it is a vast sum for poor Venezuelans). “But who lives comfortably now?”

Another slum resident, María García, 63, said that she had not voted because doing so would have been supporting a sham.

“I’m not going to be part of this,” Ms. García said. “I hate everything about this government and I don’t want anything to do with them.”

Patricia Torres contributed reporting.

The post Maduro Wins Venezuela Election Amid Widespread Disillusionment appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2IVwxpy via Everyday News

[dragnews]

Maduro Wins Venezuela Election Amid Widespread Disillusionment

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Nicolás Maduro won a second term as president of Venezuela, a country in the midst of a historic economic collapse marked by soaring prices, widespread hunger, rampant crime, a failing health system and a large-scale exodus of its citizens.

Electoral officials declared Mr. Maduro the victor Sunday night, in a contest that critics said was heavily rigged in his favor.

In the capital and around the country, the turnout was extremely low, reflecting both a call from many opposition leaders for a boycott of the vote and the disillusionment of longtime government supporters.

Voting centers in pro-government strongholds and opposition areas alike often had no lines of voters waiting to cast ballots — a significant change from previous presidential elections, and a sign that many Venezuelans repudiated the candidacies of both Mr. Maduro and the two opposition candidates. More than half of registered voters did not cast ballots.

Election officials said Mr. Maduro, the political heir of Hugo Chávez, the leftist firebrand who led this oil-rich country until his death in 2013, received 5.8 million votes. That was nearly 68 percent of the votes cast, The Associated Press reported.

His main rival, Henri Falcón, a former state governor who was once an acolyte of Mr. Chávez’s but broke with him to join the opposition, received 1.8 million votes. A third candidate, Javier Bertucci, a political novice and an evangelical minister, received 925,000. Mr. Maduro’s current term continues until the end of the year; his new term will last six years.

Despite his triumph in a tainted contest, there is little relief in sight for Mr. Maduro, and his re-election could make the situation in the country even worse.

The United States — which condemned the election as unfair and anti-democratic even before it happened — has threatened stricter sanctions. Also likely to increase pressure on Mr. Maduro’s government even before his next term begins: He has largely been cut off from international financing, and the government-run oil industry, which provides virtually all of the country’s hard currency, is in free-fall, with plummeting production.

Some may point to the low turnout and vote totals and question his leadership. Mr. Maduro has shown no signs so far that he has the ability to solve the country’s deep problems and his response to the crisis has often been to crack down harder on adversaries — including the traditional opposition as well as rivals on his side of the political divide.

The official turnout figure was given as 46 percent.

Mr. Falcón accused the governing party of pressuring voters and said he would not recognize the election results.

“We don’t recognize this electoral process as valid,” Mr. Falcón said, speaking at his campaign center after 9:30 p.m., before official results were made public. “For us, there was no election. There must be a new election in Venezuela.”

Mr. Falcón had defied a broad call to boycott the election over expectations of just the sort of unfairness that he denounced after the polls closed.

The United States and many countries in the region have said they would not recognize the results. Colombia and Brazil have received huge influxes of economic refugees from Venezuela.

Mr. Maduro’s victory was certain to set off a new round of infighting and finger pointing within the opposition. Some accused Mr. Falcón of giving legitimacy to the president’s re-election. Others asked if the opposition might have missed a chance to displace Mr. Maduro, given his falling popularity among his own supporters, many of whom failed to turn out.

Venezuela, which is estimated to have the world’s largest oil reserves, is in the throes of one of the worst economic crises in recent history in the Western Hemisphere. The International Monetary Fund estimates that inflation this year could reach 13,000 percent, by far the highest rate in the world.

With soaring prices and shortages of basic goods of all kinds, many Venezuelans are malnourished. It is common to find families who eat just twice a day, and with little protein, fresh fruit or vegetables in those meals. Two pounds of chicken or beef costs as much as the monthly minimum wage package, which, including food coupons, is worth about $2.50.

That is hardly a recipe for a president to win re-election, but Mr. Maduro sought to give himself every advantage in Sunday’s vote.

The electoral authorities banned the largest opposition political parties from taking part in the election, and key politicians were barred from running. Brutal repression of anti-government protests, and the arrests of many activists and leaders also weakened the opposition.

Electoral authorities also moved up the election to May, allowing little time for the opposition to organize and campaign. They even eliminated the requirement that voters dip a finger in indelible ink, which is used to keep people from voting more than once.

In response, many opposition leaders called for an election boycott.

Mr. Falcón ultimately decided to break with the rest of the opposition and run against Mr. Maduro.

Mr. Maduro attributes the country’s problems to what he calls an economic war waged against Venezuela by the United States. But most economists place the blame on poor government management, corruption and broken policies, like tight controls over foreign exchange, an overvalued currency and price controls on goods.

The government has responded to the crisis by providing people with boxes of food, including powdered milk and pasta, although most people say they arrive irregularly and do not contain nearly enough to sustain a household. The food boxes became both an incentive and a threat during the campaign, with many voters fearful that they could be cut off if they didn’t support the government.

At many polling places on Sunday, people cast their vote and then visited a so-called Red Spot — named for the ruling Socialist Party’s color — set up nearby.

At the Red Spot, voters presented the special identity card needed to receive the food boxes and other services and gave their names to workers who were keeping lists of those who had voted. Workers at the Red Spots said that there was no effort to pressure voters or link a pro-Maduro vote to future food deliveries.

Mr. Falcón accused the government of violating campaign rules through the use of these Red Spots.

A woman waiting outside a polling station in a Caracas slum, La Vega, said she worked for a government agency and feared losing her job if she did not vote and report afterward at the Red Spot. The woman, who would not give her name out of fear of reprisals, also said that she felt compelled to vote for Mr. Maduro, even though she did not support him, because she was sure that government computers tracked people’s votes — a common notion here.

One of the most striking aspects of the day was the large number of voters who appeared to have stayed away.

“I’m surprised by the low turnout,” said Loreima Henríquez, a National Electoral Council employee, who was overseeing a polling place in Dos Caminos, a middle-class area of Caracas. There were about 4,200 voters registered to cast ballots there, but by 1 p.m. only 313 had done so.

“We were aware of the calls to abstain from voting, but many fewer people than we expected are coming out,” Ms. Henríquez said.

Rosa Rodríguez, 50, a former Chávez and Maduro supporter, said that this time she voted for Mr. Falcón and volunteered to work as a poll watcher.

“People are not voting on both sides and I think this is a silent message that they’re giving the country today,” said Ms. Rodriguez, who lives in a working-class area in the center of Caracas. “They have to realize that the people are protesting in silence. For me that says it all.”

In a slum abutting the main airport outside Caracas, Marielis Idimas, a mother of two, said she had voted for Mr. Maduro despite the economic hardships — but she showed more resignation than enthusiasm.

“My life is not good,” she said, sitting at a small stand where she sold eggs for 60,000 bolívars each (the currency’s devaluation makes that only about 6 cents although it is a vast sum for poor Venezuelans). “But who lives comfortably now?”

Another slum resident, María García, 63, said that she had not voted because doing so would have been supporting a sham.

“I’m not going to be part of this,” Ms. García said. “I hate everything about this government and I don’t want anything to do with them.”

Patricia Torres contributed reporting.

The post Maduro Wins Venezuela Election Amid Widespread Disillusionment appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2IVwxpy via Today News

[takebackthedream]

Primary Day: Lessons for Democrats by Richard Eskow

Pundits should avoid, at all costs, the sin of “premature evaluation.” The May 7 primaries did not send a simple or unambiguous message. One thing remains clear, however: In November, the Democrats’ fate depends largely on turnout.

Dems have a good chance of retaking the House of Representatives this fall, but that’s by no means certain, and the Senate is more of a stretch. With Democratic support reportedly falling among millennials and turnout a lingering problem for voters of color, complacency may be the party’s biggest threat.

What other lessons can be drawn from May 7’s results?

Ohio

Richard Cordray, former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, defeated Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Was that a victory of the “establishment” over populism, as some pundits argued?

Not so fast. Kucinich’s positions on everything from economic justice to LGBTQ rights – positions that earned him the scorn of liberal lions at the time – have been vindicated by history. (A painful video of John Stewart mocking Kucinich on trans issues, uncovered by Adam Johnson, is Exhibit A.)  While many of his views have now become mainstream, Kucinich’s candidacy was always a long shot.

Cordray, for his part, is hardly a corporate Democrat. While he leans right on gun control, he ran with strong labor support and is a confirmed member of the Democratic Party’s Warren wing. “You demanded change,” Cordray told supporters, “and we heard you and we want the same.”

CNN’s Gregory Krieg was right when he wrote that Ohio progressives would be “waking on Wednesday as winners — yet again — no matter who celebrates on Tuesday night.” Cordray’s opponent is slightly favored to win in November, but the race is still very much in play.

Lesson: Cordray’s victory is a progressive win.

West Virginia

Democratic incumbent senator Joe Manchin won his primary race, as expected. But his left-progressive opponent, political novice Paula Jean Swearingen, had a strong showing. Swearingen won 30 percent of the primary vote, despite her lack of experience or name recognition and a near-blackout in media coverage.

Swearingen’s results should not be a surprise. Bernie Sanders decisively won the West Virginia primary in 2016, despite a strong environmental platform that targeted the coal industry.

Speaking of which: Republican voters rejected coal magnate and ex-convict Don Blankenship, who served time in prison for criminal negligence. That’s an unsurprising result; Blankenship’s greed, malfeasance, and fraud led to the deaths of 29 miners in the heart of coal country. Blankenship also used racist language during the campaign. His loss to Attorney General Patrick Morrissey deprived journalists of a juicy storyline – and Democrats of an easy win.

Republican turnout in West Virginia was up significantly from the party’s last off-year primary. That may be a sign of an increasingly energized Republican base, or may simply reflect the fact that this was a more hotly contested election.

Lesson: Progressives can win in red states, but they’ll need better exposure and a solid candidate to do it. It’s not clear what the rise in GOP turnout means, but Democrats should not assume they’ll have the edge on enthusiasm or voter participation in November.

Warning Signs, and Hopeful Ones

There’s a danger in reading too much into these primary results. Roughly 1.5 million people voted in the Ohio Democratic primary, while less than 300,000 people voted in West Virginia’s. By contrast, more than 83 million people voted in the 2014 election – and that was the lowest voter participation this country has seen since World War II.

Women continued to do especially well in Democratic primaries, which could help nudge Congress a little closer to gender parity (it’s a long way off). The presence of strong women candidates, including progressives like Indiana’s Liz Watson, could also help boost turnout.

What do other indicators say about Democrats’ chances in November? Democrats continue to outperform Republicans in generic congressional matchups, although recent polling suggests that their advantage has fallen sharply. While some analysts argue that this interpretation is inaccurate, one thing is certain: record sums of money will be spent between now and Election Day, in ways that could dramatically alter the political landscape.

Democrats should be concerned about the decline in voter participation among African Americans in 2016. The change was to be expected, given Obama’s absence from the 2016 ballot, but if that trend continues it could have devastating implications for the party. In another troubling sign, turnout remained low for Hispanic and Asian voters as well.

How can turnout be strengthened among voters of color? A recent Harvard-Harris poll showed that a majority of Democratic voters want the party to move left. Significantly, Hispanic and African-American voters were more likely to feel that way than white Democrats or Democrats as whole.

Dems should also be concerned about polls showing that millennials are drifting away from the party. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on April 30 shows millennial support for Democrats slipping 9 points over the last two years. They’re not moving to Republicans in large numbers, but many are drifting more toward either voting third party or not voting at all.

A Way Forward

One way to appeal to millennial voters would be to support tuition-free higher education and propose to cancel $1.5 trillion in student debt.

Student debt hurts African-American as well as white borrowers, along with their families and communities. A recent analysis published by the Levy Institute shows that student debt cancellation would also give the economy a major boost and create more than a million new jobs.

Democrats and their media allies should also focus much more of their attention on governors’ races than we’ve seen so far. 26 of the governors elected this year will have the power to accept or reject congressional district maps, which will be redrawn after the 2020 census. That could shape congressional power for the next ten years.

In a related development, Ohioans voted overwhelmingly on May 7 to end that state’s highly gerrymandered system and replace it with a bipartisan system. 75 percent of voters supported Issue 1, a ballot measure that will replace Ohio’s rigged district lines with a three-stage process designed to ensure that fairer voter representation in Ohio’s congressional delegation. As John Nichols writes in The Nation, “Ohioans have provided a model that grassroots activists and honest elected officials can advocate for at the state level.”

Three-quarters of Ohio’s swing-state voters supported a strong affirmation of democratic principle. Numbers like that suggest another promising road forward for Democrats. If they are willing to propose bold electoral reform, as well as new rules that “un-rig” the economy for middle-class voters, they’re more likely to turn opportunity into victory in November.

[usviraltrends-blog]

New Post has been published on https://usviraltrends.com/scientists-win-and-lose-in-texas-primary-contests-science/

Scientists win and lose in Texas primary contests | Science

By Jeffrey MervisMar. 7, 2018 , 1:45 PM

Yesterday’s Texas primary was the first test for scientists seeking seats this year in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the results were mixed.

On the plus side, Mary Wilson, a former Austin Community College mathematics professor turned minister, has advanced to a Democratic runoff in the 21st congressional district after a surprising first-place finish over Joseph Kopser, a scientifically trained entrepreneur. They will run head-to-head in a May runoff. On the minus side, Jason Westin, a clinical oncologist seeking a chance to represent the seventh congressional district in Houston, Texas, was knocked out of the race, running third in a crowded Democratic field. Retired geologist Jon Powell lost badly in his attempt to win the Democratic nomination for the 36th congressional district in eastern Texas.

The 2016 election has energized many scientists and engineers to participate for the first time in electoral politics. Almost all Democrats, the scientists say uniformly that they are running against the policies of President Donald Trump and his administration and are seeking to add a scientific element to policy debates. However, as political novices they have been forced to learn on the job about running for national office.

Wilson moves on

The 58-year-old Wilson, making her first bid for office, was the unexpected winner of the Democratic primary in a district that stretches from Austin to San Antonio. Although Kopser, a 20-year Army veteran with an engineering degree, outspent her by a 20-to-1 margin, Wilson won 31% of the vote to Kopser’s 29% in a four-person field. Neither candidate achieved a majority, however, so they will face off in a 22 May runoff.

“It feels a little surreal right now,” Wilson says. Ever the mathematician, she adds, “People have been telling me for weeks that they thought I would do well, but it was all anecdotal. I didn’t have data.”

Wilson, who leads the Church of the Savior in Cedar Park, Texas, plans to beef up what so far has been a shoestring campaign. “I’ll need to add staff, starting with a volunteer coordinator to handle all the offers of help pouring in,” she says. She’s also planning to pick the brains of environmental activist Derrick Crowe, a former Capitol Hill staffer who placed third in the race and immediately endorsed her.

Mary Wilson with Beto O’Rourke, Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, during a recent campaign stop in Austin.

Mary Wilson for Congress

“For almost a year, I have watched Mary Street Wilson run a tough tenacious campaign that defied all establishment expectation,” Crowe said. “She faced with grit both a deep fundraising disadvantage and a dismissive attitude from the establishment. Although I am disappointed to not make the runoff, it’s impossible not to be inspired by Mary’s campaign.”

Wilson says a two-person race will also mean a chance to flesh out positions on issues like immigration and energy policy. “With a large field, you only have time for soundbites,” she says. “In the runoff, instead of just saying we need to revamp immigration policy, I’ll want to provide specifics on what that would mean.”

Republicans, who enjoy a large advantage in registered voters in the mixed urban and rural district, will also hold a runoff. The winners will vie in November for the chance to succeed Representative Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House science committee who is retiring after 32 years in Congress.

Westin falls short

For Westin, last night’s results constitute the end of his campaign to represent the seventh congressional district. A faculty member at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Westin was endorsed by 314 Action, an organization that encourages and helps train scientists and engineers who want to run for office, and had made science and evidence-based policy a cornerstone of his first try for elective office. (314 Action has also endorsed Kopser.)

That message was resonating with voters, says environmental engineering professor Daniel Cohan at Rice University in Houston, who moderated a candidates’ forum on climate change in January. But Cohan thinks its impact was blunted by the publicity surrounding a rare attack on one of the candidates, Laura Moser, by the national Democrat party, which thinks she is too liberal to be elected in November.

The attack didn’t prevent Moser from running second to attorney Lizzie Fletcher, forcing a runoff in May. But Cohan says the resulting controversy “sucked all the oxygen out of the room” and distracted voters. “Given his background,” Cohan adds, “Jason would have been a leading voice on health care and adherence to evidence in debates over climate and energy policy.”

The winner of the May runoff will go up against Representative John Culberson (R–TX), the influential chairman of a panel that sets spending levels for NASA, the National Science Foundation, and several other science agencies. Culberson easily defeated one challenger last night, and is seeking his 10th 2-year term. However, the district voted narrowly for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, raising Democratic hopes of flipping the seat. 

[kim26chiu]

Is Mayor a Dead End Job?

Cory Booker, the mayor who successfully moved to higher office

We constantly hear that it’s the era of cities. Benjamin Barber wrote a book called If Mayors Ruled the World. Mayors are touted as pragmatic problem solvers who are taking on the challenges politicians at other levels of government are afraid to face.

One would think that if mayors were that much better than state or federal officials, then mayor would be a great stepping stone to higher office. However, that does not appear to be the case. Only three presidents had ever served as mayor: Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, and Calvin Coolidge.  Grover Cleveland, mayor of Buffalo, was the only one to helm a major city.

It’s similar for other offices. In 2012 a blogger looked at the members of the US Senate. Only four of them had been mayor immediately prior to running for office. (Two others had been county executives). Five others had served as mayor, but held intermediate office before being selected to Senate. That’s less than 10% mayors.

It’s the same with governors. Here’s what the Washington Post had to say about that:

The jump from chief executive of a town to of the state is rare.  Five states are headed by former mayors. Two, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley were mayors of their state’s largest city, Denver and Baltimore, respectively.  Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) and Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) were mayors of their state’s third largest cities, Stamford, and Knoxville. Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) is the odd man out, having been mayor of a smaller city: Waterville, population 15,855.

Some young, ambitious politicians have jumped into the local arena, possibly inspired by Cory Booker, who parlayed his tenure as mayor into a place in the Senate. But it hasn’t necessarily worked for them yet in terms of getting into higher office.

One such young mayor who has gotten huge attention is Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana. Politico recently ran a flattering profile of him, saying that “Pete Buttigieg could be the Democrats’ savior—if he can only find his way out of South Bend.” Mayor Pete as he’s known is 36, went to Harvard, was a Rhodes Scholar, did a stint at McKinsey, served in Afghanistan with the Naval Reserves (intelligence), speaks several languages, etc. I’ve never heard a bad word about him. But it’s not obvious how he moves up. As Politico puts it:

There is one glaring problem: The routes to higher office that are available to Buttigieg, as a progressive hailing from a state trending in the opposite direction, are winding and pockmarked. He could dither in Congress, if he could win a seat at all in his Republican-leaning home district. He could risk his political hide running statewide in Indiana, even though Trump bested Hillary Clinton there by 19 points. Maybe Buttigieg angles for a Cabinet post in the next Democratic administration? That’s three years away, at minimum. Last winter, he sought to lead the Democratic National Committee, earning endorsements from five former party chairs, but he ultimately ceded to contenders with higher name recognition.

A bitter irony is at play here: At a moment when the faces of the Democratic Party are 67-year-old Chuck Schumer and 77-year-old Nancy Pelosi, when so many novice Democrats are banging at the gate, spurred into action by powerful social currents and opposition to the president, one of the party’s most talented young politicians has nowhere to go.

Indiana is a red state and mayor hasn’t generally been a great route to higher office. Two Indianapolis mayors after Richard Lugar ran for statewide office and lost. But the pattern is clearly more widespread.

Looking around, you hear about lots of people who’ve acquired the monicker “Mayor for Life,” but not nearly as many former mayors who moved up to higher office at all, much less proven to be dynamos there.

What accounts for this? I don’t know. Maybe local politics is seen as small ball. Maybe the political skills that work well at the local level (say, retail politics) don’t scale. Maybe it’s because cities are generally dominated completely by Democrats, and mayors have no experience in campaigning with a more contested electorate. Maybe a lot of mayors simply don’t want to move up. For whatever reason, being a mayor appears to be more likely a terminal position than a stepping stone to bigger things.

from Aaron M. Renn http://www.urbanophile.com/2018/03/07/is-mayor-a-dead-end-job/