These days, its rather difficult to miss the mostly noisy, rarely insightful election time debates in India (specially in the 7.5 minute “strategy” break during IPL matches). Couple of days ago, I heard a new phrase: “Political Entrepreneur”. The term was used in a rather condenscending, almost derogatory manner and never defined. Though I think the term was used to describe politicians who have carved out new vote bases on the basis of caste, region; or formed new caste alliances; often without the real possibility of winning too many seats, but enough to gain some nuisance value by playing a spoiler to somebody else’s chances. The one thing that is conspicuously absent from the description is ideology (more on that later…)

From what I recall out of my strategy classes, the word entrepreneurship and consequently entrepreneur had some implied connotations:

• Somebody who identified new customer needs; or an “untapped” consumer segment
• Somebody who found a new way of segmenting existing customers on the basis of price points, specific quality attributes etc.
• Somebody who devised a new technology and/ or a cost effective way of meeting an existing need

It is interesting to look at “political entrepreneurship” in this light. There are leaders and parties who are building vote banks based on hitherto unrepresented and/or repressed castes/ communities (case in point: Mayawati), parties which are building alliances to form numerically significant vote banks (Samajwadi Party with the Muslim – Yadav combine), parties which are identifying (so as to speak) new needs (those for statehood (Telangana, for instance). There is also the more interesting variety (though a rather old one) - the equivalent of coming up with a new technology – Leaders who (at least aspire to) use proven expertise in a different profession or popular appeal due to non political reasons as a lever to gain votes (the Navjot Sidhus and Govindas of the world). Finally, there are the ones who offer a mix -  a Chiranjeevi who blends a “mega star” status with trying to form a caste base (the generally unrepresented Kapu caste with a 19% population in Andhra Pradesh) which is numerically significant.

Therefore, some of the regional parties routinely criticized by urban arm-chair analysts might actually be intelligently identifying and serving neglected social voices. Why is this different from the more “glorified” entrepreneurship in the conventional, business sense of the word? In business, maximizing profit (within acceptable limits) is an accepted objective. One can’t say the same about politics – at least a pretence to a larger goal, a greater good is desired. One can’t be too blatant about their “real objectives”. Two, in products and services, customer needs are met (at least perceptually) whereas in politics, an intent to be able to meet needs has to be conveyed.  (I ask for votes before I deliver what I promise, rather than making profits after providing a good product/ service).  So, there is an entire ex ante versus ex post issue. Three, political demands are often exclusionary; what one group gets is denied to another or taken from another, automatically creating adversaries (reservations for instance). Finally, the leaders themselves – often looked upon as self-serving, perceived to be corrupt and power hungry.

One can moralize and pontificate about the rights and wrongs of political entrepreneurship, but its an interesting way to look at and analyze things.. Any thoughts?

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Related posts:

1. Political Parties should continue Online Campaigns!
2. Why does India need a strong BJP?
3. Advertising, at its very best!
4. Elections need technology revolution
5. Billions of Entrepreneurs in India?