The attributes of the next PM - An Awkward Corner

The attributes of the next PM

Niranjan Rajadhyaksha - Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:40 PM

Who will lead India?

Two days before the actual results of the Lok Sabha elections are made public, it is clear that the race is going to be a very close one.

The numbers will decide who will be the next PM.

But who should be the next PM? That is an entirely different question and depends on what each Indian seeks in his new national leader.

One way to put things in perspective is to use a tool that management consultants have unleashed on an unsuspecting world --- the 2X2 matrix.

 Here, I have tried to position various national leaders according to where they stand in terms of two parameters --- their commitment to economic freedom and their commitment to political freedom.

 


 

This requires some explanation. There is no rigorous way to measure these attributes. So what we have here are subjective approximations.

A commitment to economic freedom would measure the extent to which the leader believes in free markets, more global trade, business-friendly policies etc.

A commitment to political freedom would measure his or her loyalty to constitutional methods, equal treatment of all citizens when governing, tolerance of dissent etc.

This is how the political leadership spectrum looks like to me.

Which quadrant do you think India’s next PM should ideally be in? Should some leaders be moved around? Comments are welcome.

Share this post: email it! | del.icio.us! | digg it! | newsVine!
Tagged in: , , , , , , , , , , ,
8 Comment

From Pearls

May 14, 2009 4:03 PM
Manmohan Singh would be the ideal choice according to this quadrant. Why does Sonia Gandhi score so low in economic freedom? Just wondering

From amit sinha

May 14, 2009 4:34 PM
A commitment to political freedom would measure his or her loyalty to constitutional methods, equal treatment of all citizens when governing, tolerance of dissent etc. Seriously, how does prakash karat (i am no fan of his) score the lowest on this parameter? similarly, i can't fathom out why nitish is so low on economic freedom. he did a singular unprecedented thing, he didn't just amend the draconian apmc act(many states haven't yet amended it), he actually scrapped it altogether.

From Nitin

May 15, 2009 8:48 AM
Niranjan, Nice chart. As you point out, it is subjective. And I disagree with the placement of MMS so high in that quadrant. His commitment to economic freedom is lower. Where should our next PM be? Well, if it were possible, in the extreme north-eastern end of the chart.

From Vipin

May 15, 2009 2:27 PM
nice blogs..

From N.Ramagopal

May 19, 2009 11:25 PM
Your matrix set me wondering in which quadrant some eminent economists can be placed. If we replace "commitment to political freedom" with "commitment to democracy", I think we have 1) Peter Bauer in the north-west quadrant; 2) Joan Robinson in the South-West quadrant; 3) Milton Friedman in the north east quadrant; and 4) Galbraith in the south-west qaudrant.

From Meera Gargi

May 21, 2009 10:59 PM
The matrix is an excellent way to organise our thinking on policy issues and, as Ramagopal suggests, a simple but useful pedagogical tool to teach economic thought. But I wonder why he places Joan Robinson in the quadrant indicating low commitment to markets and to democracy. While she advocated extensive state intervention I wonder what makes Ramagopal to question her commitment to democracy. And Friedman is placed in the "high commitment to economic freedom and democracy" quadrant! Has Ramagopal forgotten his admiration for a ruthless dictator like Pinochet?

From Gaurav Parashar

June 4, 2009 4:42 PM
Great way of analyzing! Am impressed! But we should take a k-space instead of just the two parameters of economic freedom and political freedom? Important things like is he a leader or a follower? He can think brilliant or do things on the floor brilliantly?

From Minnie

October 10, 2009 4:01 AM
Very good idea that you did not use any of the local Marathi supremacists as an ideal National Indian leader since we now know their spectacular cancel out and rejection. You did however, include one Marathi who unfortunately has all the non ideal hallmarks of grasping, nepotism, accumulation of properties and wealth for self and family. The president of India too has many of the hallmarks of dynastic rule, grasping and nepotism. The religious chauvinist who heads your list has other issues that would act as a deterrent. I wonder how come you did not include a corruption, graft and nepotism factor as a deterrent. Or general loathsomeness. Or virulent antipathy generation index. It's no wonder that certain entities got a reject letter in the polls, maybe that could have been anticipated by a better scoring system.

POST YOUR COMMENT

:
(required)
 
Email Address
(required)
   
(optional)
(HTML not allowed)