The collective reaction work of Opposition events to the BJP’s current unity meeting election victories — and the templates consequential prospect of India coming into a technology of 1-birthday celebration dominance — is based on an out of date framework.
When they ought to have considered a wider alliance, the Opposition events were indulging in a sport of oneupmanship with each other. BSP leader Mayawati had mooted a suggestion of a grand alliance for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections without clarifying why she had earlier grew to become down suggestions for a Bihar-type maha Gath Bandhan.
Dream on, Lilliputians
Samajwadi Party’s Akhilesh Yadav had replied definitely to her overture without resolving the struggle inside his family and birthday celebration. Mayawati’s announcement coincided together with her appointing her brother Anand Kumar as BSP up whilst Akhilesh Yadav’s willingness to smoke the peace pipe with Mayawati became censured by his father Mulayam Singh Yadav.
These trends — even as they have got did not materialize into anything sizeable — do now not do fading reputations any good. Unmistakably, Mayawati is unwilling to allow internal-birthday celebration democracy and Yadav remains dependent on his father for the guide from essential groups.
The are basing their method on an outdated mathematical good judgment whilst new political realities have altered the fundamentals of electoral equations.
Writing on the Wall
Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi’s reach-out to Nationalist Congress Party president Sharad Pawar earlier than the effects indicated that he has realized the writing at the wall. The alacrity with which Lalu Prasad Yadav, too, pitched for an anti-BJP front gave out the same message. Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar’s now the not-so-lukewarm response to any grand alliance factors to the expertise in Opposition ranks that the wind is blowing in the BJP’s favor even in states in which the saffron party was routed in the not-so-distant past.
At the BJP National Executive Meet in Bhubaneshwar in advance this month, birthday party president Amit Shah declared that after ousting the Congress from several states, it became now time to goal regional parties too. This has certainly set the cat among the pigeons.
The statement that it’s miles now the right time to purpose triumphing each election — from panchayat to Parliament — is a sign to celebration cadre to journey the momentum.
Hereafter, no birthday party can continue to be complacent in its pocket borough when you consider that a determined BJP
is at the doorstep in nearly each country. The BJP is aiming to reflect India’s political characteristics between 1950-1967 when there was a little mission to Congress supremacy in all elections.
Because the party is the ‘new’ Congress, Opposition events reason that the BJP dominance can be countered by means of forging alliances or making seat changes in elections. Such reasoning, however, is the end result of a faulty studying of the Uttar Pradesh results and based on the faulty notion that the template of the successful strategic alliance between the SP and the BSP in 1993 can be replicated.
In those elections, held in the wake of the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the alliance between Mulayam Singh Yadav and Kanshi Ram succeeded because the department of the anti-BJP votes become prevented. To the BJP’s 177 seats with a vote proportion of 33.3 in keeping with cent, the SP-BSP integrate secured 176 seats with 29.06 in line with cent vote proportion. In the previous polls in 1991, the BSP and SP (still part of the Janata Dal) had no alliance, however, the combined vote share became 28.28 in keeping with cent, justifying the decision to pool sources in 1993.
Mayawati and Akhilesh Yadav are banking on the equal common sense now to make a case for an anti-BJP front comprising the SP, the BSP, and the Congress. In the UP assembly polls, the vote shares of the three events had been 21.8 according to the cent, 22.2 consistent with the cent and 6.2 per cent, respectively. Compared to the BJP-plus alliance’s share of 41.4 according to the cent, the 3 Opposition events secured 50.2 in line with cent, lending weight to the rivalry that a grand alliance is the simplest manner to prevent BJP.
Figures from the 2014 Lok Sabha polls buttresses the identical reasoning: the BJP’s vote share of 42.Sixty-five consistent with scent changed into substantially much less than forty-nine.65 in keeping with cent collectively secured via the 3 parties. Bihar’s story reinforces the case for an anti-BJP front.
In 2014, the BJP alliance gained 31 seats with around 37 according to cent votes, whilst its 3 principal adversaries that shaped the maha Gath Bandhan in 2015, received simplest eight seats, but the collective vote share turned into almost 47 consistent with the cent. But, within the assembly polls, the grand alliance swept the country with 42 according to a cent.
However, neither can this system be replicated in other states, especially UP, nor can the method be repeated with same effectiveness in Bihar. In 1993, the SP-BSP saved the BJP at bay by means of pooling vote banks. Those have been early days after Mandalisation had empowered backward groups, and social antagonism between dominant groups and different sub-castes among underprivileged sections was yet to surface.
In these intervening years, as UP’s verdict illustrates, the BJP’s social engineering has compelled a cleft within the different backward lessons (OBCs) and Dalits. This now made a social % between the principal supporters of the SP, the BSP, and the Congress – Yadavs, Jatavs, and Muslims respectively – difficult.
Unity amongst on-BJP events stands a danger if it’s far on the basis of shared political commons:
brief- and mid-time period electoral and legislative objectives coupled with long-term ideological purpose. Collectives, pushed solely via opposing the BJP, will advantage the saffron party because the latter’s ideological coherence can be unmatched and the opposition may be painted as opportunistic.
The project for the Opposition events isn’t always numerical, but programmatic and ideological. Old templates will not paintings.
Strategy more often than not feels like work, rather than true execution. Sometimes it feels like rework when we keep redesigning it. Other times it feels like guesswork, implementing without really knowing if it’s working. And then there are times when it’s just plain hard work to get anything to happen. What we want is smooth execution to take the place of the work.
When strategy execution is smooth, people find it far easier to get engaged in it, over and above their ‘real work’. And their engagement is fundamental to the strategy becoming reality.
Making strategy execution smooth means understanding a very basic premise, that the interplay of goals and measures is fundamentally important. And it’s importance doesn’t just matter at the end of our strategy cycle; it matters at the start, and at every step along the way.
If we don’t work the interplay of goals and measures right, we end up making strategy all about work.
If you have a good strategy, but you have poor measures, you’re doing GUESSWORK. Oops.
The strategy can be well thought through, well articulated, and ready for action. But every strategy is a collection of hypotheses. Without good measures, we can’t test those hypotheses and find out what really works and what doesn’t. So all our investment and activity is based on guesswork.
We can’t see results, so it’s not engaging.
If you have good measures, but you have the poor strategy, you’re doing REWORK. Bummer.
Measures can seem very useful when they are clearly quantitative and you have the data to track them over time. But if each measure doesn’t have a crisp alignment to a specific goal, they’re a waste. Too often goals are written poorly, or they are too much about business-as-usual, so we end up constantly reworking the strategy because it’s just not moving us forward.
We can’t see meaningful progress, so it’s not engaging.
If you have a poor strategy, and you have poor measures, you’re doing HARD WORK. Ugh.
A set of vague and uninspiring goals, coupled with a set of lame measures, will mean one of two things will happen. Either everyone is too confused to have any clue what the strategy is about, so nothing improves. Or everyone is running around like headless chooks, trying to improve anything and everything. And both are just plain hard work.
We can’t see the end in sight, so it’s not engaging.
If you have a good strategy, and you have good measures, you’re doing EXECUTION. Yay!
Good strategy means we see a clear vision of how the important things can be better and stay inspired and focused. Good measures mean we can anchor that vision into sensory reality, and stay motivated by learning, progress, and results.
That’s what strategy execution is about.
Which category is the most common one in your organization, for the interplay between strategy and measures? Can you see the symptoms of this, in how people treat strategy execution?