There is an interesting overseas, and contemporaneous, example that should shed some light on the political revolution that Bernie talks about. The example is that of Arvind Kejriwal, who is an Indian politician that you will likely hear about in a few years. His story can be broken down into 3 acts.
Act 1: There is a need for a revolution
India is a notoriously corrupt country, with Transparency International giving it a rank of 76/168 (USA is 16/168) where crony capitalism thrives (On the World Bank Groups “ease of doing business index”, India is 130/168 and the USA is 7/168) and where inequality reins with extreme poverty (GINI index of 33.9, along with a HDI rank of 135/168). India is also a thriving democracy. All of these things combine into the one obvious conclusion: one of several established parties compete on the best way to manipulate elections using money and muscle-power.
Elections in India are very expensive ~ the last elections in India were said to have cost about $5B, with almost all of this money coming from from unverified sources. Thus, it is likely that most of the money is actually “black money” that is being invested/laundered into politics. This is a “business model of politics that is fraud” example, wherein the criminals/business class fund the politicians with black money and/or muscle power, the politician wins election, and then implements policies that are favorable to their benefactors. The voters are made to comply with little nuggets, a last minute infusion of liquor, and the right amount of muscle power.
In this environment, it is safe to assume that people are hungry for a Bernie Sanders type figure who can lead a mass movement towards a more honest society, and a less corrupt government.
Enter Arvind Kejriwal.
Kejriwal was educated as an engineer at one of India’s elite schools. He was also trained as a bureaucrat in India’s civil service, but he quit that job (and the possibility of a very cushy life) to start a non-profit organization that promoted the rights of very poor people. Along the way, he also volunteered for Mother Teresa; and has led a very simple lifestyle. In short, he is a very smart guy who is good at organizing, and whose heart is in the right place. All of this sounds very much like Bernie Sanders ~ except Kejriwal was never part of the establishment.
From 2011-2012, he led a popular mass movement for Constitutional reforms that would create a 4th branch of government that could curb corruption. His demands were modeled after other states (such as Singapore) where this 4th branch had been shown to be effective. His “revolution” brought out millions of people on the streets ~ the oligarchy trembled for a while. But then it fizzled out, and the politicians told him that they were not obliged to listen because he could never win an election.
And so in 2012, he founded a new party, with the goal of pushing through anti-corruption measures. And since the party was all about anti-corruption, it would be completely transparent itself. It would list all it’s donations on it’s website in real time ~ thereby eliminating the possibility of being funded by black money. And it was going to hire “honest” and “well qualified” candidates who would win, and teach the other parties how politics is supposed to be done. It’s platform would be to serve the people via a grassroots level democracy that would also empower the people, thereby bringing in millions of new people into the electoral system.
In short, Kejriwal was looking for a revolution… his revolution was very clearly defined.
His first real test came during elections for the state assembly in Delhi, where his party was based. Against all expectations, his party managed to win 28 out of 70 seats, with the other 42 seats being divided between the two existing major parties.
And this is where his revolution ran into some trouble.
Kejriwal was pressured into forming a “minority government”, but without the majority support in the house, he was not able to push through any laws or changes that he favored. His pet anti-corruption measure was shot down without consideration. He resigned in frustration in 49 days ~ while his short tenure was marked by a reduction in corruption levels, but also with chaos and confrontation.
I am a big fan of Dan Kahneman, who introduced the concept of loss aversion. Loss aversion can help you understand most voting preferences. I would much rather not lose the old/oily shirt I have on my back, as opposed to trying to gain a brand new designer shirt that I currently do not have. As voters, we think the same way ~ I would much rather live with the existing stability, and the established order, as opposed to risking a “loss” (in the form of instability and deadlock) that may also give me a gain (in the form of a less corrupt political system.) If I can get a less corrupt political order without losing/risking anything in the process, then I am all for it ~ but if I am going to risk/lose the stability that we currently have, then I dont want the less corrupt political system.
Word cloud for the revolutionary: Arvind Kejriwal source: bbc news
Word cloud for eventual winner: Narendra Modi source: bbc news
This is basic human psychology that Arvind Kejriwal did not understand. He thought he would be rewarded for his tenure, for his principled resignation when his anti-corruption measures were blocked ~ and that he would have a nationwide role following the elections of 2013. His party put up 434 candidates for the Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) elections in 2013. They won 4, and lost most of the remaining 430 by embarrassing margins. Kejriwal himself lost to Narendra Modi, who went on to become Prime Minister. Instead of being rewarded for sticking to his principles, Kejriwal was punished for the chaos and confrontation. The people simply did not want to risk stability for the sake of reduced corruption.
With that in mind, let us look at what Modi and Kejriwal were saying to the public. Modi’s emphasis was on development, on jobs, on security, as evident by his word cloud above. Kejriwal’s emphasis was on a revolution ~ and he was a single issue candidate. The single issue revolution was decidedly unpopular, compared to development and jobs, and specially so when the people were reminded that the revolution also entailed chaos and dysfunction.
Act 2: The revolutionary is knocked down, and becomes an incrementalist.
With his defeat most observers assumed that Arvind Kejriwal would fade from public view, and his party would disband. Political parties need patronage ~ absent that, followers tend to drift away. It was generally assumed that Kejriwal was finished. Worse ~ he had become a laughingstock, and a staple for the comedians.
But Kejriwal learnt from his mistakes. He went back to the people of Delhi. The elections for the Delhi state assembly were due in the near future. To prepare for this, he revamped his organization to have a dialogue with the people. In essence, he asked them: what is it that you want, and what are your priorities ? He asked this question via a series of carefully organized meetings at the very local level. The answers were very surprising. For instance, in one of the poorest neighborhoods with very low literacy levels, the people wanted a library (where their kids could have a safe place to study). In all cases, the people wanted decidedly small bore stuff, and were very pleased to tell him that ~ noone else had ever asked them that question before. They did want reduced corruption, and to remove money from politics, but they had decidedly small bore needs first; and had not been impressed by his previous talk of revolution at the cost of those small bore needs.
Kejriwal is young, and does not appear to be an ideologue. So he incorporated all of those into his plank. He also apologized for having resigned previously, and promised that he would never resign again.
The result ~ when the Delhi assembly elections were held, he managed to win a landslide 67 out of 70 seats. Yep...67 out of 70. There is no typo or missing decimal places.
The revolutionary had mellowed down, listened to the people, and become an incrementalist. And his revolution appears to be succeeding as a result.
Act 3: Progressive governance is the revolution.
This is where it gets tricky, and history is still being written. Kejriwal was sworn as Chief Minister of Delhi in Febuary 2015. By all accounts, he remains popular. Whether his revolution will spread in India will depend on how well he governs Delhi. And that remains to be seen. But he appears to be doing fairly well, with some decidedly popular and progressive initiatives. Some of them appear to be role models for implementation at other places.
Participatory democracy. His government is trying to increase citizen involvement in the governing process. As part of this, he organizes neighbourhood meetings, whereby all residents who show up are given the opportunity to list the projects that they would like to see undertaken. At the end of the meeting, the residents are asked to vote on those projects. All projects that are within the available resources (a fraction of the state budget is reserved for such projects) are undertaken by the goverment. Here is one video of Kejriwal at one such meeting.
Mohalla clinics His government increased the budgetary allocations for education and health by significant amounts (>100% increase for education, 40% for health). Health care in India is run on a cash for service model ~ if you dont have the money, then you are out of luck. A fairly common scenario in old Bollywood movies used to be a young lad who is forced to steal, or rob, because he needs the money to pay for his mothers lifesaving operation. There is no government provided health care, or health insurance. In this environment, Kejriwal’s government opened up 50 free “Mohalla Clinics” where anyone can walk in, get diagnosed with state of art equipment, and walk out with most necessary medications… all for free. From the washingtonpost
Rupandeep Kaur, 20 weeks pregnant, arrived at a medical clinic looking fatigued and ready to collapse. After being asked her name and address, she was taken to see a physician who reviewed her medical history, asked several questions, and ordered a series of tests including blood and urine. These tests revealed that her fetus was healthy but Kaur had dangerously low hemoglobin and blood pressure levels. The physician, Alka Choudhry, ordered an ambulance to take her to a nearby hospital.
All of this, including the medical tests, happened in 15 minutes at the Peeragarhi Relief Camp in New Delhi, India. The entire process was automated — from check-in, to retrieval of medical records, to testing and analysis and ambulance dispatch. The hospital also received Kaur’s medical records electronically. There was no paperwork filled out, no bills sent to the patient or insurance company, no delay of any kind. Yes, it was all free.
The hospital treated Kaur for mineral and protein deficiencies and released her the same day. Had she not received timely treatment, she may have had a miscarriage or lost her life.
This was more efficient and advanced than any clinic I have seen in the West. And Kaur wasn’t the only patient, there were at least a dozen other people who received free medical care and prescriptions in the one hour that I spent at Peeragrahi in early March.
Education Kejriwal's government has also laid an ambitious roadmap for the government run schools in India. In India, government run schools are underfunded. So all those who can afford to send their kids to private schools. In turn, this reduces the number of stakeholders in the government run schools, so it gets underfunded even more. The resultant societal problems are many ~ rich kids can spend their formative years without ever being exposed to anyone outside of their socially stratified environment, which results in those kids having a skewered worldview, and reduced productivities as adults. To break this cycle, Kejriwal’s government has vowed to invest in education until the rich parents prefer the government run schools over the private schools.
Public transport A developed country is one in which the rich use public transportation, and not one in which the poor drive cars. This goal is concomitant with reducing pollution levels, and easing the burden on limited public resources (the space available for roads, parking spots etc.). Delhi happens to be one of the most polluted cities in the world ~ President Obama spent 3 days in Delhi last year, and this time spent there is said to have reduced his lifespan by 6 hours. To solve this issue, Kejriwal’s government is trying to force through road rationing measures.
Lessons for Progressives
In the narrative above, you may be able to discern several lessons for Bernie Sanders, and all those who were supporting him. I have a small list, and you can perhaps add to it.
-
The revolution is nice, but… As a voter, I have small bore needs that I want addressed first. I may want more funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I may want immigration reform, or progress on gun control. I may want enhanced federal support for minority owned small businesses. Show me that you understand my needs, and that you have plans to address them, and I will support your revolution. Tell me that the revolution comes first, and I am voting for the other guy.
-
If you are not going to listen, then… I am not impressed by all the rhetoric on class warfare. If I am trying to tell you what my needs are and your response is “class warfare”, or “money in politics”, or “wall street”, then I am going to assume that you are not interested in listening to my small bore needs.
Let us look at the two in more detail
What Bernie’s supporters think of Bernie Sanders
First, this is what Bernie Sanders’ supporters hear, when they listen to him talk. This word cloud is very similar to that of Kejriwal ~ noone ever doubted Kejriwal’s honesty. Bernie Sanders, as per his supporters, is very honest, very real, an independent, and 100% progressive.
What the rest of America thinks of Bernie Sanders
The problem for Bernie Sanders is that while the rest of America agrees that he is honest and independent, they also think he is a socialist, or a communist. In 2013, Kejriwal was seen as an anarchist, and a socialist/communist. In both cases, the non-supporter think that the candidate is not qualified to govern.
What America thinks of Hillary Clinton (supporters on the left, critics on right)
By contrast, this is what America thinks of Hillary Clinton. Her supporters think she is smart, strong, intelligent, and experienced. The rest of American thinks she is a liar, (in various forms), and a liberal. This mirrors what India thought of Prime Minister Modi in 2013. The crucial factor that is common to them both ~ they are both seen as being capable of governing by both the critics and the supporter.
In my opinion, it is very hard for any politician to listen without experiencing a large electoral setback first. Most politicians who enter politics for idealistic reasons start off as an ideologue ~ they have faith in a particular ideology that will solve all problems. To get beyond this ideology, they have to suffer one electoral drubbing (and some dont get it even after that). Bill Clinton experienced an electoral setback very early in his career that seemed to have this effect on him. Certainly, Hillary Clinton in 2008 was an example. Barack Obama was an exception ~ but his life experience is very unique. Bernie’s problem is that he has been winning reelections in Vermont with impressive margins...without ever having to doubt his ideology.
3. Show me that you have experience in governance. The final point is that as a voter, I would like someone who has experience in governance. I want a progressive ~ someone who will invest in people, and believes in the common good. But I want that progressive to get experience in governance first. I want him/her to figure out how to get the small bore stuff done, and to understand the process of building a consensus for change. In the context of US elections, I would like candidates who have experience running a state, and have demonstrated that they can push through a progressive agenda at the statehouse. Show me that you have pushed through an advancement in the public education or health budgets at the state level, and that this enhancement resulted in some quantifiable gain for the public, and I will put all my support behind you. None of the 2016 candidates are qualified on that score, so we had to choose one imperfect one over the other.
Bernie Sanders is obviously too old to go back to Vermont and run for governor. But I am confident that amongst his supporters, many are now contemplating a run for the Mayor’s office. Or perhaps he/she wants to be a member of the school board. Hopefully, some of them will go onto run for Governor, and try to push through a progressive agenda at the state level.
