Friday, July 13, 2018

In India, we litter like this only

Having a rich culture is a boon, and a rare one. There are fewer countries, each time you count them, that seek to preserve theirs in all its glory. A deeper look into most of these cultures can convert this boon into a bane that parades right under our noses. This comparison can be simplistically defined as a western / western whitewash vs. a century / millennia-old preservation. It can also be classified science / reason/ logic heavy vs. a collection of arbitrary habits that add colour to the variety of ways people live. They made sense in a setting that has been preserved from a long time ago, that sometimes can just be cute and antiquated today, and it may or may not be realistically holding out as a sensible lifestyle against the tide of change.

If the latter is your thing, what you are is blindfolded. You are, thereby, blind to everything except those things that define your cultural 'fold'. Just not your eyes, but your mind too. The blindfold over your mind keeps it working only within the same fold, and shuts it to everything outside of that. As the world grows and changes, the former engages with them, the latter maintain a status quo. And if they must engage still, the status quo leads them behave like a monkey does in outer space—just that the analogy is a mismatch with what and where you actually are. You are not a monkey and you are not in outer space, but just woefully ignorant of the world that starts 0.00000000 mm away from where you stand, live and breathe. You just behave that way for an insane reason that, if anyone, only you can explain, and even that is positively unlikely. The word for this is: mindless. Write that down. Memorize it. 

In India, the same word has a different expression: "we are like this only". That roughly translates into being mindless, and all its many deeper levels. Just like how that monkey in outer space behaves, we seem have no problem being so. One amazing way we do show it is how we easily litter, like every moment is our last one on Earth and we'll never get to do it again—like it's uncultural to use dustbins (or other facilities) in public places.

We let go of our trash practically anywhere. And I mean that, literally. Pristine lakes, majestic tourist hotspots, train tracks, street corners, footpaths, drains... we spare no place that's garbage-free to litter it. We may as well put a notice board each time we do that with our selective value system stated: keep your own house clean and everything outside it as dirty. India shouldn't fear a zombie apocalypse because one is already here and evolving with the mindless vigor we do this with. All that we need is a prominent, visible street corner or just a train or car window to use as a perfectly legitimate bin.

We're so used to this that it's accepted primary behaviour. Swach Bharat Abhiyans, and plans make Singapores in India is all high talk that flies high above zombie minds. If you're reading this, and analyzing even a little, remember you don't have to be one. You actually have the ability to understand that littering stops when we individually stop littering. And, no, it isn't just illiterates. It's also the well-read literates. They selectively choose to disperse their intelligence when it comes to big-time jobs and cars (and other generalisations). (Note: mindlessness) 

Let's understand the ill here.

Littering i.e. throwing away any form of waste in a dustbin, or any other designated place that is not designed for it.

Why is it a problem?

1) None of us want our public spaces to be garbage dumps.
2) They aren't good for general health and stink.
3) Cows and dogs eat from what is meant to decompose or be better disposed of which includes plastic.
4) If you needed all/one/some/some more of the above reasons, you must belong to species that can't smell, see and think.

I turns out most of India belongs to 4) at least when it comes to littering. If it isn't with the inability to see or smell, it has to do with not being able to think. That can easily be disproved by fighting one of the stupider things their culture favours, and you'll see the brain jump in to action in one nanosecond to defend it. Since we've eliminated the zombie theory, the only one we have left is the mindless one. If you were to ask them why they litter as much, they'd probably do what that monkey in space is likely to do—scratch their head and look at you absolutely cluelessly, to your infuriation. To those who won't do that, there is still self-defeating hope, but hope nonetheless.  

There are a number of reasons that can be their excuses.

1) There are no bins to use and it's impossible for you to carry your trash all the time till you find one.
(Government/administration has some of the responsibility too, you know.)
Litterer: 1 - Non-litterer: 0

2) The trash bins are overflowing and it'll fall on to the road anyway.
(Granted. Motivation actually helps the worst of us do what we do.)
Litterer: 2 - Non-litterer: 0

3) There is no proper garbage processing system by which it won't go to a landfill.
(That's not excuse enough. Throw it where it's supposed to be thrown and then blame the government.)
Litterer: 2 - Non-litterer: 1

4) If I'm the only one doing it, I won't really be making a difference.
(a) The idea is not to "make a difference" but to be sensible. b) Would you litter your  own house like this? c) That's how everything starts. d) Does it really cost you that much? e) Do you like littered streets?)
Litterer: 2 - Non-litterer: 2

5) This is India. We are like this only.
(Then you deserve to live in filth like this only. Listen to yourself think, if you do.)
Litterer: 2 - Non-litterer: 3

The non-litterer wins by a slim margin, but by a very important point, but with no value in a "we are like this only" world. We've debilitated our senses when it comes to disposing of anything that belongs to the right bin, in a bin (or any other alternative). If most Indians are idiots, how it takes them precisely one millisecond to use every square inch around them as a possible garbage dump is the biggest proof of that. God bless India.

So what do we do, apart from just drives that clean up after everyone else? As noble as that sounds, it doesn't address anything for less than 5 minutes tops. We forget that we wouldn't have to clean up after if we didn't litter in the first place, and if we continue to mindlessly litter, we'll never be able to clean up after enough.

Sarcasm apart, there are things you could do to start with:

Don't put your garbage out on the street: Get/ask the authorities to put a proper garbage bin for you it in, or put one there yourself. Crowd or neighborhood sourcing for this also is a good idea. There are also private organizations you can send your non-biodegradeable waste too. Compost the organic stuff in compost boxes and plant plants in them or give them to people who do (or find a way to get it to farmers).

Recycle & Reuse: Don't get to a point where you need to throw away so much. Use reusables. More glass and less plastic. If you have throw away, get cardboard or paper packaged consumer products which are biodegradeable.

Tell me other points that can be added here.

Ideally, your single action won't keep the whole world spic and span, but you could do your bit and keep your fingers crossed. If you are reading this, and processing it, you can think and keep that next piece of litter to the right dustbin alone.

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Let the games begin!

Career hazards are a part of every job. A lot of times, they make it worth the risk. If you manage to cross over, it's certainly worth it, and it makes trying (without succeeding) worth the effort. Politics, too, is a career. With the shuffle of people back and forth once they get into inner circles, it certainly isn't a vocation they just end up finding themselves lucky to do. It has prep and reward involved—all which any politician should feel guilty about as long they are doing their jobs.

And like every organisation and industry, there is competition, and not just the healthy type. Since the chances of them having a honourable merit-based in-organisation hierarchy in politics is low in India, there is  confrontation, which has now become the standard. It's like all politicians are trying their best to be champions in limbo (the game), outdoing one another when one sets a brand new low for inter-political and personal respect for colleagues and peers as humans—defamation, name calling, crass language... the list is long. There must be new methods being created right now that are not on the list. Politics can very well be a drunk weekend on the beach at The Bahamas*, like it's a good thing, when you're on the top of the pyramid and at the bottom.

Now, we all understand personal lines being crossed, that you shouldn't cross anywhere. Most of us usually keep work work and home home. Politicians still are courteous when they run into each other on the job, with a few extreme cases. But their keeping work-work soon comes with the mixing a little of home as well, for that extra leverage, and the cycle starts. They are still courteous when they run into each other on the job, while using the home attacks when best leveragable. And this isn't the recent norm. Anyone who was inspired to become a leader of the people knew that this was one of the likely hazards of the job.

So if there is a politician out there who does indeed recognise the perils of their field, they would be either very willing or weary to craft their own path with them. The last thing they should do is be surprised about them. Some even expect honourable discourse instead. Well, every bad bunch has a good bunch, and you can't generalise and justice to both. You'd think that all their experience from the bottom up would give them some spine, or just the rude shock would, by itself, but that's far from reality. Most of them are in a mid-state that they are not conscious of. The only thing they are conscious of is how much power they are heading towards. It's a never ending zombie walk unlike which you'll never see elsewhere.

Some of them really walk the talk. They either call it power play and openly play with power, or they do it with complete, sometimes innocent, sincerity, and take people in their stride. Some play the people. They pull out their crocodile tears and worst behaviour only when it helps them get even just a little closer to where they can be a part of the limbo celebration.

All we can do is to enjoy the games and hope we don't get swallowed up whole anywhere along the way. The only thing we know will get swallowed up whole is our hopes that only they can realise. Let the games, and amusement, go on!

P.S: Have you got your popcorn? While you enjoy the show, just make sure you remember to vote, and give the voice you support a shout out when you can. There just may be hope!

*In line with it being a famed island holiday destination that such a thing is likely. Can be substituted for any other favourite holiday destination.

Thursday, June 7, 2018

Opt for the better political binary: Truth or Untruth

The world's going digital. Smart phones, AI, IT... practically everything is made easy, possible at the click of something, or at the very thought of it. It's all come down to 1's and 0's—as binary as binary can get. Sadly, this can turn into an bloody infestation where binaries don't belong, like politics. With its root beginnings themselves dubious enough, this is an added insult. This binary thinking makes us magnets who have to stick to only one side based on our polarity (which we apparently can't change). It's all involuntary, you see.

It's always left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, or capitalists vs. everybody else. Neither of two groups (whichever they be) recognise any ground in between. It's like a great abyss of death. Independent inquiry always makes you from the other side, depending on who's accusing you. You either play for the home team or the other team. One is wrong, the other right; one evil, the other pure. Again, everything depends on which team you play for. If someone doesn't agree with you, you're the one with a motive. This is the stuck record that is the only conversation you'll hear most of the time. Fact, truth and their pursuit die a slow painful death.   

This magnetic effervescence, apart how some of us tend to flaunt our ideologies as best, is a bigger problem than it seems. It is our primary bias and lens. More importantly, it is our fundamental political truth—fact and truth excluded. We will believe what we want to believe because that is the only side that our polarity will allows us to. We no longer care about what is and what isn't. We make our own truth, rather our bias does. We are our own reference point for everything that is worthy in the world. We're practically living our own fantasy. 

So where does this lead to? As with any factual-truth-denying-machine-thinking, this leads to mass confusion. What we think is what we believe despite the fact that it isn't what we see, or what we ever get to see. Soon enough, it becomes our obsession and then our reality. Finally, because it's the only world we'd ever accept, we make it our reality no matter how badly it lacks basic sense. And the biggest loser: truth.

Every passionate discussion we have when the 1's and the 0's meet becomes exactly this: my reality vs. your reality. It breaks so many rules that will give even the best therapist nightmares to think about. It doesn't contain independent facts that don't bear polarities, save with the people who straddle the middle path making far more sensible political allegiances, if any. Normally, if they are the only ones who would ever perceive something,  and no one else can touch, see, experience or feel it, there's something very wrong. Though far from being loony, if they still insist and insist and insist on insisting, they're certainly getting there—fast. 

So what we do about this big fat mess? Is it unhelpable? Are the good guys done for? Is it time to hope and pray, and only hope and pray till the doom of all sense? Honnasiri says that it's your world to live in; you may as well try to keep it worth living in without breaking your neck until somebody's coming for your life and you have to.

So here's what we can do in this polarised mess.
Check the fact

Make your only binary truth.  Did it happen? Is It true? Move from 1's & 0's to yes and/or nos. They are the only two answers you should have space for. There can't be alternative truths.  

Know that everything adds up

What's common for one side to say about the other side is to allege a silent behind the scenes conspiracy against them. Conspiracies have always been difficult to prove, until they actually turn out to be true. Instead, let your data add up and speak for itself.

Be assured that someone's always listening

In a environment when people only trade charges against one another, if you are the consistent quieter voice against their tirade, you are being heard by someone somewhere. Even if you aren't somebody will come across what you said and they could, then, rethink their polar mindsets. So, keep at it, despite the stuck record. Choose your battles without breaking your neck in the process. 

Understand that your awareness needn't always match, but common sense should always prevail

Depending on who you talk to, you can be accused of being hypocritical, selective, and having a motive. This is because the people who accuse you could come from other views that they are immersed in—quite deep at times, with their heads stuck neck deep into the ground. It may take some time to match awarenesses (so pick up as much as you can on the go; human attention and interest is only wired to take so much per individual.  If you don't fully catch up on their updated awareness set, remember that verified, known fact and truth also submits to common sense.

Also read: A new kind of hypocrisy

Thursday, May 31, 2018

Sign here, please: ...and now the rules (4)

(Topic: Politics)

Read (1)
Read (2)
Read (3)
As political ethics develop, the lines can be blurry almost all the time. A few of the rules, though, don't really change. They define the do's and don'ts of the core. Some are:
  • One/a group can choose to believe what is not factually true for himself/themselves. That is allowed. It is not cardinal sin. The factual consequences are theirs to bear.
  • Thought doesn't hurt and is not detrimental by itself. If one/a group wants to hold on any thought they like, they are free to. They may only be restricted once they adversely inflict it on another person in action.
  • No individual's views automatically bear upon any other person. Offence is a personal matter, defined by intent to offend. 
  • Ridiculing and mocking another's thinking doesn't help. It happens often with people who have different viewpoints that are, by a more prevalent standard, advanced but not prevalent for everyone. In order to understand, relate, and build, basic idea tolerance is necessary. 
  • Mere holding of a view does in no way turn into action, and therefore makes it infectous to society.
  • Freedom to accept, reject, debate and question everything is always allowed in a cordial, respectful and orderly manner. 
  • Definitions of right & wrong are better exchanged with those of true & false, factual & non-factual or destructive & beneficial ones
With opinions and views as diverse, the discussion tends to go south. What follows is colourful chaos in the core that makes it becomes multi-planar. Every element has a different touch point, resting between planes representing wholly different ideas that can be opposite or contradictory. This is essential to an open, evolving environment. While for some this is a wonderful thing with the learning one can have, for the others, who are puritanical, it is a place of cardinal sin. They don't believe that blood and water mix. They have sacred views about how things should be, and about change itself. In a land that is filled with variety, it is impossible to allow everyone in with views like that. You're bound to have struggles to be let in to what's theirs by right, and you cannot do right by pushing them away.    

So, by the above list, can have a sworn communist who is a little liberal (depends on who's defining it) who won't be defaced by a purist—however hypocritical that seems, or maybe he isn't satisfied with the best combination of views to have.  You can have a liberal who understands where a purist comes from and sympathises with (comparatively) closed view without being berated by a fellow liberal. You can have someone who isn't for or against anything, or anyone, for which they are not nailed against the wall because they are seeking till they find, and maybe they haven't found yet. The permutations and combinations are immense, and under the system each one of them is allowed. Accepting all of them is not done according to a fixed list. Rather the list is added to after accepting them, all which are debated as a matter of course. The cogs of society can, after all, be used for betterment as well.  

This also means that taking offense is almost meaningless in this space. If there is a difference of opinion, and it comes down to offense being taken, you're simply in the wrong place. It should hit you before you even entered the space that you're going to be at the other end of the discussion. The best you should do is offer your arguments, and make your peace. As long there's no injustice done in the process, you'd be doing a great job of keeping up the democracy. And no one has to be right. It is the wrong place to come to for validation. Some forms of thinking will never meet and we should learn to accept that. That doesn't mean we should be less human first and not learn to live like that. The happiest politics earns its place within humanity without a fight. 

With all this openness, there are clear no-nos defined. No abuse or violence (in action or words) that can be justified, even if one is justifiably angry. No hate action should be inspired, despite reason to. No discrimination against a person/group of people for being and  fighting for who they essentially are. If we'r looking at any kind of agreement, we must stay away from these things. Sometimes, with a diverse set of people and groups, an equally amicable solution will eat into some of that (for everyone). We can only do the best we can do so that everyone benefits equally, even if it has to be littler than we thought for ourselves. We should all get the same privileges, at any cost.

This multi-planar core of peace and discussion is where any democracy is possible first. Despite all the damage we've done to it, it still works, and thank heavens we're still not apiece. It doesn't look like we will be for a long time. As we last out this grace period, can we work by the system and not against it? We can probably make it a forever. And, yeah, welcome to the circus! Just don't be upset when you see things getting topsy-turvy. As long as everyone's important and equally respected, we're on the right track. We'll get there, and better.

Monday, May 28, 2018

Sign here, please: Do you do your R&D? (3)

(Topic: Politics)
Read (1)
Read (2)

While the democratic core is vibrant and exploding, it isn't the case of thinking magically becoming law. It's here that ideas form and are influenced, discussed and hopefully tested. Ideas that work on the ground aren't unicorn-like. They are sometimes dumbed down from larger concepts but it's better to have a bigger ideal to start with. They can always be made better over time. Most universally accepted views of how things ought to be are always balanced on one side. They serve one master and make the rest servants. Pick one and it will be easy to see.

A good system serves everyone equally. Some argue, equally at their needs first. Others argue that that's too basic and it should be more competitive so that humans are naturally incentivized to do better, than be complacent. All these and many, many other ideas and sub-ideas are floating till one of them proves to be a better fit for a solution.

All of this converts into law and living reality when we evolve to a view that we find best, vote for someone or a party that promises to make that a reality and hope that they deliver. But these answers are not simple and never have been. Many assumptions we make about best answers are just the ones we are used to seeing or which we have been taught to be so. The ones we have adopted have become our reference points. They aren't necessarily the best ones. We just need to test them till they have the least unwanted consequences, or lesser ones.

Mix and match

Society is like a game of blocks. You can position its many facets in many ways. Each method has its own set of benefits and balance. Since life's got to go on, we can't wait to decide how to structure it. It takes after the easiest structure possible. We are hence born into one without choice and can change the positions of the blocks for the better before we die. With each generation, we get a chance to change this for the better, or worse.

But the crazies don't get this. They are not able to accept a difference in views, or submission to a process that isn't crazy enough for them. Instead, they resort to drastic methods to crush, stop, and quieten voices that are against their ideas. They seem to believe that submitting to the process will subvert the change that they think India needs, and it needs extra intervention. They think that since they are right their ideas will only save the nation, hence the hurry to ensure its success. They have different names in different political environments but they're basically the exact same.

The whole purpose is to gather these ideas, and check, compare, and conclude which should make it to action one day. The way it works is we go through this process, and there needn't be only one conclusion. People can be split on the best verdict. The core throws out this conclusion, in any form, one verdict or multiple verdicts and that's how we can confidently say that this what India indeed thinks. We get it from the horse's mouth.

The freedom in the core is about realistic ideas and unicorn ideas-basically any idea that springs from the reality which an Indian gets up in the morning, every morning, and identifies with. That's the qualifier. It allows everything from the crappy to the brilliant. This allows every individual to remain important, learn and teach, correct themselves and get corrected, and grow. There are no special privileges. There is obviously common sense, reason and wisdom that comes with time and age as well. This sets a few mostly self-understood rules and zones. They define what should be allowed and what shouldn't.

Read (4)

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Sign here, please: Politics meets the big stage (2)

(Topic: Politics)

Read (1)

Well, politics is everywhere. When it comes into its own arena, and deals with power and governance, it takes on a new level. Till then people are just doing it on the side for ego kicks and side benefits. Once crossed over to the big leagues, the only thing different is a much, much wider playing field with the same motivation to win The science remains as is. There are some stark differences though.

When otherwise practiced, there was never a referee, and there was no accountability. It is self-managed system. Sensible people rested their egos at a reasonable midpoint and accepted that there are going to be some crazy folk you can go ahead and ignore.

At the next level, there is self-regulation and accountability, with the same freedom to crazy folk. It takes shape in a growing, robust swirling core of ideas fed by citizens' voices, with everything they think about where the country should be and how to get there. This is the sacred space that keeps any society and country a democratic one, against all odds.

The core is everywhere this country is—offices, chai shops, traffic snarls, parliaments, school yards, college campuses... everywhere where there are one or more Indians. Everyone's allowed. You don't get shot, bit, hung, killed or slapped for getting your voice in. It's built to echo the nation in one true voice, which is heard unfiltered as it sounds it out. When we all keep the democratic peace, and get our voice in, the echo may be saying a lot of things at once (we're a big, diverse nation). It may not be very pretty to hear but they're being said loud and clear. That's how we know that our perceived reality is indeed one. We can correct our notions  of what India is and is not. This is our key to how we can all live together in peace and harmony. We all get to originally hear each other. You can speak with respect and be heard with respect.

But things can get bad, and then worse. Since the nation is diverse, the voices are different and everyone's allowed to have their full say, the core can get off balance in tone, where there isn't respect given all around. That's because there are two types of people who say things: the crazies and the sane. Being polar opposites, one obviously won't like what the other says and bam! Despite the everyone's allowed rule, the crazies come with attitudes that end up seeking to shut down, restrict and ban voices that can't make it all the way into their hearts.

The crazies ones come with an "I am right and you are wrong" approach. The sane have a "Let's break that down" approach that sometimes leads to an "oops-a-daisy" revelation, and an admission of wrong reasoning where found. The crazies cannot rationalise. The sane can, at least a bit more. The crazies have identity issues with what they hold true to. The sane are aware of and are willing to face realities as is. The crazies come in all colours, and so do the sane. So any group with ideology you don't like will have some people whom you will respect, and some you won't, both with more or less the same ideas. The crazies have blanketed perspectives and colour their thinking. This helps everything become easily identifiable to them, but doesn't necessarily represent the issue all round. The sane stay away from colours and blanket ideas. They listen and are not in a hurry to settle on a final conclusion until it presents itself clearly. The crazies are in a perpetual hurry to (usually pre-)conclude with a (pre-)favourable view. The crazies consider the very thought of certain things poisonous to society. The sane don't restrict idea thinking by principle.


Read (3)
Read (4)

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

You're responsible for Karnataka, too

There's presently a lot of nataka in Karnataka. Long story short, BJP's short of full majority, Congress-JD(S) have joined together and cross the halfway mark, and there are 3 other independents who align one way or the other. The Governor, in his non-popular-by-some wisdom, has allowed the BJP to form government, with 15 days to pass a floor test. So, there's a swearing in of a Chief Minister with no government or cabinet, who practically doesn't have visible MLAs to get on his side except ones he can poach. All of this while we sit here in shock or amusement watching our beloved politicians take for this great rollercoaster ride.

With the hope of making things better, there are voices for and against the present situation with various arguments why it is right, wrong, ethical or immoral. But there's one voice that's the most hypocritical of all: yours (if you're registered on an electoral roll somewhere in Karnataka and you didn't vote unless it was completely unavoidable not to). If you did vote, or could but didn't for a reason that makes sense, all you will read now on directly addresses you (unless you're a part for the exception).

Most voting in India happens through one, loyalty (one party for life), two, driving away strategy (temporarily to keep away the more evil candidate) or, three, being experimentative (going for the party candidates based on their credit, not because they're evil, less evil or more evil, but just offer better hope and action). Wherever you are in that order, you're a more conscious, thinking voter, the lower you stand-one being the highest and three being the lowest.

The simpler way of looking at it is whether you voted for the candidate or the party. If you voted for the party, you're high, and if for the candidate, low, with the analysis the same. If you disagree, let me educate you on voting and its context. You are a citizen of a country and are given the opportunity of representation so that when matters of everything adding you are decided, your voice is heard and you are benefitted with a resultant happy life. This also includes actual action for the better, apart from voice.

Now, if you don't step in to attempt to decide who will have that voice, and responsiblity to act, someone else will and the one who does may not do a great job. This means all the great things you want to do may not ever happen because you have a shitty representative because you didn't attempt to ensure it. This is what also happens to all the good things you could do but never figured that it was possible.

This (independent) process culminates into what every other person like you thinks all over the state, or country, and a majority government is decided. That way more people get the government they want, with the hope that the government understands that it serves the whole nation. It is up to it to not to screw up at keeping the balance, and just keeping its supporters happy. They will get their vengeance the next time polls are due. 

Of course the system isn't perfect. It's just basic. Being first-past-the-post, it asks that any candidate just polls enough to be highest. So the least credit you can have a representative is that only 50% of your constitutency want you to be their voice and action. That shouldn't be read as at least 50%. This leaves the other 50% luckless, instead of being democratically empowered.

One way candidates and parties can make up for this system is to be equally advantageous to all their constituents, instead of trumping their majority vote like 5 year olds who just won a race for the first time ever. That means parties and candidates have to have offer a balanced stance of what they stand for and will aim to achieve, without isolating any one of the groups of people the country has. They can also have something for everyone. The best approach is to keep it simple and consider everyone like human beings that needs all things everyone does, leaving religious, community and other biases aside. 

Criticism and weaknesses apart, the idea is to build it ground up: individual votes, individual constitutency winner and, then, government. You make things worse when you subvert this and employ a backwards process i.e. when prospective government engineers itself to power by seeking the votes that should be given basis candidate through a blanket vote for the party. This makes the candidate just a means and his promises literally shit. That's why if you voted for a party, and not a candidate at the same time, you are to blame. If you stuck to voting for a candidate, and not the party, you are probably less to blame for the mess that Karnataka is in right now. You bought in to the conspiracy that your favourite party hatched to come to power. If you're willingly a part of it, you're equally culpable-while you exercise your fundamental rights. When you celebrate these victories, you have more to lose as your beloved party and MLA has started spinning their own agenda, as planned. 

If you really want to fairly extract the best from the democratic process, make your party earn your vote, like really earn it. Push them to their limits. Get them to the edge of delivering for the right reasons. If their power becomes less then your power, vote different ways each election, intentionally. Use NOTA and shame candidates with a majority of NOTAs. Question them and their chamchas. Form alternative forums and movements. Just don't stoop lower than your respect. And do all this enmasse. They don't care about you, for most. By 'fan'ning them, you only dig the hole they're digging for you deeper.

Don't be an idiot.