Politics is defined in the dictionary as the sum total of activities undertaken to remain in power. A politician is therefore, a person who practices the art of politics--to remain in power. Though these definitions do not say so, the term "politicking" has universally acquired negative connotations--it probably is the final proof that politicians irrespective of their nationality, creed or colour, are bound together in a brotherhood of their own. Amongst the many wisecracks about this fraternity, the one that I like most, defined a politician "as a person who shakes your hand before elections and shakes your confidence thereafter".

It is also true that political power is the ultimate power that a human being can have. Not only is it exercised over a large mass of humanity, but it also has at its command, very large financial resources. Politicians are mini GODS. Is it not necessary therefore, that they be good managers?? It is ironic that while no owner would dare to hand over the reins of his company to a manager without testing his business acumen, here we have cases politicians running vast empires with no demonstrated managerial skills. Our purpose today, is to find out why politicians are generally bad managers and can something be done about it?

Objectives of a politician: By definition, a politician's primary objective is to acquire or remain in power. A business manager's aim is to maximize corporate wealth. It is clear, therefore, that while a manager will undertake many activities that will lead to more efficient corporate governance, a politician will seek newer and more effective means to improve his own power. By the very nature of his work, therefore, a politician has to be self-centered--a quality that is detrimental to good management.

Customer is the king for a manager: A guy who was an unsuccessful marketing manager, as this story goes, changed jobs and became a very successful policeman because in his newer profession, "the customer was always wrong". When politicians are not in power (say are in the "opposition"), they seem to be worried much more about their constituents (their customers) than when they are in power. If the science of business management were to be stated in few words, then it could be easily said that it is an activity which tries to create wealth out of identifying and satisfying the needs of its customers. Politics, the way we see it being practiced, aims at creation of wealth to perpetuate the power of the practitioner. What the twain ever meet??

A manager empowers while a politician emasculates: It has been proved beyond doubt that a manager empowers his subordinates to increase efficiency. Organizational structures in companies are so created that power, accountability and responsibilities are delegated to the lowest possible level to achieve the required decentralization. Empowering subordinates has shown startling results. In contrast, a politician tends to centralize all power with himself or in a small coterie of faithful (which keeps changing). Haven't we seen chief ministers running to their mythical high-commands to get approvals of things, which should be rightfully within their authority. In fact, I strongly believe that a politician ensures his continuous (many a times forced) relevance by emasculating his subordinates. There is not much future for creativity in politics, they say; and if some is shown, it has to be credited to the farsightedness of the boss. As a direct result of this, we have subordinates continuously trying to out-maneuver their bosses to become bosses themselves. Have you heard of assistant managers doing this??

Politicians are more cut-throat than managers: Since loyalty is at such a premium in politics, subordinates, irrespective of their talents, become unwanted persons, the moment it is realized that their faithfulness is suspect. A rebel will be hounded in politics and road blocks will be created for him by his ex-bosses because they are afraid that their own popularity or ability to remain in power will be eroded if this is not done and a proper "lesson" is not taught to dissuade future rebels. It is more like a "war scenario" where traitors are beheaded and dissent is a "no-no". We have famous examples in our history, of sons arresting and/or eliminating their own fathers in order to acquire political power. A business manager can expect to be cut-throat only with his bitterest competitor (Pepsi and Coke, for instance) and that too within accepted norms of business behavior. Many a politician who has been made a manager of a business entity has ruined things by carrying the same mindset about being ruthless with dissidence.

Managers are far more transparent and fair than politicians: Have you ever paused to think why not many sons and daughters of managers inherit managerial positions while almost all politicians have their kith and kin ready to take over? The main reason is the belief that while politicking does not require any particular formal training, managing a business does. A politician has to be far more Machiavellian than manager in order to survive and has to constantly look behind his shoulders to see if there is someone ready to usurp him. He reacts by surrounding himself with his near and dear ones who are less likely to desert or backstab. A manager does not have to do this as he knows that his survival is dependent on his performance and performance alone. It is very necessary for a manager to be fair in whatever he does. A politician cannot be fair even if he wants to. It is ironic that he has to appear fair in public, though.

Politicians find it difficult to be ethical:
A politician is elected to power with the help of groups and lobbies unlike a manager, who occupies his position more because of the skills that he possesses. Once elected, the politician has to pay off these "debts", so that he could get re-elected. This is usually the beginning of unethical behavior. I have a firm belief that it would be very difficult for a politician to remain within the traditional definition of honesty because how else would he otherwise ensure his continuation in power? Luckily, a manager has no such compulsions and can stick to ethical norms of behavior. As a was once said (trifle harshly) "who says crime does not pay--why would so many politicians otherwise seek re-election?" We are today, passing through a phase where a politician, if he is personally honest, (meaning he does not create personal wealth out his powers) is good enough. It's okay if he distributes largesse to various lobbies and groups supporting hi. It is also interesting to notice that while a manager motivates his subordinates by promising more financial rewards and a more powerful position in the organization, a politician motivates his followers by throwing at them crumbs of the office that he enjoys with an express condition that should never aspire for larger powers.

Political parties can never be certified for the quality they deliver while companies can be:
With so much emphasis on total quality management, companies aspire and get certified for the quality systems that they put in place so that the customer can be assured of the quality of their output. Can you think of a political party being so certified? Out of the many names by which political outfits get called, the one that describes them aptly is that of a "chameleon". How can the output be certified if the political party decides to be temporarily consistent with the current situation. So, if Bihar is badly administered one day, it is okay, the next day (change of opinion because of some new compulsion); if women require reservations today, let them be where they are, tomorrow. Changing equations and not logic govern the output of a political party. Unfortunately therefore, a political party will never get ISO 9000.

The hallmark of democracy my friends, is its practice that politicians who act as representatives of people manage vast resources by being chief executives of their respective ministries, without possibly having the slightest training of how business is managed. While we expect our business managers to be trained rigorously so that our businesses run efficiently, we pay scant attention to our national resources being managed by politicians who have no formal training in managing a commercial activity. To add to our woes, we have their political bosses dictating decisions which are illogical and harmful to the nation. Should we not make it compulsory for our elected representatives to undergo a crash course on business management (and of course parliamentary procedures)? I have never seen or heard of any of the Indian Institutes of Management announcing a development program for politicians--who undoubtedly control far greater resources than average managers who get regularly trained? Are the premier business schools listening?

The author is a reputed management consultant and has done his MBA from Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, after doing his Masters’ in Physics from IIT New Delhi. This new series of articles will try and question various beliefs that we hold without scrutiny. We Indians are known to have many “blind spots” in the way we think and live. The purpose here is to have a robust debate without in anyway belittling personal beliefs.

"Mr. Prakash Shesh, the author, has done his MBA from Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad after his Masters in Physics from I.I.T. New Delhi. You may send your feedback to him by choosing an option at the top right corner of this page." He invites reactions on his e-mail address creative@nagpur.dot.net.in