Bureaucracy, Organisation and Political Change
A Critical Analysis of Approaches to the Study of Organisation

by Prof. Zohar Ben-Asher

It is of rather common agreement that organisation, at least originally, was formed in order to pursue the common interests of specific groups [1]. It is far from being agreed, however, what roles are played by various sorts of internal organisational structures, especially when somehow related to political change.

Weber, for example, perceived politics in terms of dispositions over weapons and over means of administration [2]. This implies the existence of overt or covert political classification. The key to such a classification would be a certain formula by which organisational structure would be determined. It might resemble the supposed Marxist classification of economic epochs and the “economic” classes that feature in this type of classification. A question thus might arise: Why would Weber have to follow Marx in essence but still differ in as much as he chose to change the keys for classification.

One, perhaps oversimplified, possible answer is that Weber simply “does not see anything attractive in socialism.” [3] This is what Gerth and Mills had suggested, maybe because it was them who found socialism so unattractive. But as it were, the difference between Marx and Weber goes beyond this level of argumentation. It indicates their profoundly different concepts of what is politics. Both of them perceived and understood politics as a process that reveals itself and is reflected through organisation. But it was not the same organisation for these two thinkers. The difference was mainly in the way they viewed the structure of this process.

Bureaucracy represents political organisation, reflecting its very system and its philosophy. It might well be one of the most important (if not the most important) criteria against which examination of the political organisation could be made. Also, it could serve to examine “politics in action” or in other words – political change. While some of the inherent characteristics of bureaucracy would be its political orientation, it does not automatically go the other way around. That is, it would not be necessary that bureaucratic phenomena should characterise every political organisation. It seems, however, highly likely that they would play an important role in political change. In many cases they would reflect the motivational drives of the political organisation and its structural restraints.

Within the political organisation, bureaucracy not only reflects these drives but it also – possibly even more sharply – indicates situational structures. It may thus be that organisations such as a revolutionary movement would tend to place limits on trends towards the development of bureaucracy, or even eliminate them altogether; at least during the time of struggle to change or purge incumbent regime. The shift would come, however, with the actual take over of political power and the establishment of this movement as the sovereign regime. It would be then, almost without fail that development of the new bureaucratic structure begins. The course of development of the new bureaucratic structure would indicate the direction of the political change. More precisely, it would indicate the interests pushed forward by this change. This observation may point at one of the significant differences between Marx and Weber. It is rather outstanding that the former examined bureaucracy – and organisation – mainly as they functioned in and related to economic interests. The latter placed much more stress on the judicial and administrative aspects of bureaucracy. These, for Marx, were means to the end of promoting economic interests. For Weber, they constituted the very end in itself.

Yet, organisational inner structure may be viewed somewhat differently. It could well represent the result of an equation, the components of which are the different interest groups within the organisation. Certain roles within it would be especially sensitive because they could influence its development. For once, they might be able to determine the type of bureaucracy that would develop. Or they even might become themselves bureaucratic. In particular, the ability to exercise control over information and communications system seems to be crucial. This is so because those who control sources of information might be– even in a fully-fledged democracy – the only ones who really have the accurate picture of the situation. If this were to be the case, they would be in a much better position than anyone else and retain a distinct advantage in the political game that takes place within the organisation. [4] This factor, like other such factors pertaining to the inner composition of a given organisation would have direct influence on the prospects of political change. Moreover, as the process of change takes place, the inner structure may determine to a great extent the character and direction of the change.

The Cultural Revolution of China was possible because of the special inner structure that enabled Mao to “go to the people” while circumventing the regular procedures of mass mobilisation that normally practised in China. Liu Shaoqi, Peng Chen and others may have controlled the bureaucratic apparatus of the Party. They could manipulate the people only through the regular channels of operation that were available to them. These channels required certain complicated preparatory work in order to be effective. Mao, on the other hand, dissociated himself from the bureaucratic formation. He managed to establish himself as having “over-bureaucratic” status. This allowed him an unmitigated access to the people and enabled him to mobilise them directly. This difference, between the tools that Mao had and those of his opponents, was the determinant factor that shaped the mode of the Revolution and, in fact, its results.

Role distribution, value structure, authority and other components of political organisation may differ not only from one society to another. They can also change from time to time in the same society due to either internal or external reasons. Yet all of these phenomena, while placed in the timeless and space-less framework, compose a theoretical setting in which generalisation of the relationship between the different factors can be observed. This is what Talcott Parsons called “total society.” [5]

It might be very tempting to deal with generalisations of this sort. Due to their “theoretical level” they can afford to disregard “details” such as background, special socio-economic realities and environment, religious pressures and so forth. But we must be aware of some essential and lingual restraints that have to be placed on such a procedure of investigation. These are not at all like mathematical models that so many social scientists favour – maybe because they should be based on “closed sets.” [6] Here, in social and behavioural sciences the basic presupposition is open-ended since by definition it may assume unpredictable and constant changes. [7] In this sense, attempts “to fill in gaps in different aspects of the total field which any future attempt to deal with a complex society as a whole” [8] can never be satisfactory. It may be merely of a situational value within a certain unit of space and time.

It is only with this in mind that the examination of the relations between bureaucracy and organisation and political change in their general aspects can be done.

* * *
Organisation, we have seen, is really a function – at least as much as it is a structure. Its existence depends on its participants and on a common goal they wish to pursue. It might be valid in some cases to argue that “the output of the organisation is, for some other system, an input.” But it is not necessary that in its mere being, “organisation is a system, which as the attainment of its goal ‘produces’ an identifiable something which can be utilised in some way bay another system.” [9] Thus, it is not necessarily true that description of analysis of an organisation can only be done from “the cultural-institutional point of view.” [10] However, these two approaches to the examination of a given organisation are, presumably, very convenient and enable analytical coverage of the whole scope.

The point of necessity, or the consistency of such a necessity, is further debatable. It was Parsons himself who questioned the internal consistency of Weber’s ideal type of organisation (in regard to authority and obedience within organisations). [11] His arguments repeated above tend to suffer the same sort of disadvantages.

For Parsons, values of organisation function to legitimise its existence as a system and its main functional mode of operation. These, In Parsons’ opinion, are necessary for the implementation of values. [12] Such a legitimisation, he maintain, enables the organisation to determine the codes of loyalty to be demanded of members of the organisation. Yet, no solution is offered for cases where membership can be actively engaged in more than just one organisation. Organisations, according to Parsons, in their very existence, set obligations and demands. They are deduced from the values and goals (that are, as such, embedded in the values) of each organisation. These demands and obligations define and set limits for loyalty and attempt to direct it towards the organisation. But what if the organisation in question is a part of a larger one? Or, as may happen also, what if the organisation favours or prefers interests of another organisation to its own, as far as loyalty is concerned? [13] The direct ratio loyalty – value – organisation cannot, therefore, be “total” and must be changed to an indirect one. Such a change could violate the placement of loyalty in the set of values by detaching the goals from these values. Then there will be room for arguing that values are related to the structure and the inner functions. Or logically, there will be rules for deduction and operation while goals are the presuppositions or the axioms of the system. Only when this consistency is attained – and only in such an order – can changes in goals precede structural changes of an organisation.

The logical order makes the difference in the analysis of political change. It indicates the effect of processes on each other. The Parsonian “logic” enables merely a “cause-effect” system in which the cause is structural change and the effect is the political change. This is unlike the philosophical-mathematical logic that begins in the change of goals as the indicator for political change. Here there is a process in which political change might have an impact on the mode, direction and intensity of the entire social process; certainly as it pertains to organisational structures.

Another point in Parsons that should be noted is associated with his approach to the problem of division of labour and its related aspects. Parsons states: “In a complex division of labour, both the resources necessary for performing technical functions and the relation to the population elements on whose behalf the functions are performed have become problematical. Resources are made available by special arrangements; they are not simply ‘given’ in the nature of the context of the function. And who shall be the beneficiary of what ‘product’ or ‘services’ on what terms is problematical; this becomes focus of organisational arrangement of many different kinds.” [14]

The core of the problems, according to Parsons, lies in the fact that beyond “a certain point” of the progress of division of labour, decisions which determine the mode of this division are concerned more with the relations of the beneficiaries than with the technical employment of resources. The process of decision-making would be one of the essential modifiers of the organisation. It would thus be technically motivated and the organisational capacity to control the involved population would become the supreme criterion for distribution of goods or social amenities. But, distribution of goods is a function of the distribution of labour. Yet, the Parsonian formula, although perceiving this, detaches it from the values of the organisation [15] of which the distribution of labour is an inherent constituent. There is here a gross inconsistency, as the dependency is not expressed.

Adopting Parsons’ approach, one can logically draw a situation where distribution of work, which is a political reality, leads to a situational, non-politically motivated distribution of goods. This is a contradictory description and it is both logically and practically invalid. If such a detachment of distribution of goods from values is assumed, then, an actual given division of labour could be treated as a value of the organisation. Its result, that is, distribution of goods, would also remain within the set. Both might thus be subject to modifications and re-modifications by virtue of them being situational variables. This, while the concept of (cf. actual) division of labour is one of the constituents of the organisational goals. Employment of resources, preferences and “technical functions” as well as manipulation (mode and context) of population by the system are, in this view, reflections and expressions of both the given structural mode and ideological stage of the organisation. They are also a direct function of values and at the same time, indirect function of goals. In this sense, the former presentation [16] is inconsistent but there are examples that can be explained logically. Such are China’s payment of interest to former capitalists as a compensation for their investment in enterprises prior to the take over of the CCP or the Israeli preference of non-developed and developing areas in erecting industry.

The analysed relations are of vital importance for the understanding of the kind of organisations that develop (bureaucracy, in our case) and for the understanding of this development.

S. N. Eisenstadt discusses several conditions that he considers necessary for the development of a bureaucratic organisation. These conditions basically represent differentiation in the social system. The bureaucratic organisation [17] develops in relation to such differentiation because it “can help coping with some of the problems arising out of such differentiation,” [18] especially hose whose main concern is the co-ordination of large-scale activities.

Some of the conditions required for the development of a bureaucracy pertain to the differentiation between roles and institutional spheres. Allocation of roles not in accordance with “natural” groups (like kin and familial cells) but rather in accordance with “artificial” ones (like religious, professional and national groups) is an example of these types of differentiation. It could also result from the existence of “many functionally specific groups” that do not operate within the ‘natural’ organisations. The common ground for these conditions lies in that they represent gaps between the two types of organisations. On the one hand, there is some kind of “natural” organisation (that can be described in biological terms, e.g., the blood relationships). On the other, the “artificial” organisation in which the ties are based on specific interests that may or may not be in contrast with those of the “natural” organisation. This sort of gap can be, in fact must be viewed as basically qualitative one. The other conditions brought by Eisenstadt seem to create gaps whose main characteristics are more of quantitative nature. In this range appear the differences between scopes: of “natural” groups and cultural, social or national ones; of number and complexity of functions of these two kinds of groups and the complexity of ties that should be maintained by different groups. [19]

The last condition, however, seems to involve both qualitative and quantitative characteristics. It is related to the extent of “free-floating” resources like manpower, economic resources, commitments and so forth.

The development of these conditions, maintains Eisenstadt, may very well result in the development of a bureaucratic system. This sort of organisation is likely to be initiated as an attempt by role (and power) holders to mobilise resources and to resolve various problems that they may face.

But it is not an isolated process that brings about the creation and development of a bureaucratic system. These things take place in a particular social organisation. For this reason, they would always also include conscious efforts to achieve equilibrium within this organisation. Equilibrium is needed not only to stabilise the organisation but also because it is a primary condition for the bureaucracy “to maintain its autonomy and distinctiveness” as Eisenstadt puts it.

Yet, according to Eisenstadt, there is also another process that may take place in such a situation: that is, de-bureaucratisation. He claims, and it appears to be a rather solid argument, that “the tendencies toward bureaucratisation and de-bureaucratisation may, in fact, develop side by side.” This is because the process of refining and definitions made by the bureaucracy as to its autonomy and goals may very well lead to the taking over of some of its “very functions and activities” by “other groups of organisation.” This could happen “when some organisation (i.e., a parents’ association or a religious or political group) attempts to direct the rules and working of a bureaucratic organisation (school, economic agency and so forth) for its own use or according to its own values and goals.” [20]

This approach towards the phenomenon of bureaucracy may seem contradictory. But given the conditions for the evolution of bureaucracy, it is in fact consistent one. The bureaucratic organisation in itself consists of well-defined groups of role holders. So constituted, any given bureaucracy seeks to refine the definitions for each role within itself. This contributes to further isolation of groups of role holders. Although this isolation is initially a functional one, it may extend itself to other spheres of life. Moreover, such a process that leads to isolation not only can be seen in itself as a process of de-bureaucratisation. It can also be perceived as a source of tacit – or even open – competition for power. During the stage of inception of the bureaucracy, there are attempts to make definitions of functions and group as accurate as the can be. The motivation behind this is the aspiration to increase and improve the co-operation and effectiveness of the different branches so they all would contribute to the consolidation of the bureaucracy in question. But now, once it is established and secure, the motivations change. The mere fact of progress along time span changes conditions. Gaps that could be ignored at the initial stages slowly enter the focus of the debate (either the internal one or even the public discourse). What previously had been regarded as organisational and – or – functional relations may now become political relations and struggle for power. On the other hand, the more the bureaucracy has been able to establish itself as a complex system, the greater would be the power required to operate and control this system. The intensity of the struggle for power also becomes greater and certain roles that involve functions of control and power could be used (and normally they are indeed being used) against or over opponents and – or – supporters in such areas as education, communications, information, etc. Accordingly, they also become more and more important.

The holders of such roles recognise the increasing importance of their roles. It would only be expected, therefore, that they would try to further promote such a definition of their role(s) that would help them to perpetuate their hold on this role. This would, in turn, increase the important of the role even further. But other role holders would do the same, at the same time and within the same bureaucratic framework. This creates an internal competition within the bureaucracy that paradoxically would create forces of disunity. Stress on competence and de-centralisation of power would be likely to follow and would contribute to the undermining of the entire system. At this stage it could be expected that various pivotal forces – or it could be frustrated ones – that would attempt to break the framework of the bureaucracy. Amongst those that would be likely to participate in this process we could find not only those in power, but also role holders whose roles are less important or under threat. The members of this last group wish, of course, to promote their position and the best way to do so would be to elevate the importance of their role. This creates tension because in effect, such a process is nothing less than a clear attempt to break the monopoly of the important roles and to actually neutralise them. The struggle might be focused on the issue of “what should replace the existing format of bureaucracy.” Each contesting group would come up with quite different solutions, naturally.

In light of this discussion, it seems that the presentation offered by Eisenstdt’s would be not only useful but also consistent and valid.

There might be an inference from this to the arena of political change. Political change, it might be argued, should be regarded simultaneously as input and an output of the process of bureaucratisation and de-bureaucratisation as described above. When analysing an organisation, it could be attached to the set as one of the essential values of the bureaucratic organisation. Not only philosophically (to support logical validity) but also practically.

This attitude differs significantly from Weber’s view of the ideal bureaucracy. [21] Moreover, Weber stated that “when those subject to bureaucratic control seek to escape the influence of the existing bureaucratic apparatus, this is normally possible only by creating an organisation of their own which is equally subject to the process of bureaucratisation.” [22] That is to say, according to the approach presented, that Weber really failed to see the entire picture. While it may well be true that such a tendency (of bureaucratisation of the group) could exist, it is precisely this process that indicates the de-bureaucratisation of the roof organisation (of which this group has been or still is a part). Bureaucratisation of a sub-system implies a tendency to organisational – and many times also ideological – detachment from the system. The weakening of the bureaucratic system by one or more of its sub-systems cannot but result in the de-bureaucratisation of the system. Only in this way could a sub-system aspire and may achieve autonomy and create an independent bureaucratic structure. Equally, only by becoming more and more bureaucratic, can such a sub-system establish its autonomy and weaken the parent system to which it previously belonged.

Another important difference lies in the possible answer to the question of “who controls the existing bureaucratic machinery?” Weber maintains that “such control is possible only to a very limited degree for persons who are not technical specialists.” [23] The other approach, that to great extent views bureaucracy as a reflection of political reality, tolerates the existence of “non-specialist” power and control holders. [24]

Weber maintains that “bureaucratic administration means fundamentally the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge.” [25] Here, he mainly mean technical knowledge or more accurately, professional knowledge that was acquired through previous training. His model might be best fit the professional military. But bureaucracy could exist also in other organisations – formal or informal – certainly if perceived within a political context and even if modified by various changes. If we would stick to the model drawn by Weber, then no political change could result from the operation of the bureaucracy. This is because in his model the role holders can never control in a complete manner the apparatus, without which political changes could not happen. Theoretically, Weber’s ideal bureaucracy is thus very static and as such tends to be practically impossible. It may seem permissible to say that political change would bring about bureaucratisation. But the opposite – which is in fact what happens left, right and centre – is not logically valid if we follow Weber’s pattern and apply to it the same rules of deduction that operate in his own theoretical system.

According to the same theoretical process, struggle of role holders of different professions cannot exist once control has been established and practised. Moreover, use of roles by other role holders would be logically impossible. In this sense, most of Weber’s followers, who may have suggested that such a possibility is implied in Weber’s system, committed a logical error, even if their argument as such proved to be practically true. Indeed, as March and Simon have indicated, in many respects “Weber’s essential proposition that bureaucratises are more efficient (with respect to the goals of the formal hierarchy) than are alternative forms of organisation” is – as a matter of fact – undeniable. [26]

The main logical and philosophical troubles with the Weberian perceptions are anchored not so much in his descriptive model as in the deterministic approach and the inflexibility of the model. While it might be – in situational terms – an accurate description of a given system, analysis of the bureaucratic phenomena in general should have rather focused itself on the process of change. A. Etzioni says: “Modern society is to a large degree a bureaucratic society… Not only does modern society as a whole tend to be bureaucratic, but the most powerful social units of modern society are also bureaucratic.” [27] Yet, the Weber’s approach – and to a great extent also Etzioni’s approach – treat the social complex within a static framework and fail to capture its inherent element of dynamism and change. Thus, in light of these descriptions, it would be impossible to analyse quite a few political events as phenomena that belong in the framework of organisation and bureaucracy. For example, the Chinese protracted warfare prior to the 1949 take over, the Cultural Revolution or the Israeli Protest Movement that followed the 1973 “Yom Kippur” War. Furthermore, if the methodologies adopted by Weber, Etzioni and their like were to be followed, it would also be impossible to analyse, on their own terms, such phenomena as inner struggles within bureaucratic systems, like – say – the Soviet Communist Party to name but one.

Etzioni points out the allocation of means and social integration as other “functional requirements” of society that are carried out and controlled by complex organisations. To him, this is the very bureaucratisation of society. [28] It is true that many functions or roles in almost all societies are characterised by bureaucratic processes. But it would be false both methodologically and logically, as well as a practical error, to ignore the inter-relations of the different agencies between and among themselves and between these agencies and that centre that at least theoretically represents the source of power and control within society. An argument was put forward to “justify” or at least explain this type of false. Arguably, it stems from the fact that at the time when the main theories of bureaucracy and organisation were first formulated, such important factors (or means) as the mass media and mass communications did not exist or were not as central as they are today. Only when, in time, these factors grew more important and significant, could they also enter the theoretical setting as functional agencies rather than mere isolated factors. Factually, this is very true. But these factors must still be considered as independent factors – at least as far as the interplay between the factors themselves takes place. There is no doubt that even in societies where the media are operated and controlled by the state they still influence significantly the system itself and even the entire society. If this is ignored, no real analysis can be offered that would be able to consider political changes – particularly if and when these are somehow related to changes that the organisational system might be undergoing. Such omission is not unavoidable if the Weber-inspired methodology is employed; certainly if without a measure of criticism. [29]

Indeed, it is not really surprising that the definitions of complex organisations tend to be somewhat fluid. We may find, for example, the following:

“The unit organisation exists at a point in time. It remains in existence and is operative only as long as the co-ordinated activity of which it is composed is continuous. Many unit organisations do come into existence, engage in activity and accomplish some unit objective, but they do so within the framework of a total pattern of activity and toward a common goal. Individuals also may engage in individual activity that has as its purpose a fraction of some common purpose rather than a personal goal of the individual. This hierarchy of unit organisations and individual activity, all a part of some common design, may be said to constitute a complex organisation. The latter entity is not continuous and it may be seen as a time-lapse photograph of unit organisations and individual activity, all structured under some common purpose and contributing activity toward some common goal.” [30]

Such a definition cannot hold philosophical validity from its very beginning. Firstly, limitation of time could not be detached from that of space. [31] Secondly, a deterministic, total approach as taken here (”It remains… only as long as… etc.) may easily be countered and upset by examples of deviation (e.g., when part or all of the constituents are changed or cease to operate while the framework of the organisation remains in existence). And once deviation occurs, a set of arguments could not be considered as a complete theory with a closed set of provable theorems based on agreed axioms and rules of deduction. At best, it might be a collection of suggestive arguments that may or may not be true for a given and particular private case. If this is the case, emphasis should be placed on the causality of the arguments stipulated. It must also be noted that any particular description cannot be but a fairly loose proposition. Most of the arguments discussed above attribute some sort of “necessity” to their content. But this cannot be, of course, logical. In fact, it is not even relevant. The entire discussion could only remain within the boundaries of descriptive themes. Any attempt to claim otherwise defies logic and is thus misleading.

Entirely different is the approach offered by G. L. Lippitt in his Organisational Renewal. [32] Lippitt tries to examine organisations and behaviour of both organisations and their particles from a psychological point of view that weighs aspects “that benefit the individual and group in the organisation.” [33] He maintains that the “normal” situation of a system is some sort of a status quo and that change is really a deviation from this status quo. He does not draw the limits – or boundaries – of this status quo and he refrains from a strict definition of the range of the possible changes and from a clear reference to such changes. The organisational world of Lippitt can thus be viewed as either being in total and perennial stability or as subject to total and constant change. Both are permitted if plain logic is applied to the drawn models of Lippitt. Definition of particles, or constituents and their roles cannot be found in his 305-page long book. The same is true as to possible indications of internal or external relations of organisational systems. Even his annotated bibliography that holds additional 9 pages and contains some 52 works seems to be one-sided and heavily biased – and hardly useful.

The following short passage is a typical statement of this work:

“Frustration is experienced by those who think success in mobilising human resources, or in initiating organisation renewal, is simply a matter of education and, perhaps, of using persuasive stimuli reinforced by annual picnics, newsletters and adequate coffee-breaks.” [34]

This is so because: “Organisation renewal is the process of initiating, creating and confronting needed changes so as to make it possible for organisations to become or remain viable, to adapt to new conditions, to solve problems, to learn from experience and to move toward greater organisational maturity.” [35] Not only is the definition itself empty and of no use at all, in terms of the argument or for the examination of theorems (for example, what is “organisational maturity”?) The argument itself, that begins as highly deterministic one, fades and loosens so as to end as a rather simplistic “saloon talk” that cannot be taken seriously.

Indeed, the Chinese situation under Mao is a clear blow to Lippitt’s statement. There, the system was anchored in the belief that success in mobilising human resources is simply a matter of education and the Chinese leadership who thought so did not seem to have been frustrated. But there is a crucial point that lies beyond this level. It must be referred to the logical structure of both definitions. These would serve in a logical model as the axioms while the argument would be, for all practical matters, the theorem. Lack of accuracy is not only a matter of aesthetics. It is precisely what determines the framework of the entire discussion. If any component of either the definition or the argument were to be removed nothing would happen. There is no close definition, nor any solid argument could be found that together might lead to any possible range of strongly based conclusions. This pulls away the ground from underneath Lippitt’s structure, leaving him with no model what so ever. The tendency to observe the organisational phenomena from the viewpoint of a behavioural pattern is, however, interesting. It must be, of course, limited to either individual participants or to particular mechanisms (that are operated by individuals). Under the limit of this condition it might be interesting to examine possible relations between role holders and functions of the system, between and among role holders themselves, etc.

Indeed, within this sort of framework, a discussion concerning the internal communications within organisations could be useful. The question of whether or not some undefined individual is frustrated – or why – could not be traced and answered in general terms. On the other hand, it would be certainly possible to observe the behavioural patterns that result from a specific position of individual within the system. Questions that seek answers as regard to the extent or mode of change that results from the exercising of a particular role in the system that enable its holder to manipulate other people are certainly legitimate. But such questions cannot be found in Lippitt’s work. Also, open-ended or multi-ended answers could be useful, but not if they fail to be within any logical context. A mere collection of statements without foundations and directions cannot replace a serious discussion and analysis.

* * *

Organisations are important as they appear to be because – as March and Simon say – “people spend so much of their time in them.” [36] This is rather a superficial answer, as they admit themselves. But the importance of organisations or the understanding of them is embedded in the fact that distribution of wealth, labour and power, as well as the well being of each of us and the prospects of change – are all related functions of organisational patterns. This in itself means that limitations are placed on the possibility to understand and – or – to describe the core of the organisational activity. This is because the means to do so, that is: language, is by itself a related function of organised patterns. Hence, the only “open” field of understanding is that by which we try to describe through definitions and deductive rules some of the mechanisms of organisational activity. We cannot break out of the framework by merely providing suggestive formulas that can only refer to situational realities.

In this sense, the attempt made by March and Simon to seek explanations that could correspond to the most basic and simple questions arising from the observation of the organisational phenomena, is fruitful. It is so because in this way a methodology for such an observation can be developed. Albeit it is still more inductive than deductive, this type of observation is a key for the understanding of the processes that take place within a given organisation. Furthermore, it serves as a basis for correlating such processes to political change or other activities that are associated with the observed organisation, even if they are not an integrated part of it.

Adopting this policy of observation, March and Simon can cover a relatively large number of viewpoints while not slipping too much to the “absolutist approach” that characterise quite a few other works in the field of organisation.

An important aspect covered by them is that of the relations between the motivational setting of an organisation and the alternatives open to it. This is a question that, as they rightly mention, “has not been examined in any detail in the literature.” [37] The way in which they bring forward this issue is typical of their work and it is certainly worthy of praise. First they suggest a hypothesis while using theorems based on a set of previously formulated definitions. They refrain from falling into the trap of the determinist and absolutist approach and thus they keep from merely offering baseless suggestions. They put forward a series of examples taken from different private cases and make sure to comment on each of these. Only then they attempt to draw a framework for conclusions, while not ignoring that these could only be suggestive in their nature. When dwelling on the questions of motivations and alternatives they suggest the following: “In general, the greater the objective availability of external alternative, the more likely that such alternatives will be evoked.” [38] The terms are well defined and the problem of the “intentions” of the authors is avoided.

These relations seem to be crucial. They correspond to the previously mentioned inter-relations between the components of the bureaucratic system. They also have much to do with the source of political change that may occur within, or in connection with, a certain bureaucracy. Availability of alternatives, as March and Simon indicate points at two kinds of ranges. One is the objective range of alternatives. The other range is that of what seem to be as alternatives to various participants within the system. Considering the interplay of groups of interest within a bureaucratic set, the distinction between the two ranges tend to be associated with and influenced by the structure of the set. This is also true for the attempts made by the set – or its leadership – to materialise such alternatives in the least disharmonious manner. The motivational factor must therefore be closely associated with the identity of the players. It would be so both in the realm of individual-group relations and in the realm of inter-group relations.

There seems to be “an identification mechanism” that works within the system. Also, “even in the absence of positive identification, the strength of group pressures as the uniformity of group opinion increases.” It therefore seems to be valid to assume that “the perceived consequences of alternatives are, at least partly, a function of the strength of group pressures and the direction of these pressures that stem from sub groups and extra-organisational groups.” [39]

The structural organisation of a given set of groups is influenced by the alternatives – both real and imaginary. Simultaneously, it influences the range of possible and desirable alternatives. It is impossible to determine exactly where the starting point lies. But it is quite obvious that this complex of factors, namely, group identity and pressures, the nature of the structural organisation and the existence of several ranges of alternatives, are all, in fact – and when they interact – the core of any possible political change. This basic assumption must be acknowledged when dealing with any of these factors. Otherwise, the analysis will be incomplete and rather arbitrary.

There is an inherent essential difficulty that attempts to analyse bureaucracy – or even organisations in general – face. Such attempts could basically be either descriptive or theoretical. Yet, a descriptive attempt, particularly if it would also try to be accurate, must refer to particular phenomenon (or phenomena) that only exist in exact and particular frame of time and space. It would then be confined to inductive suggestions that may only concern some aspects of the general phenomena. It cannot state absolutely proven theorem and remains logical at the same time. Moreover, if accuracy is to be maintained, it should also refer at least to the previously mentioned factors. At the same time, it cannot confine itself merely to the structural aspects. Motivations, alternatives, technical operation of the system, definitions of power for the various levels of hierarchy and other such factors must also be referred to.

The theoretical type of attempt is even harder to pursue. For once, it has to cover all of these aspects that must be included in the theoretical setting. The main factor, however, is the theoretical “backbone” on which the entire movement within the suggested system depends. It must remain open-ended and in a constant flux so as to enable changes in the forms and – or – essence to enter the set, either as new givens or as renewed or unchanged ones. These act and perceived in accordance with the changing conditions. The effort here must include, therefore, a logically closed theory of dynamics as well as techniques that allow the work in several levels of definition that may vary according to different natures of the qualitatively different components of such a theoretical setting.

In order to deal with the complexity and to study the phenomena of bureaucracy, organisation, political change and their like, some of the logical and philosophical strict limitations must be sacrificed. Thus, some of the observations and theoretical relations between components of a given theoretical setting would be treated out of the frame of the formal logic. Yet the demand for examination of such relations must not e neglected altogether. It is still of great importance. Martin Albrow in his Bureaucracy reveals many of these. He also tries to analyse them and to seek justification for them. Thus, when touching the relations between bureaucracy and ideology he suggests that “some justification for paying even slight attention to the concept of bureaucracy in ideological contexts appears to be necessary.” There are three reasons for this. Firstly, while ideologies are designed to incite men to action, this does not mean that their content is wholly emotive. On the contrary, it is a feature of modern ideologies that they purport to be based upon an objective view of the nature of man and society. Secondly, it is notoriously difficult for the social scientist to remove all traces of ideological commitment from his or her work and it is therefore important to be aware of the nature of the ideological concepts of bureaucracy. Thirdly, Marxist (or self-proclaimed Marxist) and to a lesser degree also Fascist ideologies claim to erase the distinction between ideological and scientific thought – at least as far as their own doctrines are concerned. Political leaders set themselves up as arbiters of scientific truth and academicians avowedly direct their work to political ends. That the scientific element in this conflict of ideology and knowledge cannot be lightly disregarded is obvious when we consider the high prestige as a political scientist that Karl Marx, the most successful ideologist of all time, has in non-Marxist circles. [40]

Albrow’s approach is highly advantageous. Not only does he lack the absolutist tendency that characterises many of the writers dealing with the discussed phenomena. While examining some of the literature, he tries to gain access to pieces of information that could be consulted when pursuing the study of related subjects. [41] In this he uniquely achieves a degree of reliability that many works fail to maintain because they do not concede the possibility of open-ended changing relations. Adhering only to a one-way solution, as is the case with many of the works in the field (and most of those mentioned here) tend to culminate in the construction of static models and limited understanding – not only of bureaucracy and of organisation in general. But also, it confines and limits the discussion of political change and only allows for a static model and formulas to be presented. This is inadequate logically and academically but even more so – it is entirely unrealistic and untrue. It must be noted, however, that such works can still benefit their readers even though they suffer from such important shortcomings. If not with insight, they can at least still provide us with information pertaining to bureaucracy, organisation and political change and to their inner and inter relations.

Notes & References

[1] Peter M. Blau (1968), “Organization: Theories” in David L. Sills, ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York, Macmillan & Free Press, Vol. II, pp 297-98

[2] Max Weber (1928), Essay in Sociology [edited & translated by H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills], New York, Oxford University Press, “Introduction”, p. 47
[3] Ibid., p. 49

[4] Israel, in the aftermath of the 1973 war could be a case in point. The incumbent leadership managed to retain power mainly because it had full control over the sources of information (albeit not over all of the means of communications).

[5] Talcott Parsons (1960), Structure and Process in Modern Society, Glenco, Il The Free Press

[6] These, in fact, consist of limited number of agreed presuppositions that in many times have been selected arbitrarily. On these operate some rules of mathematical deduction so as to allow desired conclusions. Unlike in statistical models, where they might be permitted, in pure mathematical models deviations would not be acceptable and be considered as false.

[7] This is because social and behavioural sciences deal with human beings of which the definition includes such values as “individualism,” “mind,” “brain,” feelings,” “sensitivity” and so forth. These values cannot be measured and summed-up mathematically, nor can they be reduced linguistically to the status of concrete value.

[8] For a detailed discussion see: Ben-Asher, Z. (1972), “Language, Mathematics and Social Sciences” in Philosophia, VII (1): 85-127 (March) and Pears, D. E. (1973), Logic by Set Theory, London, Durham & Barr, pp. 321-60

[9] Parsons, op. cit., p. 2

[10] Ibid., p. 17

[11] Ibid., p. 20

[12] Weber’s administrative staff was defined as having professional expertise as well as the right to give orders. Parsons argues that such attributes may well give rise to a conflict within a given bureaucracy, as it would be impossible to ensure that higher authoritative positions should be matched by equivalent professional skills. Also, members of the organisation would face the problem of whether to obey those who have the right to give orders or to obey those with higher degree of expertise.

[13] Parsons, op. cit., p. 21

[14] For example, political parties that demand of its members that their loyalty to, say, the state should take priority over loyalty to the Party.

[15] Parsons, op. cit., p. 61

[16] Ibid., p. 62, 116-128 passim

[17] Ibid., pp. 130-31 (reference to the Israeli case)

[18] Eisenstadt, S. N. (1969), “Bureaucracy, Bureaucratisation and De-bureaucratisation” in A. Etzioni, ed., A Sociological Reader on Complex Organisations, New York, Holt & Winston, Inc. [Enlarged; first published in 1961 as Comlex Organisations: A Sociological Reader], pp. 304-305

[19] Ibid., p. 305

[20] Ibid., p. 306

[21] Ibid., p. 307

[22] And also from his sub species of bureaucracy like “Patrimonial bureaucracy” etc.
Max Weber (1967), “The Ideal Bureaucracy” in Organisational and Human Behaviour [edited by G. D. Bell], Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, p. 88 [reprinted from Weber (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation [translated by T. Parsons], New York, the Free Press]

[23] Ibid., p 89

[24] At least the two cases mentioned above, of China and of Israel, seem to represent such a mode of control.

[25] “The Ideal Bureaucracy” op. cit., p. 89

[26] March, J. G. and H. A. Simon (1958), Organisations, New York, John Willey & Sons

[27] Etzioni, op. cit., p. 293

[28] Ibid.

[29] It could be seen in many works that examine the process of decision-making. Often it is possible to identify the tendency, in such works, to isolate the particular process and mechanism of the decision-making from the complex of relations that operate between and among the various agencies. Rather, there can be found discussions on the relations between the “centre” and the agencies (or some of them).

[30] Torgensen, P. E. (1969), A Concept of Organisation, New York, American Book, p. 52

[31] See the long standing discussions in this matter in (for instance): Russell, B., Principia Mathematica and Problems of Philosopy, Ryle, G., The Concept of Mind etc. For a discussion and analysis of the problems of time and space in social organisation see also: Ben-Asher, Z. (1972), “Logic and Questions of Time and Space in Descriptive Models of State-Societies” in The Israeli Quarterly of Social Research, II (4): 31-56

[32]Lippitt, G. L. (1969), Organisational Renewal, New York, Meredith Corp.

[33] Ibid., Introduction, p. 1

[34] Ibid., p. 143

[35] Ibid., from the glossary that he wrote because – so he states – “I feel it may be helpful to the reader to have a glossary…”, p. 1

[36] March & Simon, op. cit., p. 2

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid., p. 59

[40] Albrow, M. C. (1970), Bureaucracy, London, Pall Mall Press [American edition by Praeger], p. 67

[41] Ibid., p. 125

Watch the video related to political system

The views of the restricted group that Barack Obama represents will be outlined in the American foreign policy, and Moscow is yet to see the extent to which those views coincide with Russian views.

Help answer the question about political system

About Author

Do politics and business ever meet? Of course they do, because there is a reciprocal need between the two in every democracy. Politics equals power, but it is nothing without the money it needs to realize it; any business is mainly about money, but it also demands a secure presence, which actually means consorting with power, and thus with politics. Another similarity between the two is that they both require the presence of the citizen, either as customer or as voter. Theoretically, the citizen’s freedom of choice is nearly perfect. But in practice, both business and politics resort to all sorts of techniques to draw their voters or customers, such as the media, celebrity endorsements, movie starts, appeals to passion, sentiment and psychology, and so on, and so forth.

Whether we are talking about marketing, or about electioneering, we can refer to both of them in terms of campaigns. In both business and politics, the battle exceeds any metaphorical level, and the amount of money spent in either of them is rising every year. And all that, just to convince us, voters and customers, that they are worth our attention.

When a business tries to promote a product or a model at a national level, it encounters the same problems and difficulties that a party comes against when attempting to capture several regions. Scale is extremely important, by definition, but that naturally comes with a demand for standardization.

A business that needs security cannot separate itself from politics, because that’s where the power is. Some businesses find it in their own interest to sustain rather close working relationships with politics, because separating the two is almost impossible when you are faced with a reactive situation. Many countries have both public and private traders, which means that keeping your business away from politics is virtually impossible if you want to keep doing business with that country. And the economical prospects and financial benefits are so appealing that the connection between politics and business just doesn’t seem to have any importance.

In the sensitive political regions, the marketplace is subjected to change daily. In fact, the entire international marketplace can change very quickly, from year to year, or even from week to week, which is why companies have to learn how to stay alert to change and have flexible attitudes and approaches. But above that, they have to ensure security for themselves, and what better way to that than to become involved with politics, which ultimately is about power?

On the international marketplace, relationship between politics and business is critically important, and its importance increases as time goes by. As much as any business would like to be poisoned away from politics, this is simply impossible, because behind each government there are political drivers, and the ‘mines’ that appear in front of a certain company or organization are far more numerous and powerful, should it try to detach itself completely from political affairs.

Business and politics interact, whether we like it or not, and they can influence each other in many ways, not all of them bad. For instance, a bad political climate can seriously influence economic growth, but fortunately the process can go the other way, too.

If you want to find more information on different business or politics subjects please visit http://www.articletimesonline.com

Watch the video related to political system

Russia Today: www.russiatoday.com January 28, 2009, 22:03 Putin lashes out at world financial system as Davos kicks off The world’s largest event of its kind – the Davos Economic Forum has kicked off in Switzerland with Prime Minister Vladamir Putin delivering a key-note speech at the forums opening ceremony. As the largest recession in decades continues gaining momentum, Russias Prime Minister emphasized the reasons for the crisis and laid out ways of dealing with it. As we see it, the …

Help answer the question about political system

For example, the cultural differences between Chinese, American, and Iraqi are substantial and those differences are highly unlikely to ever change very much.

What works for one will probably not work for any of the others because of the deep cultural differences.

I would argue that democracy is not the best political system for every nation and it is arrogant to think that it is. Every society should be free to find what political system works best for them – be it monarchy, dictatorship, democracy, Islamic republic, socialism, communism, fascism, etc.

Agree or disagree?
Chinese society generally emphasises community and cooperation over the individual and competition. In American society, generally the opposite is true.

Thus, communism may appeal to the Chinese while it doesn't appeal to Americans. Democracy appeals to Americans, while it may not appeal to the Chinese.

Each should be free to choose what works best with their culture.

About Author

If you want to find more information on different business or politics subjects please visit http://www.articletimesonline.com

No matter where you live, politics probably plays a part in your day to day life. You might not immediately deal with political issues, but you can be sure that politics plays a part in what you do! Whether it is office politics deciding who gets that raise you’ve been hoping for; city politics determining where you are allowed to park downtown; county politics dictating your quarterly property tax or even nationwide politics deciding how your schools are funded, politics plays a part in your daily life.

It is important then that you understand what politics really is. Politics, at its core, is defined by Wikipedia as the process by which groups of people make decisions. At its core, politics sounds quite simple. What makes it complicated are the individuals involved in making the decisions. Because human beings are not perfect, the political system is never going to be perfect. This is something that most people don’t understand about politics. You can put all of the pomp and circumstance into politics that you want, in the end; it is more about human beings getting their way than about the process itself.

It has been said quite often that politics is a dirty business. In the United States Congress, for example, politics has taken on an air of hatred and manipulation. Many citizens of the United States feel that they are left out of the process of politics and that their elected representatives are more interested in scoring personal points than in working toward the betterment of their states and districts. In the last few decades special interest groups have taken on an entirely new role and lobbyists have become particularly vilified.

This disillusion toward politics is nothing new. Plato—the famous Greek philosopher—believed that all political systems were corrupt at their cores and that societies leaders should be chosen from an elite group of individuals who were began leadership training at birth. Aristotle argued that man is inherently political and that personal and political ethics are often the same thing.

One of the most famous political philosophers, Machiavelli advised that leaders of politics be brutal and manipulative and do whatever they could to retain their power. Machiavelli is studied today and his work is considered to be one of the leading authorities on how to behave in politics. Is it any wonder then, that the political systems of so many nations look corrupt?

The heart of politics is good: it is how laws are made and how individuals are judged by the societies that surround them. Without politics, nobody would know what was allowed and what was not allowed when they left the house. Unfortunately, many people view politics as a way to get ahead or to gain some sort of power over the people they live and work with. It is because of these “bad eggs” that politics has become regarded as an evil and ugly business.

For more information on politics, visit http://www.politicsmicroblog.com and http://www.englandmicroblog.com.

Watch the video related to political system

Marcus Allen of Nexus Magazine describes The Illuminati DVD as “Mind Blowing!” – and it is. The entire political system of the United States and Britain is being controlled by a small group of elite occultists who have all sworn allegiance to the All Seeing Eye of Lucifer. For more than two centuries, the aristocracy of Britain and America have been involved in Satanic Secret Societies which have seeded all the major positions of power in Politics, the Media and the Military. THE …

Help answer the question about political system

About Author

 Every country stands for its own development. For this purpose the state introduces and implements new policies and programmes such as Special Economic Zones Act. After 60 years of its independence India with its 110 core population has evolved a new paradigm of its political economy which is confusing. The policies and programmes initiated by Indian government to create a ‘global village’ based on free market economy and free trade among nations cutting across all barriers, abolition of national boundaries and dismantling the nation –state system giving priority to ‘market’ over the ‘state’ . After the enactment of Special Economic Zone Act 2005, it created tremendous effects on political economy of the country.p>

            The term ‘political economy’ came from the two Greek words ‘Politiko’ and ‘Oikonomia, where ‘Politiko’ stands for the state and society and ‘Oikonomia’means managing the house hold economy. Political economy thus means a study of the state, society and house hold economy. The concept of political economy arose historically as the economic doctrine of a new class – the capitalist class. It has been evolved since the days of Aristotle who gave a model of public good through guaranteeing each person private possession of what he was rationally and morally entitled. Private property was elaborated later by Locke, Adam Smith, Ricardo and the physiocrates, who came to be known as the Laissez Fairists in Economics, or, the liberal democrats in politics. Adam Smith referred to political economy as a branch of the system of civil government. It was concerned with public policy.

            In Marxian view, political economy can be regarded as a subject which studies the social relations evolves between different classes of people in course of production, distribution, exchange and consumption. Political economy belongs to the broad land of economics, which opens on to political science. After a prolonged period of hibernation, the subject has again been resurrected.

Marxist political economy makes a study of how the productive forces are used under the given relations of production taking account of the lines and trends in technical progress; political economy studies the influence of production relations on such progress and its socio economic consequences. Marxist political economy starts from the assumption that human vital activity is objectively based on social material production which includes man’s interactions with the nature and whole range of relations which arise in the process. It has been realized that every political action has its obvious economic repercussion, and every economic action has had its political implications.

 The liberal school of political economy offers economic implications of political facts and factors. The liberal school has economized politics. The liberal system focuses on the atomistic individual as the relevant unit, on the description of economic behavior in terms of subject choices among alternatives, on the notion of social welfare as the maximizations of individual utility sums. The socialist system views the entire economic system as the basic unit, views economic progress in terms of the growth of the forces of production and focuses on ‘relations of production’ ‘surplus value’ and the rapid increase of social product.

By contrast the Gandhian system eschews both the notions of the atomistic autonomous individual maximizing his utility in a self regulating economy and the notion of processes of production autonomously effecting changes in the organization of production ,class relationship and the magnitude and distribution of social product instead of the Gandhian model suggest that the fundamental attribute of human economic behaviour lies in the relationship of individual to socioeconomic micro groups and the relationship of micro groups to society .The basic economic act is neither the choice between economic alternatives nor the social division of natural products, but the adjustment between individual and the micro groups to which they belong, and of those micro groups to society .It is this collaboration which is the basic theme of the Gandhian system of political economy.

The Gandhian system is viewed in micro groups that are fundamental constituents of the economic system and given full scope to develop their potential in the context of no coercive forms of political control. Social welfare is defined in terms of the functioning of the collaborative micro groups vis –a-vis its members. Gandhi believed that the introduction of technology and patterns of development must be consistent with the full employment objective.

Today economist speaks of sustainable development and ecological values. Gandhi was not against industry but as he predicted it could not give people more employment. His constructive programmes were to give employment to all people whether it be kadhi, gobar gas or tree plantations, where all can be engaged in constructive work. Gandhian economics is an alternative to overcome the exploitation of both capitalism and communism for the exponents of human social order.He was against the large scale use of machinery which kept millions without work. Swadeshi is one of the core elements in the socio-economic organisation of Gandhian system.

Gandhi observes

                       “Life here will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom, but it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual, always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of the villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individual, never aggressive in their arrogance, but ever humble sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units’. The idea of the circle stands for integrating, fullness and self-sufficiency. He wrote that independence must begin at the bottom. Thus every village will be a republic or Panchayat having full powers. It follows therefore, that every village has to be self sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world.”

 Politics and economy are considered as two basic factors in determining the nature of the state and society. They are interrelated to such an extent that the changes in one affect the other, and hence both are ‘dynamic’ and ‘flexible’ ingredients of the national and the international systems. Politics and economy taken together as political economy refers to ‘managing the economy of the state’. Conceptually political economy connotes the relationship between the state, society and the economy, the cause–effect relationship between technological change and the process of development, the economic relations among the different nations of the world.

DEFINITION OF SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE

            A special economic zones is a geographical region that has economic; laws more liberal than a countries typical economic laws. According to the SEZ Act 2005, A SEZ is a ‘specially delineated duty free enclave and shall be deemed to be foreign territory for the purpose of trade operations and duties and tariffs. A SEZ also been viewed as “a geographical region with different economic laws than a countries typical economic laws with the main goal of attracting foreign investment’. “A SEZ or a Free Trade Zone (FTZ) is typically an enclave of units operating in a well –defined area within the geographical boundary of a country where certain economic activities are promoted by a set of policy measures that are generally not applicable to the rest of the country”.

            The concept of special economic zones is not new. In an International Labour Organization (ILO) report traces the roots of the concept to 13th centaury Spain and in more recent times to Ireland and Puerto Rico, which established Export Processing Zones (EPZ). Export Processing Zones is the former name of the Special Economic Zones. The countries like China, United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, India, Jordan, Philippines and Russia have utilized the concept of SEZ. In 1986, there were 176 zones across 47 countries. Now the number has increased to over 5000 across 147 countries.  

The zones are known by different names in different parts of the world. Most often these are Free Trade Zones  (FTZ),Industrial Free Zones (IFS) Export Processing Zones (EPZ) Bonded Free Zones and Special Economic Zones (SEZ).

          Export Processing Zone is the ancestor of SEZ. An Export Processing Zone is relatively small geographically spread area within a country. The purpose of which is to attract export oriented industries, by offering them especially favorable investment and trade conditions as compared with the reminder of the host country. The EPZ is just an industrial enclave but SEZ is an integrated township with fully developed infrastructure. The UN Industrial Development Organization (UNID) identifies five basic attributes of EPZ s are:

 ? EPZs are dominated by market mechanisms.

 ? EPZ are restricted to a limited region.

 ? EPZs specialize in the production of exports goods and offer special incentives for such production.

 ? Their major aims are to attract foreign investments, earn foreign exchange and to  generate employment

? Secondary aims are technology transfer, development linkages and regional             development .

Policies taken by the governments for the development of the nation obviously affect the people. SEZ policies are for the development of the country. These Developmental projects have economic, political and social impact. In Gandhian political economy, village level development is needed. Land needed for the establishment of the SEZs projects also affected the political economy of the country. Tax incentives, Foreign Direct Investment, New type of employment generation also affect the political economy of the country. The macro economic changes driven by SEZs will push the countries down the path of increasing socio-political crisis.  

A BRIEF HISTORY OF INDIA’S SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES

India became independent in 1947 and chose self- sufficiency along with economic autonomy. The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948 marked the beginning of the evolution of the Indian Industrial policy. The Resolution not only defined the broad contours of the policy. But it delineated the role authority of the state in industrial development both as an entrepreneur and as an authority

The industrial policy Resolution of 1956 gave the public sector a strategic role in the economy. It categorized industries, which would be the exclusive responsibility of the state or would progressively come under state control and others. Earmarking the pre-eminent position of the public sector, it envisaged private sector coexisting with the state and thus attempted to give the policy framework flexibility. India opted for a planned economy with emphasis on state sponsored industrialization. The argument was that capital being scare in India, it was essential to regulate the flow of the available capital in to socially desirable channels. This was achieved by an elaborate system of industrial licensing and state monopoly and control over key industries.                                                                                                                        

More than 80% of the Indian population is still living in agricultural field. Agri-centered model of development was prevalent during the 1950sand the 60s. Agriculture contributes approximately one-fifth of total gross domestic product (GDP). It provides the means of livelihood to about two-thirds of the country’s population. The Sector provides employment to 59 percent of the countries workforce and is the single largest private sector occupation. Agriculture accounts for about 10 percent of the total export earnings and provides raw material to a large number of industries.

During the Jawaharlal Nehru’s period, foreign collaborations were promoted in certain sectors and foreign investment was encouraged. First Export Processing Zone (EPZ) was set up in 1965 at Kandla, in Gujarat. This was a predecessor of the Special Economic Zone in India. The Santa Cruz EPZ in Mumbai became operational in 1973.

After the death of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi became the prime Minister of India in 1966. She also did a lot for the economic development of the country. The Foreign Investment Board was set up in 1968. In 1973, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) was enacted.. India set up the Santa Cruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ) between1973-74. It was the first EPZ which was dedicated to the electronic industry.

Doors of the Indian economy were opened during the 1980s, by Indira Gandhi and later by Rajiv Gandhi. From 1984 to 1989, the policy was to enable the middle class to consume more so as to raise the internal demand. This resulted in the raise of imports and the growth of Foreign Direct Investment. The government tried to raise the level of exports in order to balance this phenomenon. In 1984, the Free Zone policy received a fresh start. By 1991, the Indian economy was opened up for linking up the Indian market with the world leading to free flow of trade and commerce .The multilateral Financial Institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund while assisting the developing countries like India also insisted upon restructuring the polity and the administrative machinery. Following a change in the policy regime in this period and the formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) with India becoming its founder member, it opted for a liberalized capitalist strategy. There had been introducing policies since July 1991 particularly in the industrial sector.

De-reservation of industries for the public sector was one of the major step taken by the government as part of the policy changes in the industrial sector. It was against the earlier 17 industries were reserved, there are now industries like defense production, atomic energy, coal and lignite, railways and mineral oils reserved for the public sector. Core industries like iron and steel, electricity, air transport, shipbuilding, and heavy machinery industries such as heavy electrical plants telecommunication cables and instruments are now open to private sector participation. Besides, equities held by the government in selected public sector enterprises like ONGC etc are now available to mutual funds, financial institutions, the general public and workers through a policy of divestment

In1998, the first private SEZ started its operations in Surat .This was under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai (SEEPZ)Development Commissioner, who was a nominee of the central Government.

From the beginning of the 21st century, most of the developing countries in the world have recognized the importance of facilitating international trade for the sustained growth of the economy and increased contribution to the GDP of the nation. As part of its continuing commitment to liberalisation, the Government of India has also adopted a multi-pronged approach to promote foreign investment in India. The Government of India has pushed ahead with second-generation reforms and has made several policy changes to achieve this objective.  The annual growth rate ranged between six and nine percent.

Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP) government decided to re-launch the Free Trade Zone Policy in 2000. It changed the name of Export Processing Zone (EPZ) to Special Economic Zone (SEZ). The policy intended to make SEZs an engine for economic growth supported by quality infrastructure complemented by an attractive fiscal package both at the Centre and the State level with the minimum possible regulations. 

The salient features of the SEZ scheme are:

v No licenses required for import

v Manufacturing or service activities allowed.

v SEZ units to be positive net foreign exchange earner within three years.

v Domestic sales subject to full customs duty and import policy in force.

v Full freedom for sub contracting.

v No routine examination by customs authorities of export/import cargo.

  The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government Currently in power enacted Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 which was passed in June 2005 and came into force on 10th February 2006 with the notification of the SEZ Rule in 2006. The Act provides for drastic simplification of rules and single window clearance on matters relating to the union and state governments .The state governments have also been enacted their own SEZ laws to cover State subjects.

The Act provides for single window clearance mechanisms for developers and operators for ensuring orderly development of SEZs, the responsibility is assigned to the Board of Approval, constituted by the union Government. The Union Government may set up a SEZ on its own or on the basis of proposals of the state government or private developers after the Board of Approval has duly screened them .At the regional level, the Development Commissioner and his /her office will exercise administrative control of SEZs. The Labor Commissioner’s power is also delegated to the Development Commissioner. There is an approval committee to approve /reject /modify proposals for setting up units in SEZs. All suits of civil nature and notified offences in SEZs will be tried and settled by specially notified courts and affected parties may appeal to high courts against the orders of the designated courts. The  corporate units operating under SEZs will enjoy special privileges and protection granted by law.

          The Act offers a special fiscal package to the units set up in the SEZs. This package includes, exemption from customs duties, central excise duties, service tax, central sales taxes, and securities transaction tax to both the developer and the units set-up, tax holiday for 15 years like 100 percent tax exemption for five years ,50 percent for next five years, and 50 percent for the ploughed back export profits for the next five years.100percent income tax exemption for 10 years in a block of 15 years for SEZ developers.

 There is a three-tier administrative structure. On the top, a Board of Approval at the level of the Union Government has been set up for the functioning of the SEZs. Next an authority has been created by the state governments for creation and promotion of the infrastructure within each state. Finally, in SEZ mechanism /authority is provided for single window approval.   According to the 2005 Act, these zones can be set up by the developers, who could be private real persons, companies, both Indian and foreign, as also the State governments or the central government by themselves or jointly with private parties. It is also being envisaged that some of the existing Export Processing Zones would be converted into Special Economic Zones.  The SEZ Act, 2005 supported by SEZ Rules, has come in to effect on 10th  February 2006.

THREE CATEGORIES OF SEZ

In India SEZs are divided in to three categories, Multi-product SEZs Sector specific SEZs, Free Trade and Ware housing Zone (FTWZ). The first category signifies a SEZ where units may be set up for manufacture/rendering of services of two or more goods in a sector or good/services falling in two or more sectors. For multi-product service SEZ, a contiguous area of 100 hectares or more is required. 

The second category defined as a zone meant exclusively for one or more product/services. The minimum area requirement is 100 hectors of contiguous and vacant land. Within sector specific SEZs, Bio-technology, Gems and Jewellery, Non conventional energy, electronics, hardware and software SEZ-including IT can be set up with minimum area has been relaxed to 50 hectares for Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland and, Arunachalpradesh, Uttaranchal, Sikkim, J&K, Goa and the Union Territories.

 Free trade and warehousing zone (FTWZ) is the third category which minimum area requirement is 40 hectares of contiguous and vacant land. Built up area should not be less than 10 hectares.

There are 19 functional SEZs in the country which were set up prior to SEZ Act, and 154 SEZs that were notified under SEZ Act 2005. The maximum numbers of SEZs are coming up in the IT sectorThe total land requirement for the formal approvals granted till date is approximately 44,268 hectares. Out of this, about 87 approvals are for State Industrial Development Corporations (SIDCs) State Government ventures which account for over 21,169hectares 

ISSUES RELATING SEZs IN INDIA

One of the main issue is related with SEZ is locating land for SEZs. Many state governments are in the process of establishing SEZs. The issue of displacement, that of compensation or land price, rehabilitation, residential property development and land speculation, the threat of possible relocation of units from other parts of the state to SEZs and the consequent loss of revenue have been flagged . Farmers are protesting against the forced acquisition of their lands. The development of SEZs would lead to the destruction of employment of peasants whose land will be acquired and will create very little employment for high tech or high skilled persons and total net employment generated may well be negative. Handing over thousands of hectares of land cheaply to promoters of industry and relaxing the laws of the land, including those that relate to the welfare of the industrial workers, protection of the environment, taxation, etc, would automatically promote industrialization and solve the nagging unemployment problem of the country overnight. The farmers/peasants in various states such as West Bengal, Orissa, Maharastra, and Punjab have opposed acquisition of their land for SEZs. The highest level of opposition has been observed in West Bengal when land was acquired by the state government for the Tata group at Singur and Salim group of Indonesia at Nandigram.  Besides the loss of agriculture land, concerns have also been raised about the project affected People.

Using water for SEZs is one of the major problems rising from different parts of the country. Mundra SEZ as per official website of the SEZ, it expects to get at least 6 million liters per day from the Sardar sarovar project, as promised by Gujarat water infrastructure Ltd.

The another main issue is rising from different parts of the country, the labour laws applicable to the rest of the country have been relaxed for the SEZs. The existing laws are well intentioned and they promote worker welfare. Relaxing such laws exclusively for the SEZs shows the government’s lack of conviction in its own commitment to social justice.

In some SEZs, the state governments are joint venture partners. In the case of some, special incentives by way of concessional electricity and water tariffs have been offered .In almost all the cases, valuable lands have been given away at concessional prices.

Considering the SEZ Act, it violates the letter and spirit of the Indian Constitution; it infringes the Fundamental Rights of the citizen guaranteed in part 3rd of the Constitution. Relaxation /inapplicability of many labour Laws (including under the Industrial Dispute Act, Contract Labour Act, Factories Act, Minimum wages Act, Trade Union Act), Environment (Protection) Act is inapplicable to SEZs ,No environmental clearance needed.  Violates  Panchayat Raj Act (1996) for local self government, violating laws granting rights and control to adivasi communities over their land, violating many international conventions on human rights.

To sum up, SEZs and other emerging developmental issues can be seen in a broad perspective and theoretical underpinnings of neo-liberalism. As far as Indian polity is considered the implications emerging from SEZs may cause increasing socio-political crisis because the society is far more complex than we assumed and that will result in organized or unorganized resistance and that may even cause anti-neo liberal political forces. So, in order to avoid the polarization of the society, civil society should engage to create a consensus on developmental issues. More over, in order to understand the continuities and changes that are taking place in the developmental scenario it needs further study.     

Endnotes

Bijoiny Mohanthy and S.C Hazary(Ed), Political Economy of India Retrospect and Prospects (New Delhi: APH Publ).

 S.C Hazary, Political Economy of India Retrospect and Prospects, ( New Delhi: APH Publi,1997.)

Sukhendu Mazumder, Politico-Economic Ideas of Mahatma Gandhi  (New Delhi: Concept Publishing House, 2004.).

B.Mohanan,(Ed), Gandhis Legacy and New Human Civilisation, Gyam publishing house, New Delhi,1999.

Vineetha Sharma, ‘Implications Of A Special Economic Zone on Project Affected People a case study of Reliance Haryana SEZ”, Man & Development, Vol.39,Dec,2007.

Jermy Grasset and Frederic Landy, ‘Special Economic Zones in India Between International integration and Real Estate Speculation’, Man &Development, Vol. 39,No.4, Dec, 2007.

India 2008, A Reference Annual, Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting , Govt:of India, New Delhi,2008.

Partha Mukhopadhyay, “The promised land of SEZs” Seminar, Jan, 2008

.

Sheetal Sharma and Kishan Pratap,  “ The Prosperous Few and the Pauperized Many: A Perspective on Special Economic Zones”, Mainstream, February,23-March,1,2007.

Watch the video related to political system

Technate design precludes special interest groups. It is based on science and is not an oligarchic belief system concept. It uses a system called energy accounting. It is not a political system. It is not connected to any other groups or ideas other than the Technical Alliance… the original group that presented these ideas. The Technate design is the viable alternative to the current Price System method. Investigate and join with us to make the information concerning this subject available …

Help answer the question about political system

About Author

Jipson V. Paul
MA. Politics and International Relations from M G.University Kerala
MPhil. Politics and Intrrnational Relations from M G University Kerala
Doing PhD in Pondichery Cental University Puducherry.

From skillful caricaturists to passionate crusaders for political causes, Israeli artists have throughout history in one form or another created a political work of art. Whether biblical stories of Jewish bravery and martyrdom, the birth of Zionism or more modern examples of courage, political art has always played a part in the soul of Israeli creations of art. At the same time, even in modern times of today artists are often scared to link their creations to history and politics.

In the following, this article examines four aspects analyzing the issue of art & politics.

Artists & Politics

The first aspect addressing the subject of artists and politics examines the extent of public involvement by Israeli artists in taking a political standpoint expressed through their art paintings.

From a democratic point of view which seeks to protect freedom of expression, it is important that art work tackle political issues and influence public debate

However, the problem in Israel for artists who want to express an anti-establishment view is the concern over the fact that the establishment represents their main source of support and financing. While those who want to back up the establishment are not doing so out of fear of being accused by their artist friends that their creative work is influenced by economic reasons. As such it can be concluded that in our time the majority of Israeli artists are “fearful” when it comes to touching upon political issues.

Politicians & Art

In the second aspect addressing politicians and art, I examine the involvement and understanding of political leaders in the creations of art. There is no doubt, that an artistic point of perspective opens horizons contributing to the development of a more open-minded way of thinking.

For this reason, Israeli leaders – whose personalities are often channeled through the security and/or party platform – should show interest in the arts as a tool for personal development which can widen their world view.

From a public point of view, a politician, who has knowledge and proven interest in cultural issues, will be considered as having preferable characteristics of experience and knowledge.

Politics in Art

Addressing the third aspect of politics in art, the following questions I believe are at the heart of the issue: To what extent does the political and public activity of the artist influence the artistic evaluation of his creations in the present and the future? If the official establishment wants the prestige of a particular artist can it increase or decrease the value of his art?

Art in Politics

In the fourth aspect of art in politics I raise the question if to a certain extent there is an artist at work in the political making? Can we make the assertion that certain people have a political-artistic talent which makes it easier for them to succeed in the political arena?

In this context, I very much believe, that in order to be a player in the political arena winning public opinion, a leader needs to be creative and have strong interpersonal skills combining artistic elements.

Watch the video related to political system

A leading political scientist is warning that global institutions need a drastic overhaul if the world is to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Professor David Held from the London School of Economics says the global credit crunch and economic slowdown have shown that traditional Western-style democratic systems are outdated and unfit for purpose. The problem, he says, is that countries are increasingly interdependent, and that the actions of individual governments often have …

Help answer the question about political system

About Author

Amos Aharoni, an Israeli businessman who holds an M.B.A in Political Science, is the founder and owner of the Amos Aharoni Collection

When most people hear the phrase “organizational politics,” they react very negatively. They see politics in the workplace as forming clicks and another way to keep those who go against the status quo labeled as an outsider. People also think that it’s a toxic dynamic that allows manipulative behaviors for people to get what they want by stepping on their co-workers’ backs. But not every instance of workplace politicking is a selfish maneuver to win.

In his book, Building Great Teams: Charting the Path of Organizational Politics (Book Surge, 2007), U.S. Marine turned business professional and university instructor Damian D. “Skipper” Pitts takes you inside one of the greatest team building organizations in the world – the United States Marine Corps – to examine and discover the strategies that business leaders must be willing to learn, use and employ for building ordinary groups into extraordinary teams; leading the right team of commandos who understand what it takes to win on the business battlefield and defeat workplace politics using warfare as the key to experience a significant win. He defines workplace and office politics as “the path to smart growth…using the power to accelerate the careers of high potential future leaders and teams power in the workplace.” He implies that office politics are not always negative, but offer opportunities for greatness. And while workplace politics aren’t necessarily avoidable, people can learn to understand their purpose, find their voice and understand how-to strengthen and build the teams dynamics and interpersonal communications skills – all while managing responsibilities with tact, poise, and polish. The game of politics, when understood how-to use it as a strategic weapon, helps to successfully chart the path of personal and professional growth as the essential task to achieve personal mastery from the results of peak performance. Organizational politics also offers the hidden treasures that allow people to stand-out from the crowd. They learn to demonstrate their ability to navigate the maze of successful team building – a task that is viewed as positive organizational behavior from the individual that is perceived as an extraordinary leader. This is the type of person that others seek to follow and emulate for the greatness they wish to develop for themselves.

Workplace Politics vs. The Battlefield Engagement

Just as in any military engagement, in order to win one must know the rules better than his/her competitor to outsmart them on the battlefield. It also is beneficial to be a part of the right team for controlling the elements of the battlefront. However, some might claim the workplace and the military are very different in many ways. Thinking from this approach causes significant missteps in organizational politics. There are significant issues that are similar in the workplace and on a military battlefield. For starters, the one constant is “people.” Any time that people are involved in a scenario, decision-making must play a role in the ability to win. Using the strategies from the United States Marine Corps, people are responsible for making critical decisions from the highest ranking officer down to the lowest ranking enlisted – and the decision could mean life or death. Well, the same goes for the workplace. People are responsible for making critical decisions that could mean that the organization acquires strategic assets (executive suite decisions) or that a customer is treated in a way that causes them to continue doing business with the organization. Both can be seen as life or death for the organization. As seen with Wachovia bank, a decision from the top level leadership was made to acquire Westgate Financial to boost their mortgage business. When the U.S. mortgage markets and industry imploded during the financial crisis, the organization was effected with incredible implications – it became the beginning of the end for one of the country’s largest banks and people lost careers and more. Similar to the likes of a military battlefield engagement and a series of wrong decisions made by leadership, loss of life was experienced.  

But what most people fail to realize is that the workplace is too a battlefield. Business is warfare and those who understand how to navigate the politics always win. Consider the game of chess. Chess can be low-key and quiet, a friendly game between friends. Or it can be explosive and highly competitive, set amid a crowd of observers, where the ultimate winner reaps world-wide accolades. Consider the skill behind the game of chess. It requires well-planned strategy and a great deal of mental acuity and patience, not to mention years of practice to reach an elite status.

These are the same skills required by a great leader, one who has the ability to guide an organization and one who understands the world of workplace politics. On the other hand, while playing a game such as chess, there can only be a single winner where there often can be a more neutral outcome in the world of workplace politics. With the proper skills of negotiation and influence, savvy leadership might be able to create a win-win situation.   

The Truth about Politics in the Workplace

Politics will always be part of an organization because people are people. The dynamic relationships of individuals who run a business enterprise play an important part in how the business operates: How the mission map, posture statements, vision, values and organizational culture is forged. And while the average Jane or Joe might feel like they are being run over by co-workers who manipulate the system, bully, gossip, backstab and brown nose to get what they want, there is more to workplace politics than those negative daily encounters. The quintessential aspect of organizational politics is the team. Building great teams’ hits at one of the most discussed topics in business media and the workplace: Organizational Behavior, transformational leadership, organizational renewal and inter-office politics. The day of the individual worker is over, as today’s business arena demands that workers possess the ability to effectively work as team units that consistently produce extraordinary outcomes from their performance. It is a scenario all top leaders and managers knows well: The organization, their people, and their systems all require efficient and effective processes to remain constant in its approach to move quickly toward new and innovative ways of reaching mission-critical objectives.

Good leaders are a thing of the past, as global economies now require more than good – they seek greatness and ordinary just does not fit the bill any longer. They now require the ordinary to be “extraordinary.” The new battlefield in the workplace requires the extraordinary leaders’ understanding of workplace politics and the accompanying landscape to be significant. They can no longer work in the old silos of the past that was developed by the silly political conflicts. No, these extraordinary leaders can no longer exhibit the behaviors that ultimately invite disaster. This is not to say that leaders of the past demonstrated the behaviors that put-up with negative politics that caused disastrous outcomes nor does it imply every good leader has found his/her way to the top of the heap by climbing over the bodies of crushed co-workers. It simply means that leadership understands workplace politics well enough to use them as “strategic weapons” to produce positive returns without the mud slinging and backsliding of unethical and immoral actions.  

Understanding how-to chart the path of organizational politics means being able to maneuver using political warfare to enhance the organization’s ability to rise to the top of its industry, without leaving one of its warriors lying wounded on the battlefield. It means having a well crafted Battleplan, understanding the players, building positive alliances and coalition of forces, using the art of war as a significant warfighting strategy that all stakeholders understand and buy-in to for winning, and finally, developing a compelling case study for the associates of the organization to understand the comprehensive approach for integrating strategic human capital and team development initiatives into the fold.

Convert Uniqueness into Ultimate Power

The best leaders are the people that understand the nature of warfare in dealing with and overcoming workplace politics. These are the men and women who have a tone on the pulse of the workplace – internal and external – and know what it takes to remain on task “ethically” to lead others into greatness. Here are five important things to know about politically savvy leaders:

°          They understand the critical importance of the team associates to be “LeaderShaped” into GREATNESS. They understand the “what” and “how” in developing a GREAT team.

°          They make decisive decisions for the benefit of the Future Picture

°          They understand the “culture” in the system that the team must influence.

°          They know what it take to strategically “execute” and win as a team.

°          They know how-to use the “Six Political Signs of Business Leadership” to achieve professional mastery to the people and organization: 1. a clear “Vision” of issues. 2. Understand the “Value” drivers within the team. 3. “Behavioral” influence of leadership to the Future Picture. 4. “Strategy” Modeling (Enterprise Decision Making). 5. Strategic “Execution” (Governance). 6. “Duplication of Protocol” (learnable-teachable methods for future engagements).

Engaging the battlefield that is influenced by workplace politics, for many, may mean asserting their power, pushing and shoving like the elementary school bully until they get what they want. But that’s really just the toxic behavior and conduct that eliminates the possibilities for leadership and the organization they influence to win. One of the best ways to lose power is to overtly use it. Instead, the best leaders know that power comes from influence – and influence is subjective to behavior, character and the value system that drives the people responsible for charting the pathway.

In this great read, Pitts also outlines how, in most cases, team leaders never hit their goals – not because they lack talent within the associate ranks, but because they are naïve to the complexities of team dynamics. He outlines the strategic-execution methods that smart leaders understand and use to determine what type of team model best suits their specific environment, what key skills to look for (and which to avoid), and how to coax top performances from everyone starting from day one.

Author Robert Dilenschneider explains in his book, Power and Influence: The Rules Have Changed: True power and influence means accepting responsibility, taking the heat and keeping your word. So even if someone supports the supposition that leadership is just another way of playing political games, it doesn’t necessarily mean this is a bad thing. When properly played, workplace politics can lead to great achievements and outcomes. Pitts believes that extraordinary teams that are great engage politics well. They are LeaderShaped and driven by extraordinary people who make a distinctive impact – they deliver significant and superior performance over a long period of time. There are some striking characteristics of great teams who achieve sustained success within their mission across its life cycle. They experience an increased level of professional mastery in developing and executing as great teams do. These teams have gone through a process; a process that is forged in a furnace of professional development, transformational thinking, and strategic-execution.  

Workplace politics, good or evil, are a very real part of the work environment. Whether people subscribe to the belief that leadership is just another way of engaging the political battlefield or not, it is important to keep in mind that as long as there are people working together as great teams do, there will be politics, but the outcomes will be far different from the results of the past. Great teams are the way to successfully engage the battlefield – greatness from the team is how to engage politics well and win it using fair tactics.

Watch the video related to political system

video.google.com Babylon the cradle of civilization developed a slave system, to better control them. Slaves worked 5 days a week with 2 days to rest, leaving them no time to rebel. After a term of loyal slavery, they were free to become citizens of Babylon. Children born into slavery were freed with their parents to further encourage compliance. We are working in the evolution of the Babylonian slave system and it is obsolete in a post industrial digital age. In order to keep this system …

Help answer the question about political system

About Author

Damian D. “Skipper” Pitts, A United States Marine turned business professional is the author of Building GREAT Teams: Charting the Path of Organizational Politics, Building GREAT Teams: The Monograph (Book Surge Publishing, 2007) and the co-author of Business WARFIGHTING For GREAT Teams (Book Surge Publishing, 2008) and Founder and Chairman of the Bison Group Corporation, a management consulting and training firm. He is the author The Process of LeaderShaping, a cultural transformational program and university course of study and has consulted or presented to numerous leading U.S. and foreign corporations, helping them to realize increased integrated talent management strategies, team building maneuvers, and decision-making skills to compete in today’s highly uncertain business environments. He has also authored four additional publications with his most successful title, The Art of Detachment: Breakthrough Principles to Transformational Leadership (Kendall Hunt, 2007). His works allowed him to be chosen as the technical, military and development specialists by the U.S. film industry to the feature film “Stateside” that released in theaters in May 2004 where he trained and acted onscreen with “A-List” talents Val Kilmer and Jonathan Tucker along with 75 -other actors, teaching them the principles of leadership, team development, and influence for the production. He is now teaching his programs at Temple University.

For additional information, please email Dpitts@thebisongroup.com.

Ukrainians were to vote on January 17th 2010 for a new president. However the Ukrainian Parliament voted overwhelmingly on April 1st 2009, to keep the presidential elections on October 25 2009, three months ahead of the end of President Viktor Yushchenko’s first term of office.

Why did the parliament vote for this early election date? There are more than one answer to this. The front runners for president see a threat in a new rising candidate which will gain by more time, and they want to cut him short of this so he does not win to much votes. Another explanation is that the Ukrainian politicians up till now have not shown much strategic leadership and lack of crisis management, and this is not only limited to the top leaders in Ukraine, but the whole parliament.

Ukraine is in a need for a change in political leadership as the present leadership consisting of the president and prime minister does not provide the leadership Ukraine needs at this moment.
Ukraine present political crisis is a struggle between two heads of power and Ukraine’s future as a European Parliamentary Democracy. In addition there is an ambitious opposition with the party of regions leader, who will do his best to get into power, mostly because of personal ambitions. An opposition leader which has a scandal filled background in Ukrainian politics.

Razumkov Center performed a poll in the period from February 2th until March 5th 2009 revealed six potential presidential alternatives amongst the population, these were;

Viktor Yanukovych,
Yulia Tymoshenko,
Arseniy Yatseniuk,
Volodymyr Lytvyn,
Petro Symonenko, and
Viktor Yuschenko

Amongst these candidates there is only one real choice for a visionary leadership which will contribute to form the independent strong Ukraine which gives the population hopes for the future.
This candidate is the 34 year old economist and lawyer Arseniy Yatseniuk.
He is the candidate which has risen fastest in popularity in the last few months and gains terrain towards his opponents for every day towards the presidential election in January 2010. The other candidates have not demonstrated the ability to unite Ukraine either in power position, nor as opposition politicians. More of the same medicine will not work any longer for Ukraine. Like the international crisis, there is a need for new tools that will prevent Ukraine having the same problems over and over again.

ARSENIY YATSENIUK STANDS FOR BUILDING A NEW UNITED UKRAINE

Arseniy Yatseniuk can build a new sense of national unity that will bring relatively scandal free politics forward and he represent the next generation of a new post-partisan Ukrainian leadership.
He represents the transformational figure which emerges in the Ukrainian political landscape that captures the imagination and majority of Ukrainian voters towards the January 2010 national elections.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk is the one leader who is uniquely positioned to save Ukraine from itself. His meteoric rise is altering the political terrain of the upcoming elections in Ukraine.
Since Yatsenyuk has entered the race, he will have a challenging race towards presidency. But he can also campaign and spur optimism in Ukraine and bring hope back to the distressed population.

Ukraine is required to present balanced governmental budgets. The president must ensure that all politicians, regardless of fraction work together towards a common goal – saving Ukraine. In order to achieve this the new leader must be ready to take actions within the energy politics, especially Naftogas and its inability to present positive capital results as well as be able to open up its operations to be able to control its use of capital. Another issue the president needs to take care of is to handle the level of corruption in Ukraine.

Yushenko and Tymochenko have demonstrated lack of coherent leadership and ability to present a common political platform. They have therefore as I see it, disqualified themselves as candidates to be the needed future visionary political presidential leader of Ukraine.
The apparent lack of proper political craftsmanship in the formation of the Orange Coalition between Yushenko and Tymoshenko has lead to disagreement on virtually everything since they took the power in 2004.

The inability of the opposition leaders to present a real alternative to the present day leadership also disqualifies them from taking part in the new leadership of Ukraine. Today the major opposition party, party of regions is more occupied with criticize the existing government and president for not making a crisis plan and anti-crisis solutions, instead of cooperate with the leadership to create one.

BUILDING A UNITED UKRAINE WITH A VISIONARY MODERN LEADER

The new President to be elected in October 25th needs the trust by vast numbers of Ukrainians and not seen as part of the problem and not fatigued by a constant fighting within the political leader collegium’s of the President, Prime Minister and the chairman of Verkhovna Rada. The new Ukrainian leader must muster enough parliamentary seats and nationwide support to forge an effective coalition government and lead a genuine reform movement.

Yanukovych is facing a backlash in his party and polls for fumbling the last attempt to depose Timoshenko from the prime ministers office.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk can break out as a uniting force to save Ukraine.

The political fighting between Yushenko, Yanukovych and Tymoshenko demonstrate their inabilities in proper visionary political leadership on the cost of retaining personal powers.

Ukraine is sinking and Yatsenyuk’s poll numbers and popularity are rising.
As a former banker, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Speaker of the parliament, the 34 year-old Yatsenyuk is experienced and respected in Ukraine’s political arena. He is young, relatively scandal free and has the best chance to represent the next generation of a new post-partisan Ukrainian leadership.

Yatsenyuk represent the sober visionary leader who can impart a new sense of realism that implores Ukraine to clean up its own financial house.

He has charisma enough to inspire Ukrainians to take their destiny in their own hands and not look to Europe or Russia for salvation or blame them when things go wrong.

He must challenge the reign in Ukraine’s oligarchs who have ravaged the country in the same way that Russia’s oligarchs did during the transition from state ownership to free enterprise.

Yatsenyuk has the ability to craft a sensible forward-leaning Ukrainian energy policy that modernizes its infrastructure, energy policy reforms and restores its credibility in Europe.

Yatsenyuk articulate a vision that bridges the cultural and religious divide between Ukraine and Russian nationals.

He has demonstrated the capability to lead a parliament to get things done, and should therefore be able to govern a parliament with a significant numbers of members from the Tymoshenko Bloc and the Regions Party on his side.

The Ukrainian people are in a desperate search for new leadership as his political rival’s incessant infighting makes him a more attractive alternative.

POLITICAL STRATEGY – CHANGE UKRAINE THROUGH ITS CITIZENS

Yatsenyuk gives a clear and compelling vision of a new Ukraine, and a new theory of nation-building that departs with the failed attempts of the past.

Yatsenyuk has the ability to find alliances that will assist him in rise funding for his campaign for his newly formed party called Change Front Citizens Initiative.

Yatsenyuk will form a program for Ukraine’s resurrection.
His political strategy will be innovative, and be the consensus in the Ukrainian population as well as within the political circles. His party will present solutions that not only split the political difference between the major parties, but being radical pragmatists proposing solutions that benefit all Ukrainians struggling under severe economic conditions. He will not allow his party to become a soft centrist alternative which tries to be all things to all Ukrainians.

Yatsenyuk is seen as a political threat to established politicians like Yanukovych, and Tymoshenko, who have started attacking Yatsenyuk instead of ignoring him. This will provide an excellent development that provides him greater opportunities to highlight policy differences and new reforms, rather than engaging in personal smears.

Yatsenyuk can and will have to be tough in taking on his detractors; he cannot be equally as dirty.

Yatsenyuk stated recently: “I have ambitions as a politician – I want to change entire country and I do not want to change the National Bank”.

Yatsenyuk’s new organization the Change Front Citizens Initiative will build its own independent base of disaffected citizens and Ukraine’s youth that are anchored to his core vision. He will break off sections of Ukraine’s other major and minor parties on principle and policy to forge a winning coalition as the January 17 elections draw near.

Yatsenyuk’s path to victory will be the end of the political rancor between the Region’s Party and the Tymoshenko Bloc, and build a new sense of national unity.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk represents the change that will build the modern democratic Ukraine with the initiative of the Ukrainians themselves.

Watch the video related to political system

Throughout the history of mankind, the elite have always fought for world empire. Now, using secrecy and international banking systems, they are making their final push for world government. Only an educated and informed public can stop them in their tracks. Please send this video to everyone and subscribe to my channel for similar videos. www.infowars.com http Speaker at the beginning: Carl Sagan Music: Javier Navarrete – Long Long Time Ago Ennio Morricone – Ecstasy of Gold Credits – …

Help answer the question about political system

About Author

He has a background as civil engineer and geoscientist. He has worked mainly within the oil and gas industry from the mid 1980s. He has written a few fictional novels as well as being the author of some professional litterature within oil and gas sector, he is now an editor of some web sites.

How powerful is politics in business? The connection between the two is often hard to explain, but somehow they are closely connected. Did you ever happen to lose a job or a promotion in favor of a person who hadn’t worked harder than you, or made more significant contributions that you? Was it that person’s character that got him/her the job, the fact that he/she knew everyone around there, or could it be that you simply did not understand the politics going on around that business?

When we hear the word ‘politics’, we naturally think of politicians, political parties, political strategies, and so forth. But have you ever considered the term ‘politics’ from a business point of view? When it comes to politics in business, the former means the difference between failure and success in the latter. And, more often than not, politics can define one’s personal career. You can enjoy benefits or suffer penalties as a result of the way politics influences every business. If you happen to be among the most appreciated employees, decisions may go your way, but if you are ‘invisible’ to your bosses or they have nothing but ill feelings for you, some penalties may be coming your way.

When it comes to business decisions or work environments, we often hear expressions such as ‘it was nothing but politics’ or ‘that place is very political’. What do these expressions mean? And how can you be part of the game, and know how to play your politics? When you have managed to build a strong relationship with your customers, you understand the business thoroughly, and you are respected throughout the organization, but your superiors still think that you’re not doing well enough, this could be a clear example of people using politics to drive their own personal agenda.

It’s only fair to say that there’s no business without politics, and that its level of sophistication depends on the size of the organization. It’s understandable that the complexity of politics is proportional with the size of the company, because, after all, politics means power, and the more players are involved in the game, the more there is at stake.

Like everywhere else, we can speak of bad politics and good politics in business. Good politics refer to building strong networks at all the levels of that company or organization, spending time with employees from all levels, having a solid understanding of the keys to the success of the organization, and so forth. Good politics in business is about sharing information and encouraging other people to do the same thing. Bad politics refers to exactly the opposite. In the end it all comes down to driving your own agenda, as mentioned before. However, deft leadership should not be confused with bad politics in business. The two are very different.

Unfortunately, it seems that bad politics has got its share of businesses, and we see more of that than of good politics, because there are more bad politicians than there are good, and the former still continue to make the rule. But, in the end, it is up to you how you play the game.

If you want to find more information on different business or politics subjects please visit http://www.articletimesonline.com

Watch the video related to political system

the United States underwent a drastic change after that night in Hoboken.” From “Secrets of the Federal Reserve”, by Eustace Mullins. So began the dark conception of the Federal Reserve System, a creature which many economists and Constitutionalists argue is responsible for devouring the political and financial wealth of America. The US Dollar has seen a better than 98% decline in its purchasing power since the time of that meeting at the exclusive resort on Jekyll Island, Georgia. G. …

Help answer the question about political system

About Author

If you want to find more information on different business or politics subjects please visit http://www.articletimesonline.com

Although there are almost political cartoons in the newspapers, election years will always show an increase in political cartoons. Whether it’s just ordinary satire or construed to make fun of the current political leaders is difficult to assess, but there is no doubt that you will often see a political cartoon in the newspaper several times a week in the months preceding a new presidential election. Doonesbury has always been somewhat of a political cartoon, but election years will show a variety of other political cartoons as well.

How popular political cartoons really are depends where you live and the social standing of the populace. Most people don’t find political cartoons funny, so they tend to avoid them. Of course, if you live in an area where politics is wide spread, more people will read the political cartoons and actually derive pleasure from reading them. Political cartoons usually appeal to those people who have a difficult time enjoying anything that is funny. It appears those who have a more serious nature tend to be more drawn to political cartoons—at least that is how it appears to be on the surface. This may not be true of everyone, but it does appear to be a general rule of thumb. Also, those who do not involve themselves too much in politics seem to enjoy the satire of political cartoons more, especially if the political cartoon for that day is directed toward a political figure of the opposite party affiliation.

Whether the above observations are valid or not is probably contingent upon the locations of the cartoons’ publication. Some people may even be offended by the satire in political cartoons, so there is no hard and fast rule about who will derive pleasure from reading political cartoons. Cartoon Bank has decades of political cartoons for your viewing pleasure.

Watch the video related to political system

Assassin, Saboteur, the Empires Secret Weapon The Empire dominates scores of star systems across the galaxy, but not through the power of the dark side alone. Behind the scenes, the cunning Agents of Imperial Intelligence track down and eliminate the Empires enemies—from intractable Republic senators to traitorous Imperial Moffs to bloodthirsty rebels with Republic ties. Imperial Agents must master the arts of infiltration, seduction, and assassination to advance the Empires causes; they …

Help answer the question about political system

About Author

Read more about political cartoons at
www.cartoonbank.com

Political consulting is the business which has grown up around advising and assisting political campaigns, primarily in the United States. As democracy has spread around the world, American political consultants have often developed an international base of clients. Though its most important role is probably in the production of mass media (largely television), political consultants advise campaigns on virtually all of their activities, from research to field strategy.

The practice of consulting has several early precedents. President William McKinley’s closest political advisor Mark Hanna is sometimes described as the first political consultant. In California in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, Whitaker and Baxter established and grew the first true consulting firm, Campaigns, Inc. However, political consulting

blossomed with the increasing use of television advertising for campaign communications in the 1960s. It was in that period that Joe Napolitan claims to have become the first person to describe himself as a political consultant (Perlmutter, ed. Manship Guide to Political Communication, pg19).

In the subsequent years, political consulting has grown in importance and influence and extended its reach to campaigns at all levels of government in the United States, and beyond. Many consultants work not only for campaigns, but also for other political organizations, including parties and political action committees, sometimes through independent expenditures; some also do public relations and research work for corporations and governments. In fact, today corporations seeking approval from municipal boards have turned to land use political consultants to help earn need entitlements for their project.

Critics also blame political consulting, at least in part, for a variety of ills of the modern election process. In part because broadcast media consultants are often paid on commission, they are blamed specifically for the rising cost of political campaigns and the increasing reliance on paid media. A successful candidate running a low-budget campaign would be a serious economic threat to the political consulting field; such candidates, however, are rare.

Left-leaning activists within the Democratic Party, in particular, charge that political consultants are a major obstacle to participatory democracy, political reform, and electoral success for the Democrats. In a much-publicized e-mail on December 9, 2004, the online activist group MoveOn.org wrote, “For years, the Party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base. But we can’t afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers.”

Lastly, there is growing professional opposition to what is called a cookie cutter campaign, where the themes and strategies of one campaign are transferred to another campaign, despite what may be major differences in political context. Brian Wright, president of Democrasource, LLC (an Ohio based national political consulting firm

specializing in enhanced campaign data strategies and micro-targeting), believes that “it’s just a matter of time, campaign communications techniques are evolving so quickly — anyone sitting on the sidelines or clinging to the last presidential campaign’s strategies is done. The book’s been rewritten.”

Watch the video related to political system

www.egs.edu Jean Baudrillard, French cultural theorist, philosopher, political commentator, and photographer talking about cultural identity, politics, changing and becoming. The work of Jean Baudrillard is frequently associated with postmodernism and post-structuralism. Seminar for the students at the European Graduate School, EGS Media and Communication Program Studies Department, Saas-Fee, Switzerland, Europe, in 2002. Jean Baudrillard was a social theorist and critic best known for …

Help answer the question about political system

About Author

Paul Davis
paulxty_14@yahoo.com
http://optimumresponse.com/