Anna Hazare has company. In a distant part of the world, and at the other end of the economic spectrum, a rich American is fed up with the way Americans are being governed.
At a time when the US economy is in a slow mode, venom in the American political class is reaching crippling levels; resultantly all movement forward is being stalled by partisan politics. Fed up by all this, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wrote on August 15 to fellow businessmen, appealing to them that they should not give political donations till Washington cleans up its act.
It is probably only a coincidence, but Anna Hazare too shook up India on August 15 when he sat in meditation at Mahatma Gandhi’s samadhi for a few hours.
Thereafter there was no looking back; millions of people identified themselves with Anna. ‘I am Anna’ became the sartorial emblem of an entire nation. As with Anna, the response to Schultz’s letter has been electrifying; a hundred CEOs have already signed the pledge against giving donations. Though Indians occupy a number of CEO positions in today’s corporate America,not one of them has signed the pledge so far. Like other immigrants, they must be in fear of retribution from the state in the otherwise rainbow land of the free.
But similarities between the capitalist coffeemaker and the humble villager continue, proving for once that East and West can meet. Anna Hazare fasted for 12 days amidst a carnival like mélange of youth and your next door neighbour. Starbucks’s Schultz took out an advertisement in The New York Times in early September. Unlike the slick ads expected from a company like Starbucks, he chose to address his fellow Americans via a letter; a simple text explaining his opinion of the government and his disappointment with it. This straightforward appeal is a hallmark of Anna’s method too — an approach that is dismissed as simplistic by some of our critics.
Schultz’s concern was lucidly stated in his first letter to Americans. He outlined the problem thus; ‘…our elected officials from both parties have failed to lead. They have chosen to put partisan and ideological purity over the well-being of the people…. They have spent a resource even more precious than the dollar: our collective confidence in each other, in the future, and in our ability to solve problems together.’
Then he prescribed the solution: ‘That is why we today pledge to withhold any further campaign contributions to the President and all members of Congress until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing.’
It stands to reason that as a CEO Schultz should see the American crisis and its solution in terms of jobs and business confidence. With his ear to the ground, Anna’s goal is societal; the cleansing of system by ridding it of corruption. There is another difference in their approach; Anna’s constituency is the masses while Schultz addresses essentially his business colleagues and the urban elite. Yet their methods are similar.
Both are adopting populist measures in promoting their message, and in both cases media has resonated positively.
In the end both may fall short of the desired, but they would have tried at least. Even if some CEOs continue giving political funds, even if American politicians continue to promote partisan agendas, the fact that people have responded enthusiastically to Schultz should be a vindication of sorts. If nothing else it would have raised public awareness of the odds against the nation, and its economy. Whether, and if, it affects votes during the next US elections remains to be seen.
In Anna’s case too, Cassandras have been working overtime; running down the movement and quibbling about its instruments. But in doing so they miss the larger point; what if Anna had not taken up his campaign? Corruption in its virulent form may then have gone on unchecked.
Consider also for a moment the effect that rampaging corruption might have had on an economy which is still wobbling unsteadily. In that sense therefore Anna’s was a timely intervention. If nothing else, it might have made the corrupt a bit wary. Since we are in the realm of speculative possibilities, what would happen if Schultz and Anna were to meet in Ralegan? Perhaps, they might end up brewing more than just ideas in a coffee cup.
No comments:
Post a Comment