Tag: Politics

Summer has finally arrived and so have longer, sunny days, that beckon you to rejuvenate your senses with an all-new reading list to look forward to! Here are some new launches that will help you sail smoothly in this scorching heat.

A glance at some eagerly awaited books, which will be out soon!

A Human’s Guide to Machine Intelligence

Hardeep Singh  Puri’s forty years of professional life as a senior diplomat, India’s permanent representative to the UN and Union Minister of State for Housing and Urban Affairs in New Delhi has given him a unique vantage point to see the fault-lines in political narratives and the ‘delusional’ idiosyncrasies of politicians.

Many democratically elected leaders of the twenty-first century have displayed streaks of recklessness, megalomania, bizarre self-obsession and political views that are difficult to characterize.

Delusional Politics studies the actions of these contemporary political leaders with the example of one of the most momentous events our times-Brexit-exposing the self-serving, poorly calculated behavior at the heart of significant governing decisions.

It traces the rise of the right-wing anti-immigration paranioa in Britain, pitted against a Prime Minister who despite his intentions failed as a leader of the Remain campaign. Puri describes Brexit as three supreme examples of delusional thinking and politics. One, calling a referendum that was not required. Two, allowing the referendum’s outcome to be shaped by the uncertainties of democratic politics without due diligence, hard work and safeguards being put in place to ensure the nation’s future. And finally, calling an election when it was not due and when the government had a comfortable majority.

Read on to find out more about the delusional politics of Brexit

 A poorly calculated and casually reached decision to decide the future of a nation and its place in the world

As the story goes, Cameron had been eating pizza at O’Hare while waiting for a commercial flight home following a NATO summit. He was with his Foreign Secretary William Hague and Chief of Staff Ed Llewellyn. The conversation that ultimately led to the unravelling of the United Kingdom apparently went something like this: We have a lot of Euro-sceptics in the party. Let us smoke them out. Let us have a referendum.

 ~

Dissent within Cameron’s own party, the Conservatives, reflected poorly on the party’s leadership

Members of Cameron’s party had essentially backed the agenda of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). UKIP had, over time, reframed its identity to become the party of the ‘leftbehinds’ of the country’s economic development. Their rallying cry became the face of the growing anti-immigrant sentiment that would pull the United Kingdom out of the EU. The rebel Tories supported Brexit for economic reasons, whereas UKIP supported it, at least in its messaging, for cultural reasons, calling for the UK’s identity to be reclaimed.

 ~

 Parties on the right capitalized on the blue-collar angst and anti-immigrant sentiments.

Right-wing populists maintained their economic agenda behind the scenes, while prioritizing—publicly, at least—anti-immigration. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) spearheaded this movement, with its primarily less-educated, blue-collar, white male base at its tail. Founded in 1993 during a transformational point in the UK, UKIP called its base the ‘left-behinds’ of the country’s economic growth and pledged itself as the people’s voice against the establishment that coddled the immigrants. UKIP’s base expanded in waves, most notably in the mid- 2000s, when some Eastern European countries joined the EU, bringing with them another influx of immigrants.

  ~

David Cameron failed to galvanize his youth voter base the way the pro-Brexiters captured the imagination of their own

In the 2015 referendum, the votes of Cameron’s ‘new generation’ were pivotal. Although the young people who did turn up at the booths voted in Cameron’s favour—to remain in the EU—their overall turnout was insufficient. As the Liberal Democratic leader Tim Farron put it, ‘Young people voted to remain by a considerable margin, but were outvoted.’ UKIP and the pro-Brexiters had successfully secured the older, less educated, working class votes.

  ~

David Cameron’s incredibly privileged and well-connected background made it difficult for him to combat populist sentiments

But it is undeniable that Cameron’s privileged upbringing, his confines to the upper legions of society, and his rapid-fire ascension up the political ladder detached him from the people he so earnestly desired to serve. Regardless of his intentions, Cameron was a perfectly unfit contender to combat the populist insurgency of the right-wing Eurosceptics.

  ~

The peculiar politics and character of Nigel Farage

On the other side of the battle, the Brexit campaign was led by Nigel Farage, a self-professed ‘middle-class boy from Kent’ with an arsonist tongue characteristic of a populist leader. He correctly felt the mood in parts of the country and rode the anti-immigrant tide. He tethered the resurrection of the British identity—a past-time homogeneous white identity that so many of the Leave voters yearned to return to—to the referendum. Privileged though his background is,  Farage convincingly painted himself as one of the ‘left-behinds’ who his party fought for. He fostered a connection with his base that in many ways Cameron failed to do with his. Farage’s brazen and open discontent with the establishment resonated with far too many people.

  ~

In calling the general election in April 2017, Theresa May made a decision that would turn out to be superfluously tumultuous path as Cameron’s.

On 18 April 2017, in an attempt to gain more power for the Tories in preparation for the Brexit negotiations, May called for general election, which was not due until 2020.60 Polls at the time had been showing promising figures for the Conservative Party’s success, and May thought she could turn these numbers into parliamentary seats. The election, she argued, was ‘necessary to secure the strong and stable leadership the country needs to see (it) through “Brexit” and beyond’. The elections took place less than two months after May’s announcement, on 8 June 2017. The Conservatives lost their parliamentary majority, and Labour gained seats. After the embarrassing results, May then resorted to forming a new government with the Democratic Unionist Party in order to secure a governing majority.

 ~

 The emerging consequences of a referendum that was won on a ‘campaign of lies’

As Inter Press Service founder Roberto Savio succinctly put it, ‘Only now the British are realizing that they voted for Brexit, on the basis of a campaign of lies. But nobody has taken on Johnson or Farage publicly, the leaders of Brexit, after Great Britain accepted to pay, as one of the many costs of divorce, at least 45 billion Euro, instead of saving 20 billion Euro, as claimed by the “Brexiters”. And there are only a few analysis on why political behaviour is more and more a sheer calculation, without any concern for truth or the good of the country.’

Delusional Politics brings to light the fact that at the heart of delusional politics is perhaps the delusional politician.

Hardeep S. Puri’s forty years of professional life as a senior diplomat, India’s permanent representative to the UN, and now Minister for Housing and Urban Affairs in New Delhi, give him a unique vantage point to see the fault-lines in political narratives and the ‘delusional’ idiosyncrasies of politicians.

Many democratically elected leaders of the twenty-first century have displayed streaks of recklessness, megalomania, bizarre self-obsession and political views that are difficult to characterize. Delusional Politics studies the actions of these contemporary political leaders and covers Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, the rise of the BJP under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and decision-making with respect to global governance, terrorism and trade. It brings to light the fact that at the centre of delusional politics is perhaps the delusional politician itself.

Hardeep Puri explores in particular one of the more ‘unconventional presidencies’ of contemporary times-that of Donald Trump from his early career, to his presidential campaign and to the personal and political concerns that govern his somewhat unusual attitudes to America and its place in the world order.

Read on for eight things you need to about Donald Trump’s unconventional presidency.

The presidential aspirations that grew from a jibe

“It is far-fetched to assert that Trump’s pursuit of the US Presidency originated from a single night in the Washington Hilton hotel in 2011 over some one-liners. In an interview with the Washington Post during his presidential campaign, Trump stated, ‘There are many reasons I’m running, but that’s not one of them.’ But as Trump’s public persona slowly evolved into a treasure trove for entertainment and jest, his self-alleged thick skin grew lean. Stack upon stack of jeers and taunts ushered Trump towards his eventual realization: ‘Unless I actually ran, I wouldn’t be taken seriously.’”

His self-described ‘truthful hyperbole’

“In his book Trump: The Art of the Deal, Trump terms boisterous bragging of this sort ‘truthful hyperbole’. Trump dragged this into the Oval Office to serve no political or policy related purpose. Of course, the President’s own popularity is sought to be enhanced. Such efforts do not appear to effectively factor in the negative impact of botched attempts. Misleading the public is not entirely new to the presidency. Post-truth politics has been in play for quite some time.”

The slew of exaggerations and ‘alternative facts’ on both sides

“It is perhaps fitting that the first documented accounts of President Trump’s first 100 days in office are based on delusion and exaggeration. The President is known to have made exaggerated claims, whether pertaining to his business dealings or his personality, and the media too has published exaggerated stories of both his past and present. It would seem neither party is ready to shed the delusion and pull back on the hyperbole just yet.”

His reneging on the Obama-era Iran deal with no alternative in sight

“When viewed from this perspective, the withdrawal from the Iran deal was a corrective measure he took in the interest of the average American—a delusion he himself believed and fed his support base. He was correcting, he believed, a wrong committed by the ‘establishment’ and saving America from yet another international misadventure, similar to the interventions in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Moreover, the withdrawal was meant to pander to the strong Israeli lobby in the United States, which was steadfastly against the Iran deal but got little attention from President Obama. The delusional act of bringing domestic partisanship and one-upmanship to international negotiations, that too to an issue as grave as nuclear security, has had serious consequences.”

The strange competition with Kim Jong-un regarding ‘button sizes’!

“‘The following tweet from the personal account of the forty-fifth President of the United States is just one example of the flailing governance of nuclear security in the world: North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.’ Will someone from his depleted and food-starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!’”

His complete dismissal of climate diplomacy or environmental considerations

“On 2 June 2017, Trump withdrew US support to the Paris Accord, claiming he was elected President of the citizens of Pittsburgh and not Paris. He made his contempt for climate action, global governance and multilateral diplomacy clear in one go. To win the presidential election, Trump had promised to bring back the jobs the coal miners had lost due to environmental regulations imposed by Obama. The pull-out from the Paris deal along with a host of domestic measures was therefore Trump’s way of delivering on his campaign promise. The fact, however, remains that these efforts have little to no impact and the jobs Trump tried to recreate are nowhere in sight. Like many of his decisions, this renunciation of the Paris Accord too is steeped in delusional thinking.”

His  dream team, filled with the most hawkish and anti-international individuals

“Each of these individuals had a common reputation that preceded them—Pompeo was a former member of the Tea Party, and known to have a hawkish worldview. He famously defended the CIA against the senate report that claimed that torture tactics were deployed during the Bush presidency. Gina Haspel, who replaced Pompeo as the head of the CIA, was herself accused of torturing suspects and destroying evidence. Neither of them, however, comes close to the hawkishness of John Bolton, who till day remains one of the few individuals who defends the American invasion of Iraq, and the intervention in Libya.”

His complete cognitive dissonance handling nuclear deals in Iran and North Korea

“Moreover, this ambiguity has set the precedent for future negotiations. Both Iran and North Korea will see the other as a benchmark. For Iran, a much watered-down (and vague) agreement with the United States sends the signal that to get Trump back on the table, it too needs to expand its nuclear capability, and in return, get a better deal than the one it signed with Obama. For North Korea, if Trump can renege on the Obama-era Iran deal, which was much more comprehensive than the bullet points they have agreed to, there is little value in taking the initiative forward, and in fact, their best play is to continue to retain a nuclear arsenal capable of reaching the United States. When viewed from this prism, the discontinuation of military exercises with South Korea is a win-win solution for Kim Jong-Un. He has demonstrated that he can build intercontinental ballistic missiles, buy time from the US (due to the vagueness of the bullet points) on the future course of action, and have South Korea and Japan on the back foot.”

Delusional Politics brings to light the fact that at the heart of delusional politics is perhaps the delusional politician.

Hardeep S. Puri’s forty years of professional life as a senior diplomat, India’s permanent representative to the UN, and now Minister for Housing and Urban Affairs in New Delhi, give him a unique vantage point to see the fault-lines in political narratives and the ‘delusional’ idiosyncrasies of politicians.

Many democratically elected leaders of the twenty-first century have displayed streaks of recklessness, megalomania, bizarre self-obsession and political views that are difficult to characterize. Delusional Politics studies the actions of these contemporary political leaders and covers Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, the rise of the BJP under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and decision-making with respect to global governance, terrorism and trade. It brings to light the fact that at the centre of delusional politics is perhaps the delusional politician, who, in turn, is often encouraged and egged on by pseudo expertise, vested interests, and self-serving advice. Such leaders pursue delusional policies that yield catastrophic results.

Read on for five world leaders and the ‘delusional politics’ they have pursued.

Mahinda Rajapaksa

A lack of fiscally responsible spending, which has led to a growing dependence on China

“Many examples of delusional politics are available in South Asia, including in India itself. In Sri Lanka, an elected president decided to define his legacy by erecting huge white elephants in his home district Mattala, a port in Hambantota, and the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport. What purpose do these mega infrastructure projects serve? They provide an ego boost to the leader. But what else? He succeeded in driving up his country’s debt. Sri Lanka now faces the prospect of more than 90 per cent of its GDP being earmarked for debt repayment. Since this is not sustainable and the Chinese are not into philanthropy or altruism, the debt has been converted into equity and parts of Sri Lanka have been sold to the Chinese.”

David Cameron

Casually deciding upon calling a referendum and allowing its outcome to be shaped by the uncertainties of democratic politics without due diligence, hard work and safeguards being put in place to ensure the nation’s future.

“As the story goes, Cameron had been eating pizza at O’Hare while waiting for a commercial flight home following a NATO summit. He was with his Foreign Secretary William Hague and Chief of Staff Ed Llewellyn. The conversation that ultimately led to the unravelling of the United Kingdom apparently went something like this: We have a lot of Euro-sceptics in the party. Let us smoke them out. Let us have a referendum. Cameron had been on the lookout for an opportunity to reclaim face and leadership, not only in Parliament but within his own party.”

Theresa May

Calling an election when it was not due and when the government had a comfortable majority.

“When campaigning for the prime minister’s job, Theresa May had pledged to continue in the footsteps of her predecessor. In calling the general election in April 2017, she had succeeded in venturing down the same superfluously tumultuous path as Cameron. The elections took place less than two months after May’s announcement, on 8 June 2017. The Conservatives lost their parliamentary majority, and Labour gained seats. After the embarrassing results, May then resorted to forming a new government with the Democratic Unionist Party in order to secure a governing majority.”

Donald Trump

A series of delusional decisions

“He formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, breaking with seven decades of US foreign policy and stripping any prospects of a US-led mediation. He has announced that the US will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, breaking away from Western allies and possibly inciting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. His attempts to earn a Nobel Peace Prize for denuclearizing the Korean peninsula have fallen embarrassingly short. He initially made negotiations with North Korea virtually impossible by threatening to ‘totally destroy’ the country of twenty-five million and by insulting Kim Jong-Un personally, calling him ‘Little Rocket Man’ and a ‘sick puppy.’ He then proceeded to meet with the North Korean leader at a summit in Singapore, where both of them agreed to ‘denuke’ the Korean Peninsular.”

The Congress Party and the Gandhi family

The interests of the grand old party that had facilitated India’s freedom were being subordinated to the interests of one family

“What went so horribly wrong for the Congress party? At a general level, several decisions, which can only be described as ‘delusional’, need to be mentioned. Three possible reasons suggest themselves, two of which are apparent: One, a mother’s abiding love for and persistence with the less than successful and reluctant leadership qualities of her son; two, a ‘dynasticization’ of politics, where one family is above the party, and for some Congresspersons, above the country. The third reason, which is not so apparent but more crucial than the first two, is the separation of power and accountability between 2004 and 2014. An interesting system of ‘diarchy’ was introduced in 2004 when the Congress won and this was widely regarded as an unexpected victory.”

Delusional Politics brings to light the fact that at the heart of delusional politics is perhaps the delusional politician.

In Delusional Politics, Hardeep S. Puri, studies contemporary political disruptions in three of the world’s largest democracies, namely United Kingdom, United States of America, and India; and how these events are mirrored in current conversations around global governance, terrorism and trade. Delusional Politics, the author’s second book, follows Perilous Interventions in its honesty, clarity, and incisiveness. Hardeep S. Puri, not known for mincing his words, delivers in his unique style a book that will come to be regarded as one of the finest analysis of democracy as a form of government; the role of democratically elected leaders and how their delusion decision-making can yield catastrophic results; and how these domestic upheavals reverberate in and impact the world order.

These interesting facts about the author and the current Minister for Housing and Urban Affairs will leave you ever more inspired to read his book!

Hardeep S. Puri has over forty years of experience in the world diplomacy, which began in 1974 when he joined the Indian Foreign Service.

~

He was India’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, both in Geneva and New York. He has also held Ambassadorial level positions in London and Brasilia, and was also Secretary (Economic Relations) at the Ministry of External Affairs.

~

Puri chaired the United Nations Security Council and was also Chairman of its Counter-Terrorism Committee.

~

He has extensive experience with and specialization in trade-related matters and has also served on many Dispute Settlement Panels of the GATT and WTO.

~

Puri has served as Joint Secretary (Navy) at the Ministry of Defence.

~

As a young political officer stationed in Colombo, he met and negotiated with LTTE chief Prabhakaran on behalf of the Govt. of India.

~

Puri did his Bachelors and Masters in History from Hindu College, University of Delhi.

~

He briefly taught a St. Stephens College, University of Delhi

~

Hardeep S. Puri is married to Lakshmi Puri, a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s Ambassador to Hungary and accredited to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Until recently, she was the Assistant Secretary-General at the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women).  

Delusional Politics brings to light the fact that at the heart of delusional politics is perhaps the delusional politician.