Leaderless Democracy

A brilliant article in the Economist a while back analyzed the financial crisis of California and identified reasons for it. One reason that has stuck in my head is that Californians have perfected the art of using Propositions in the way they make rules. For those not familiar with Propositions, these are questions included in an election ballot asking public at large what to do about certain issue---say, providing a new type of service, changing a law, or taxing something. These votes are binding, and can not be changed unless there is a judicial decision or passage of another Proposition overturning it.

Every time, some propositions pass, some are defeated. Not surprisingly, the Propositions dealing with increasing taxes get defeated and those for providing new services pass. Equally, not surprisingly, the Propositions are thus a major cause for budget deficits.

The reason we elect representatives to go and make laws is that they are empowered to make tough choices on our behalf. They are suppose to lead the way by doing what is right not what is popular. Changing this long accepted way of running country into that run by propositions inevitably leads to a disaster.

Stretching this further, I look at the revolution in Egypt. Enabled by the new social media technology, this was the first instance of a leaderless way of changing the government. The population was able to do what would have required a charismatic leader in the past. It was an electronic equivalent to pushing a binding Proposition.

However, now I wonder what comes next. How will this new found power be wielded? Will the same leaderless population decide to reduce the tax rate? Increase social services? Will they ever be able to make tough choices? Do people ever decide to increase tax or reduce expenses without a leader?

Or will a leader emerge out of this, curtailing the power of the population in order to take unpopular decisions and make changes? I hope so, because in my opinion, a leaderless democracy does not work, because the population at large can not make tough choices.

Flying a Kite

India celebrated the festival of Makar Sankranti on January 14th. One of the only festivals in India that is tied to the Western calendar, Sankranti always falls on the 14th of January and for people in Gujarat, the area I come from, it only means one thing---flying a kite. It is a joy to be in a city like Ahmedabad and see hundreds of kites in the sky.

Although most people can learn to fly a kite---sort of, being good at it is not easy. On the surface of it, you need to learn only two actions--- (i) hold and tug the string, and (ii) play it out. However, a key thing to learn is when to do what. If you hold the string for too long, the kite does not fly---if you just let it go, it does not fly either. It is well synchronized switching between the two actions that would make the kite fly.

Good kite flyers develop an intuitive feel for when to hold and when to let go in order to get optimum performance out of a kite. Further, they learn to read the wind and know how to adjust their actions. Theirs are the kites that fly the highest.

Kite flying is a perfect metaphor for many things we need to learn to do in life.

A perfect example (at least to me) is child rearing. Like kite flying, one needs to do two basic things (i) hold on to the strings (discipline the child or set boundaries) and (ii) let go (let the child explore on his/her own). If you hold on too often and for too long, the child remains highly disciplined but does not progress or take wings. If you let go all the time, the child goes haywire---undisciplined and rudderless. I am sure you have seen examples of both types.

The key again lies in knowing when to do what and acting accordingly. Good parents seem to have developed an intuitive feel for when to hold and when to let go.

Then there is the question of wind---in this case externalities like the prevailing cultural climate and social norms. Different wind pattern requires different actions. Good parents, like good kite flyers are able to read the prevailing winds and adjust accordingly.

Their kites end up flying high.

God and Black Swan

‘The Black Swan’ is an interesting book written by Nassim Taleb. If you wade through the pages of somewhat pompous writing, you would find several good insights. One of them goes like this---In our normal life we only see white swans and you may be tempted to assume that all swans are white. However, this may not be the case. A black swan may exist and be seen by some ornithologist someday. So, the word ‘certainty’ can be applied only to indicate the presence of black swan, if one is seen. One can not be certain that no such swans exist if only white swans are seen.

There is an asymmetry here that applies to many situations.

Take, for example, the question of the existence of God. For many of us, we have not seen evidence that would indicate his existence*. So, we conclude that he does not exist. However, if the above logic is used, the absence of evidence implies only that he may not exist, not that he does not exist. The only time we could be certain is when the opposite happens---an irrefutable proof is found.

So, by this argument, we can not be atheist and claim to be rational at the same time. The only rational position is that of an agnostic.

I am troubled by this. In our daily lives we, the doubters, are given more leeway.

Take for example the court of law. You are innocent until proven guilty. So, the absence of an irrefutable proof that you murdered someone is taken to indicate that you are innocent, not that you may be innocent. The onus is on the other side to prove your guilt.

Why can’t the same logic apply while discussing the existence of God?

----------------------------------

* The purpose of this post is not to question the faithful who are able to see the evidence of God in many events and things around us. It starts with the position held by many of us who do not see the evidence and argues for the validity of atheism as a rational position.

Personal Branding

Branding is an important element for a product. When you establish brand of a product, say a car, you determine which ones of its many attributes are worth highlighting-- those that will differentiate your product from competition. So, for example, Volvo has branded what it builds as a ‘safe’ car and so those obsessed with safety will consider it when shopping for cars.

We also use branding to differentiate ourselves from the others. This personal branding is a natural thing to do unless and until we have gotten rid of our egos. We select one or more of our attributes and try to highlight them. This is done through how we project ourselves, what we do, what we say, and how we interact with people. The arguments we make, the subjects we select to discuss, and things we purchase are often meant to support the brand image we are trying to create and sustain.

The problem comes when people’s image of us does not agree with the one we are trying to portray. Again, thinking of cars, GM’s Pontiac was branded by its tag line ‘Pontiac brings excitement’. Well, the customers did not accept that branding. The car failed to differentiate itself from the ‘non-exciting’ brands and the whole division was shut down. (To be fair, perhaps it brought excitement in the 50s but not in the new century, so it was more of a problem of sustaining its brand.)

So it is with personal brand. We might want to brand ourselves as the rugged outdoors type by driving around in a Jeep. However, our other attributes and actions may leave the people we interact with not thoroughly convinced.

Thus, personal branding has at least two dimensions: (1) what we want people to think about us and (2) what people really think about us.

Another dimension is --- what really is the truth. We may not really be rich but want people to believe that we are. Even more interesting is the fourth dimension----even though we really are not rich by any measure, we think and truly believe that we are. This is the scary stuff, and often thought of as delusional.

I think of all this because soon I am off to India for my 40th reunion. I will meet people who I have not met for four decades. Most of us will see this as an opportunity to re-brand ourselves. The snotty kid of the past would re-brand himself as the savvy globetrotter. Efforts will be made to provide supporting evidence, leading to his brand becoming credible. Or, it would be seen as delusional diatribe by all but the most gullible.

In the end, it would not really matter. But, it will nevertheless be interesting to see how it all plays out.

The last hike

October is a great month to be in Boston. The days are bright, cool and crisp. The leaves are in their full autumn glory and the city has a vibrant feeling.

However, for us, fond of hiking, October is also the time when we start coming to the realization that winter is almost upon us and our hiking season is coming to an end. The mountains will soon be snow covered and the weather will turn quite challenging. Before that happens, we will do the last hike of the season and then wait for snow to melt in April before starting again.

This is a tolerable situation because it is a temporary hiatus before we begin again.

However, considering that we are all aging, someday we will go on a really last hike----not last for the season but last forever. That is inevitable. What is not clear is how exactly this will play out.

There are two scenarios. One in which we will know beforehand that this would be the last hike, and the other in which we will not.

Which one is more likely?

I bet that it will be the second scenario that plays out. Under that scenario, every time we go on a hike we will keep thinking that there will be additional opportunities. We will not decide before hand that this would be it. We will not celebrate a last hike and accept the fact that in the future we will enjoy a hike by reminiscing about it. We will only be able to look back and say---although we did not know at that time--- that was our last hike.

Bottled water

Whenever we go to Europe for a vacation, the issue of bottled water comes up. When one asks for water in a restaurant, the invariable question the waiter asks is, “with gas or without?” There is no mention of tap water in his query.

Invariably, we divide ourselves in two groups. One group thinks that it is OK to order one of the two types of bottled waters. The other, its members sticking to their rights as customers, and having previously learned what tap water is called in the local language, makes a go for the option not offered. Argument usually ensues between these two groups about the merits of the two approaches.

The tap water group argues that it is better for the ecology---and that is a perfectly valid reason. The other reason, although not stated clearly, is that the bottled water costs money, the tap water is generally free. One can not argue with that either.

The arguments against ordering tap water are fuzzier but equally compelling, at least to me.

The first is that it is the custom of the country and we should obey. People in these countries do not consider it safe or civil to drink tap water, as we do in the US. As an examlpe, when the Western visitors go to India, they are expected to follow the local customs, however indignant they may be about them. For example, they would be expected to remove their shoes in a temple, no matter how filthy the floor is. The same logic applies here.

The second reason is closely associated---and that has to do with pride. I am an American and perfectly comfortable with the western ways. While I am proud of my Indian heritage, I believe that there are better ways of displaying it than sticking like a sore thumb in a restaurant. I do not want to give the waiter an opportunity to make faces at me, saying to himself, “Here comes another cheap Indian.” It is a matter of pride for me.

Needless to say, I usually end up losing the argument when the group consists entirely of Indians. How can one argue against ecology and saving money? And what is this “custom of the country” and “pride” bit?

May be I think differently. May be there are others like me who think of ecology and money not as sacred cows that can not be touched, but as elements of tradeoffs one makes in the overall context of the situation. It is OK to spend a bit more than necessary, and purchasing a bottle of water (generally of recyclable glass not plastic) on occasions is not going to destroy the eco system.

Forty years and counting

I arrived in the US in the August of 1970. That means I have been here now for forty years---a personal landmark for me to look back and reflect.

This was not the way it was meant to be.

I had come to MIT for graduate studies. After finishing my doctorate, I had started applying for jobs in India. By the time the last summer of my stay came rolling by, I already had three offers in hand. I could have become a lecturer at IIT Bombay, an assistant professor at BITS in Pilani, or a scientist at the Indian Space Research Organization in Trivendrum, at a princely salary of about Rs.1000 per month.

Then came a fateful meeting with a friend of one of my cousins. I met this gentleman, a senior executive of an Indian firm that represented Digital Equipment in India, at the Howard Johnson motel in Concord. In about an hour he managed to convince me that I should at least get some work experience in US (and earn some money) before heading home.

That one and half year work experience under a “Practical Training” program led me to apply for Green Card, along with a promise to myself that this stay in this foreign country will last only for a few years…ten at the most.

Then came marriage and children. Ten became twenty. The idea of going back faded, as did the notion of what is “back”---back where? This was home now.

In doing this, I became one of the statistics---that representing brain drain from poorer countries. Instead of paying back to my country of birth and the fine education it had provided, I was helping a rich country become richer and in the process becoming prosperous myself. I did not get to spend much time with my family in India, and started drifting away from a network of friends I had left behind.

Forty years. Much lost….but much gained. Probably gained more than lost.

I can rattle off the usual benefits of living in the West----good living, material prosperity, few hassles, and raising children in a land of opportunity. However, to me an equally important aspect, if not more, is the opportunity for personal development this has provided. Living in a country like US gives you an opportunity to gain a global outlook, widen the scope of experiences you can have, and vastly increase the potential to learn. Being neither an Indian nor an American in the strict sense allows you to become both or, if you wish, a global citizen, equally at home in any part of the world.

Come to think of it, that is not a bad trade-off.