Why it is dangerous to be a fan of any government

One thing that most politically engaged people seem to agree on today is this: the world is becoming more polarized and divisive. Whether left or right, conservative or progressive, across democracies worldwide, people acknowledge this growing rift—but still, somehow, fail spectacularly to address it.

Why? There is only one reason that comes to my mind: too many people have become fans of their political parties, leaders, and governments. This is why we are living in the Age of political fandom and the decline of constructive dialogue at every level of society.  

When you become a fan—you are no longer just a supporter, no matter what you call yourself—you are a devoted follower. The first thing fans do is they begin to idolize. As a fan, your loyalty becomes so strong that you no longer see faults, or worse, you explain them away by pointing fingers at others: “They did worse,” “What about them?” or “This is not even a real problem.”. This is what's going on around us, that too on a massive scale. In this atmosphere, public discourse has turned into a battleground of superfans, shouting, abusing, demeaning, and scoring points—often with more passion than purpose. And the biggest beneficiaries of this environment? Political leaders and governments across the board. 

There’s no denying that every elected government in a functioning democracy works toward fulfilling its promises, and those achievements deserve recognition. But that doesn’t mean we become cheerleaders for the government or the leader we voted for. Supporting a government is not the same as suspending our critical thinking. It does not mean we become their fan and stop questioning or criticizing them. Also, not being a fan of any government does not mean to dispute all progress or work done by them or to question consistently their every action. Being a responsible citizen means holding our leaders accountable—continually asking what more needs to be done, pointing out harmful policies, and challenging populist measures that disproportionately hurt vulnerable sections of society. It means to reflect on a broader behavioral pattern that tries to make use of certain loopholes of the democratic process to stifle opposition. Criticism of a leader or government should not be mistaken for a rejection of all progress. Conversely, acknowledging progress shouldn’t mean ignoring ethical concerns or governance failures. Progress and a leader’s moral compass are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct.

Unfortunately, what we see today is an alarming trend: people often justifying or even glorifying the questionable behavior of leaders they support, sometimes to the point of turning a blind eye to actions or rhetoric that may harm the most vulnerable or undermine democratic norms. The concern is not about disagreeing with voters' choices—that’s their democratic right. It’s about how those choices are defended. And here's the irony—when one group supports a leader fervently, it’s called “respecting the will of the people.” But when another group does the same for a different leader, for example, Trump, it’s mocked, dismissed, or viewed with disbelief. This double standard is troubling; it is not just intellectually dishonest, it normalizes hypocrisy. If we want our democracies to function well, we must strive for consistency. Be fair in your praise, and be fair in your criticism.

It’s also worth noting that economic progress is often championed most by the privileged classes, because they benefit most directly. But a democracy cannot be judged by GDP alone. Its true measure lies in how it treats its dissenters, its minorities, and its most marginalized citizens. That is where the real test of leadership begins, and where political fandom must end. Remember, without constructive criticism, your support becomes meaningless—you’re not a responsible citizen, just part of a fandom. And being a fan of any government is not just unwise, it's dangerous. 

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

Don't confuse confidence for competence

Confidence is good, it gives a person the power to do things that a person with low or no confidence may not be able to do easily. This is also one quality that many desire to see in their leaders. However, many times, confidence is confused with competence. People tend to forget that both things are completely different and have no relation with each other. That is, it is not necessary that a competent person will also be confident and it is also not necessary that a confident person will also be competent. Of course, it will be great if a competent person is confident, but unfortunately, this is not the case. But there are many confident people whose competence can be questioned, especially in the field of politics. I don't think I need to cite any names here, just look around the world. In many countries, some leaders are elected or extremely popular because they are excellent orators, they speak with all confidence and conviction, but there is no real change, they just keep on giving speech after speech. People love their confidence and confuse it for competence. Such leaders develop an image of charismatic leaders, developing a cult-like following, but no real change happens, but their supporters don't care, they are mesmerized by the magic this leader creates, for them the image in their mind is more important than the reality on the ground.  

Confidence is good, but it is not everything. We should try to look beyond confidence, to see if it is accompanied by competence or exists as a trait to shield incompetence. Just because someone dominates the room or conversation, occupies the stage with ease, entertains the audience, knows how to push their point with force and conviction, and can say unpopular things does not make them a good leader. Also, being confident is not a red flag per se. But being confident without being willing to be accountable, without accepting any mistakes, taking all the credit all the time, demeaning people or team members for disagreeing, or behaving like an autocrat are red flags and signs of a terrible leader, these can be signs of a dictator but not a leader. This world has seen many confident and popular leaders who did tremendous harm not only to their own countries but to the entire world. I don't think we have learned our lessons from those events as it seems we fall for the same trap again and again. Somehow divisive politics seem to appeal to us even in the twenty-first century. Somehow hate-mongers still get elected as lawmakers. Somehow religion still divides people rather than uniting them. If you look at all these problems, you will find some extremely confident but utterly incompetent leaders. These leaders know how to use people, but don't care for them. They are okay with people fighting among themselves, hating or killing each other, but seldom put themselves or their families in the line of fire. These leaders want to be popular and win at any cost, even at the cost of human life or the unity of their country. I am not calling these leaders incompetent because they lose elections or fail to inspire, many of them keep on winning elections and inspire their supporters to do unimaginable things. I am calling them incompetent because any good leader is supposed to unite and lead, bridge gaps within their country, and create harmony, but they don't do this, rather they do the exact opposite. Therefore, my humble request, please don't confuse confidence for competence. 

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

India's problem was never her politicians

Since my childhood, I regularly hear one theme in conversations about India, everyone talks about India's potential. Everyone says that India has a lot of talent, rich history, diversity, and whatnot, but somehow can't live up to its true potential. Most Indians also keep on repeating the same lines again and again without realizing that it is they who need to help their country realize its potential, not some outsiders. However, most are happy just debating these issues, blaming each other or their political opponents, and complaining about politicians and bureaucrats. However, most Indians are okay with corruption and corrupt politicians regularly get elected in various elections. It is a common perception that politics is a dirty game and that politicians are dishonest. To be fair, India is not the only country that has this perception about politicians, but it is definitely one of those countries that blame its politicians for all problems, for example, the problems of corruption, communalism, poor infrastructure, poverty, unemployment, brain drain, and whatnot is blamed to dirty politics. However, India's problem is not its politicians, but the people who elect these politicians, again and again, from different political parties. These people not only support such corrupt, many times, with criminal background people, but idolize them, worship them, and even after that, expect their society to be just and fair. Also, in India, it is very common to change political parties, unbelievable, but people thirsty for your blood can become your die-hard supporter once you switch to the party they support. Unbelievable, but true.

Once elected people with a criminal background become lawmakers, no matter how many laws exist in the law book, how many courts function, or how many police personnel work, it is impossible to have proper law and order. This is because no elected person will allow to law to take its proper course unless it hurts their opponents. When people of any country start reacting to crime based on who has committed it, not what is the nature of the crime, that country is sure to get doomed today or tomorrow. Once people see crimes through political, racial, religious, or any other bias, they are not looking at the crime, but at the criminal's identity and react based on that. That means the reactions are not based on the nature or gravity of the committed crime but on the identity of the accused. The same crime based on who has committed it generated drastically different reactions, people either try their best to downplay or justify the crime or try to demand the harshest possible punishment possible. Politicians make very good use of this, they instigate polarized emotions within society and benefit from dormant hate that many organizations silently brew within the society. Hate is a very potent social weapon, politicians, religious fanatics, and terrorists all use it very well. People knowingly fall into this trap so regularly that one can hardly blame anyone but the people themselves for being a toy in the hands of antisocial elements. This is the point of today's post, India's problem is not its politicians but people who support these politicians and don't dare to speak when a politician or the party they elected does something wrong. Things don't change overnight, but to start any change people first should start from themselves, only complaining about the system hardly initiates any change. Once people change their attitude and demand accountability from the politicians they elect, things will start changing. Until then, the evergreen argument of India has potential, this is how things are done in India would continue for many more decades.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic.