How Politics Imitates Business Part 01: Intellectual Kite Flying

This is part 1 of 5 in a series of essays exploring how politics, when viewed through a different lens, is observed to imitate business frameworks. The exploration traverses terrain as varied as game theory, social media and post-truth in our quest to understand what politicians want.

No matter where you’re from, if you’ve had a relatively honest upbringing, the hypothesis that ‘politics is a dirty profession’ has been drilled into your psyche from a young age. And it doesn’t take a genius to grow up and reaffirm this belief. Everything we hear and see about politics and politicians reeks of opportunism, insincerity, and outright immorality.

If a business turning not-for-profit evokes warm and fuzzy feelings for its founders, politics is universally positioned on the other end of the spectrum — an office that should be strictly not-for-profit in theory but is far from that in practice. A hardened thief caught stealing is a headline we gloss over but a politician accused of accepting bribes stirs our morning teacup. Since she is an elected official (or hoping to be one), fraud from a politician is akin to fraud by your housemaid — you pretty much gave her the keys to the safe. Naturally, the matter is more personal, and our moral expectations are higher. We hold the post sacred and expect nothing short of a fountain of righteousness spouting from each action.

A professional politician joins an organization’s cadre as a foot soldier or is thrust into the position by virtue of being born into a political family. Either way, in most cases, the plunge is taken for the noblest of reasons — to help the community at large. Or so we assume. Somewhere along the way, the pursuit of power intoxicates and invariably corrupts each of them. Of this, there is general consensus.

Our ancient disillusionment with politics is enhanced by society’s vague understanding of the machinations required to get work done as a politician. The hate comes from a combination of high moral expectations and lack of clarity about what the work entails.

If our expectations are commonly misplaced, is our judgment about politicians incorrect as well? Probably not. However, as a society, we may need to re-evaluate what objectives political entities are driven by. Spoiler alert: they are not all things nice.

“If ifs and buts were sweets and nuts, it would be Christmas everyday”

A slight adjustment, a kinder lens

Our conceptual endeavor does not mean to justify criminal behavior, but merely shift our perspective to one that is more realistic. If we realign our perceptions about politics with a more familiar entity: business corporations, does it help wrap our heads around the dealings in this perpetually maligned profession? This is precisely what this entire series will attempt to do.

Mission Control: Consider a business starting up — the first task of the founding team is to articulate a clear statement of purpose. It is usually a single sentence justifying the organization’s reason to exist. Similarly, a political outfit also outlines its core ideology through a mission statement. Along with a mission statement, an organization generally identifies a few key pillars that describe its values or way of working. If the mission is the end, the pillars or values describe the means.

The mission is always overarching and too broad to convey a clear course of action towards the described goal. More importantly, there is never a clear timeline associated with the mission, inherently justifying the organization’s eternal existence.

Survival Trumps Ideology: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs makes it apparent how achieving one’s true purpose in life is always superseded by more fundamental existential goals. An organization, behaving like an organic entity in this case, will almost always choose to temporarily compromise on its mission when facing a do-or-die situation. To us, observing from a distance, it appears as inexplicable hypocrisy and treachery of the highest order. But when faced with the prospect of irrelevance and obscurity, the mightiest abandon their morals. Think back to the best employers laying off staff during an economic downturn, up and coming brands misrepresenting data on their products, and lean manufacturers condoning outrageous working conditions.

Day-to-day survival in businesses prioritizes cash flow in the short term and profits in the medium term. Survival in political organizations prioritizes voter sentiment in the short term and staying in power (or attaining power) in the medium term. The first principle dictates that you can only attain your longer-term mission if you stay in power. And if, to stay in power means to subvert some of your core values in an implicit manner, it will always be done.

Cut from the same cloth

The similarity does not end here. A political outfit yearns to stay in power much like a business entity aims to capture the highest market share. While business may not always be a winner-takes-all game of a simple majority, organizations keep striving for that market leadership position where financials are truly healthy, and survival is not a recurring boardroom nightmare. Revenue could be equated to votes, and customers to voters, as both kinds of organizations plan activities with the single-minded objective of influencing their audience to act in their favor.

With an endless sea of potential customers or voters, it only makes sense for an organization with limited resources to target the groups that are most likely to be persuaded — enter the inseparable business trio of segmentation, targeting and positioning, equally relevant in the political game. Just as a business might have a portfolio of products, a political party has a roster of candidates. White-washed and embellished, each with its own distinct backstory, these products are what is actually being sold under the brand’s umbrella.

Very often, a mere handful of these have wide-ranging appeal — and these could be labelled as their cash cows or star candidates being groomed for a national (or global?) push. Occasionally, a star product overshadows the whole brand, and the organization is okay with that because they can leverage it to cross-sell to other markets. Images of a star party campaigner helicoptering to a slew of remote villages to deliver a flurry of impassioned speeches come to mind. If this dependence turns into over-reliance on a single product, organizations must plan for diversification.

Before you pause to wag your fat fingers at me — “but politics is not business, the future of our country is at stake”, I must reassure you that I concur. They are not the same. But can they be similar?

“We must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy.”
— Albus Dumbledore

As the saying goes, the right way is almost always the hardest. And while a human may be able to synthesize genuine goodness from the depths of her core for a worthy cause, expecting all public servants to channel their inner Gandhi for a lifetime of mediocre returns is a long shot. Most of us settle for “largely right and reasonably easy” as a way of life.

This series of articles attempts to reconcile some of the seemingly obtuse ways in which politicians work by comparing them to what I understand a little better — business. The next few pages continue this thought experiment.

Continue reading > How Politics Imitates Business Part 02: Polarization Bears