When Haryana elected a new chief minister in October 2014, shortly after Narendra Modi stormed onto the national stage and assumed office in May of the same year, the electorate expected some immediate, perhaps unrealistic earth-shattering change. Such were the times that the euphoria of a non-Congress era was upon us, and we were greedily grasping for more in the hope that the winds of ‘Modi transformation’ would sweep across the state.
Yet, a few months later the reality remained starkly unchanged. Piles of garbage with rummaging pigs remained; traffic was as chaotic as ever, the pavements were in disrepair, the presence of policing negligible and the promise of a cleaner, more vibrant city seemed as distant as it had before. Gurgaon – still bearing the scars of neglect- was a peculiar blend of dust and decay, set against a backdrop of steel and glass. The general feeling among the middle class was that if a new government could not deliver even the most basic signs of governance in the so-called Millennium City, what hope was there for the rest of Haryana?
In September 2016, the name of the city and district was changed from Gurgaon to Gurugram. If there was any sense of momentum after the high hopes of 2014, this felt like a damp squib.
Chief Minister ML Khattar remained invisible for most of his two terms. When he was occasionally in the news it was for reasons, we wished he wasn’t. Yet, despite his low profile, his tenure was not without its successes.
Under ML Khattar’s leadership, Haryana’s exports surged from ₹68,000 crore in 2014 to ₹2,45,453 crore by 2022. The state attracted investments worth ₹18,500 crore, which led to an establishment of 1,59,622 MSMEs, fuelling a remarkable upswing in economic prosperity and generating thousands of new jobs.
Social initiatives and improved educational messaging also contributed to a significant improvement in the state’s sex ratio. Furthermore to Chief Minister Khattar’s credit, the state of Haryana was the last bastion between the Farmer’s Protest and the siege of Delhi. He stood strong and saw that the Capital was not overrun by violence and mayhem.
So why, despite these tangible successes, did the state fail to create a widespread sense of optimism? Why did Haryana, under the leadership of a good, honest man of impeccable reputation and personal integrity seem to miss out on the transformative energy that people had hoped for?
The answer perhaps lies in the fact that while economic indicators and social changes were positive, the perception of change – of visible, on-the-ground transformation – remained elusive.
And, or because excellent election campaign strategists though accustomed to wielding immense power do not necessarily make great public leaders – a role that demands an entirely different set of personality skills.
Yogi Adityanath and Himanta Biswas Sarma, Chief Ministers of Uttar Pradesh and Assam respectively, exemplify skill set. To a great extent so did Shivraj Chauhan of Madhya Pradesh.
Not discounting a few weaknesses, they captured the public’s imagination and quickly won over the states they govern. Their appeal lies in a visible brand of leadership – whether it’s a tough stance on law and order, the spectacle of bulldozers clearing illegal encroachments, chasing down Mafia Dons or a focus on economic growth and new investments. This image of decisive action with a persona to match, resonates.
This is why Donald Trump’s recent statement of intent has sparked a sense of positive shock and awe. He exudes action and decisiveness- a leader who hits the ground running.
In today’s world, we crave *doers*, not those who offer vague, mushy dreams. The only takers for that, from the recent video clips on social media, it seems, are unhinged, hysterical women informing us that an existential crisis has befallen the United States of America.
Hence Kamala Harris’s lofty “Joy cometh in the morning” and Rahul Gandhi’s “Mohabbat Ki Dukaan” have fallen flat. The real question in their case is not what their first post-election statements of intent would have been, but whether there would have been any clarity or concrete vision at all for the work ahead?
Both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump are recognised disruptors of the established order. Neither is part of the old boys’ club in the corridors of power, and both are unafraid to challenge the status quo – one with calculated wisdom, the other with his signature brashness.
Trump also mirrors the Modi approach: decisive, sometimes polarizing, but undeniably effective at mobilizing change quickly and visibly. In an increasingly impatient world that values action over rhetoric, leaders like Trump and Modi are seen as embodiments of the ‘doer’ archetype – figures who step forward with clear intent and a promise of change, regardless of the criticisms that might follow.
Both leaders tap into a common yearning for leadership that prioritizes action, and both have faced their share of criticism for the perceived authoritarian streak in their decision-making processes.
However, their supporters argue that their hands-on approach is exactly what’s needed in an era where traditional politics can seem stagnant or disconnected from the realities on the ground.
At 31% the middle class is the fastest growing segment of the Indian population in both percentage and absolute terms. In the US 52% of adults live in middle class households. This consumption powerhouse drives elections in both democracies. They work hard, stay mostly within the straight and narrow, care for stability, security and the future of their children delegating governance to the best team, expecting the same standards or better than is asked of them.
In today’s age of social media, short-form videos, and 24/7 news cycles, where attention spans are fleeting, people want to *see* leadership in action. They expect a vision that is visibly enacted, with clear milestones and tangible progress.
To bring catalytic reform, the visionary and implementer must be on board. Entrusting leadership to faceless bureaucrats more focused on job security than on real change is a recipe for disaster. Leaders who delegate policy creation and implementation to entrenched officials, clinging to the status quo, risk stagnation – and the eventual loss of public trust and votes.
It would not be off the mark to say that modern electorates resemble the ancient Romans in the arena, watching a spectacle of lions and gladiators. They crave a show – a contest worth their attention and investment – and their judgement, whether thumbs up or down, is as unforgiving as it was in the Colosseum.
