Pages

Tuesday, June 03, 2025

Prashant Kishor: Bihar 2025

 

Prashant Kishor, a former political strategist turned politician, has significantly shaped electoral campaigns in India over the past decade. His work in Bihar since launching his Jan Suraaj campaign in 2022 marks a shift from his earlier role as a behind-the-scenes strategist to a direct political contender. This analysis examines his recent efforts in Bihar, compares them to his past work for leaders like Narendra Modi, evaluates his chances of securing a majority in the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, assesses his potential as a Chief Minister candidate, identifies possible alternatives within his party, and explores the national implications of a potential landslide victory, including the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) interest in aligning with him.

Prashant Kishor’s Recent Work in Bihar (2022–2025)
Since October 2, 2022, Prashant Kishor has been engaged in a 3,000-km padyatra (foot march) across Bihar under the banner of Jan Suraaj, a campaign that evolved into a political party launched on October 2, 2024. His work in Bihar focuses on disrupting the state’s entrenched caste-based political structure and addressing voter fatigue with the dominant regional parties, Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), led by Nitish Kumar and Lalu Prasad Yadav, respectively. Key aspects of his recent efforts include:
  • Grassroots Engagement: Kishor’s padyatra covered 5,000 villages, allowing him to connect directly with voters, understand local issues, and build a network of supporters. His campaign emphasizes governance and development over caste-based identity politics, targeting issues like corruption, migration, and lack of employment opportunities. He has promised initiatives focused on uplifting Scheduled Castes (SC) and generating youth employment.
  • Party Formation and Strategy: Jan Suraaj aims to contest all 243 seats in the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections. Kishor has positioned the party as an alternative to the NDA (BJP-JD(U)) and the Mahagathbandhan (RJD-Congress), capitalizing on anti-incumbency against Nitish Kumar’s governance and the RJD’s perceived stagnation. He has recruited young professionals and plans to field 75 candidates from Extremely Backward Castes (EBCs) to appeal to a significant voter base.
  • High-Profile Protests: In January 2025, Kishor staged a fast-unto-death at Patna’s Gandhi Maidan to demand the cancellation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) exam over an alleged paper leak, drawing significant media attention. Though arrested and later released, this move highlighted his strategy of leveraging public discontent to gain visibility.
  • Alliance-Building: The merger of Aap Sabki Awaz (ASA), led by former Union minister Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, with Jan Suraaj in 2024 strengthened his party’s organizational base, bringing in experienced political figures.
  • Electoral Performance: Jan Suraaj contested four bypoll seats in November 2024 but failed to win any, securing only 10% of the vote share. Despite this, Kishor claimed the results were encouraging for a new party, indicating early voter recognition.
Comparison with Past Work for Other Political Leaders
Kishor’s earlier career as a political strategist saw him orchestrate successful campaigns for various leaders, starting with Narendra Modi. Below is a comparison of his past work with his current efforts in Bihar:
  • Narendra Modi (2012–2014): Kishor’s first major campaign was for Modi’s 2012 Gujarat Assembly election victory, where he conceptualized innovative strategies like Chai Pe Charcha, 3D rallies, and social media campaigns through his group, Citizens for Accountable Governance (CAG). His work culminated in the BJP’s landslide victory in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, securing an absolute majority. Kishor’s strategies focused on branding Modi as a decisive leader, leveraging media, and mobilizing voters through technology-driven outreach. This period established him as a master strategist, emphasizing narrative-building and voter connect.
  • Nitish Kumar (2015): In Bihar, Kishor helped the JD(U)-RJD-Congress Mahagathbandhan defeat the BJP in the 2015 Assembly elections. His team conducted extensive grassroots surveys (visiting 40,000 villages) to identify local issues like drainage problems, which informed campaign promises. Slogans like “Bihar mein bahaar ho, Nitish Kumar ho” and turning Modi’s “DNA” remark into a voter mobilization tool showcased his ability to exploit opponents’ missteps.
  • Other Campaigns: Kishor worked with diverse leaders, including Mamata Banerjee (TMC, West Bengal, 2021), Arvind Kejriwal (AAP, Delhi, 2020), Amarinder Singh (Congress, Punjab, 2017), and Jagan Mohan Reddy (YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh, 2019). His Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) embedded itself in campaigns, using data-driven strategies, outreach programs (e.g., Didi ke Bolo in Bengal), and tailored branding. His only notable failure was the 2017 Uttar Pradesh election, where the Congress-Samajwadi Party alliance won just 7 seats.
  • Key Differences:
    • Role: Previously, Kishor operated as a strategist, working behind the scenes to amplify existing leaders’ appeal. In Bihar, he is the face of Jan Suraaj, transitioning from advisor to leader, which requires building a personal political brand and voter base from scratch.
    • Context: His earlier campaigns leveraged established parties and leaders with strong voter bases (e.g., Modi’s BJP, Nitish’s JD(U)). Jan Suraaj, however, is a new entity challenging Bihar’s entrenched caste-based politics, making it a riskier endeavor.
    • Approach: Past campaigns relied heavily on data analytics, media management, and opponent-centric narratives. In Bihar, Kishor emphasizes direct voter engagement through his padyatra and focuses on governance issues, reflecting a more grassroots, issue-based approach.
    • Resources: With I-PAC, Kishor had access to large teams (up to 4,000 during campaigns). Jan Suraaj, while supported by young professionals, lacks the organizational depth of established parties like BJP or RJD.
Chances of Sweeping the 2025 Bihar Assembly Elections
Kishor has claimed Jan Suraaj will win a “thumping majority” (180+ seats) in the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, scheduled for October–November. However, several factors suggest this is ambitious:
  • Challenges:
    • Caste Dynamics: Bihar’s politics is dominated by caste allegiances, with JD(U) backed by EBCs and Kurmis, and RJD by Yadavs and Muslims. Jan Suraaj’s attempt to transcend caste faces resistance in a state where identity politics is entrenched.
    • Organizational Weakness: As a new party, Jan Suraaj lacks the grassroots machinery of BJP, JD(U), or RJD. Its poor bypoll performance (0/4 seats) indicates limited voter traction.
    • Competition: The NDA (BJP-JD(U)) benefits from Modi’s popularity and organizational strength, while the RJD-Congress alliance has a loyal voter base. Opinion polls rank Tejashwi Yadav (RJD) as the top Chief Minister choice (35.5%), followed by Nitish Kumar (15%), with Kishor at 17.2%.
    • Anti-Incumbency: While Kishor capitalizes on voter dissatisfaction with Nitish Kumar’s governance and RJD’s stagnation, his ability to convert this into votes is untested.
  • Opportunities:
    • Voter Fatigue: Kishor’s narrative of breaking the Lalu-Nitish duopoly resonates with voters seeking an alternative. His focus on SCs and EBCs targets significant demographics.
    • Popularity Growth: A C-Voter survey shows Kishor’s popularity rising from 14.9% to 17.2% between February and April 2025, closing the gap with Nitish Kumar.
    • Strategic Alliances: The merger with ASA and potential recruitment of disaffected leaders from other parties could bolster Jan Suraaj’s candidate pool.
  • Likelihood: Winning 60% of seats (146/243) is highly unlikely given Jan Suraaj’s nascent stage and Bihar’s complex electoral landscape. A more realistic outcome is securing 20–40 seats, establishing Jan Suraaj as a significant third force. Achieving a majority would require unprecedented voter consolidation, which current data does not support.
Chief Minister Candidacy
Kishor has explicitly stated he is not campaigning to become Chief Minister, emphasizing his goal is to fulfill a “dream” of transforming Bihar rather than personal ambition. In May 2025, he told voters in Saran, “I have made efforts in making 10 CMs. Today, I am not doing this hard work to become a CM.” However, he has indicated willingness to contest the elections if his party decides, potentially challenging RJD’s Tejashwi Yadav in Raghopur.
If Jan Suraaj wins a significant number of seats, the party may need to select a Chief Minister candidate. Potential candidates include:
  • Ram Chandra Prasad Singh: A former Union minister and JD(U) leader, Singh’s merger with Jan Suraaj brings political experience and appeal among certain caste groups. His administrative background makes him a credible choice.
  • Other Senior Leaders: Jan Suraaj’s leadership includes professionals and former bureaucrats, but no prominent figure has emerged as a clear alternative. The party’s candidate selection process, focusing on EBCs and SCs, may elevate a grassroots leader if the party performs strongly.
Kishor’s reluctance to project himself as the CM face may be strategic, avoiding perceptions of personal ambition while building party credibility. However, if Jan Suraaj approaches a majority, pressure may mount for him to take the role, given his visibility and leadership in the campaign.
Impact of a 60% Seat Victory on National Politics
If Jan Suraaj wins 146 seats, it would mark a seismic shift in Bihar’s politics, with ripple effects nationally:
  • Weakening of Regional Giants: A thumping majority would marginalize JD(U) and RJD, ending the Lalu-Nitish duopoly. Kishor’s prediction that JD(U) will win fewer than 20 seats could materialize, potentially forcing Nitish Kumar into retirement and weakening RJD’s influence.
  • Challenge to BJP’s Dominance: The BJP, reliant on Nitish Kumar’s JD(U) for its Bihar coalition, would face a setback. A Jan Suraaj landslide would signal that Modi’s popularity and the “TINA” (There Is No Alternative) factor are not invincible, challenging the BJP’s narrative of unassailable strength.
  • Boost for Regional Alternatives: A successful Jan Suraaj could inspire similar movements in other states, encouraging new parties to challenge national and regional heavyweights. This could fragment the opposition further but also diversify India’s political landscape.
  • Congress’s Dilemma: Kishor has expressed ideological proximity to Congress but declined to join it in 2022. A strong Jan Suraaj performance could force Congress to reassess its strategy in Bihar, either by aligning with Kishor or losing ground.
  • Policy Implications: Jan Suraaj’s focus on governance, employment, and ending prohibition could set a new agenda for Bihar, influencing national debates on development versus identity politics. Kishor’s promise to end the liquor ban within an hour of taking power could resonate in other prohibition states, challenging BJP’s policies.
BJP’s Interest in a National Alliance
Kishor has firmly ruled out aligning with the BJP, stating in October 2024, “I will never shake hands with the BJP. There would be no need of it.” However, the BJP’s interest in bringing him into its fold depends on several factors:
  • Strategic Necessity: The BJP relies on JD(U) for its central government’s stability, given Nitish Kumar’s 12 Lok Sabha seats. A Jan Suraaj majority would reduce BJP’s dependence on JD(U), making Kishor an attractive partner if he softens his stance.
  • Past Tensions: Kishor’s fallout with the BJP after 2014 and his role in defeating the party in West Bengal (2021) and Bihar (2015) make an alliance contentious. The BJP may view him as unreliable due to his history of working with rivals like TMC and Congress.
  • Electoral Calculations: If Jan Suraaj wins significant seats but falls short of a majority, the BJP might explore a post-poll alliance to counter the RJD-Congress bloc. However, Kishor’s anti-BJP rhetoric and focus on Bihar’s autonomy make this unlikely unless he compromises for power-sharing.
  • National Implications: Aligning with Kishor could help the BJP expand in eastern states where it struggles (e.g., West Bengal, Odisha). However, his independent streak and criticism of Modi’s over-dominance could complicate integration into the NDA.
Critical Analysis
Kishor’s transition from strategist to politician is a high-stakes gamble. His past successes relied on amplifying established leaders’ appeal, but Jan Suraaj requires him to build a new voter base in a state where caste and loyalty dominate. His padyatra and protests demonstrate an understanding of Bihar’s pulse, but his bypoll performance suggests limited organizational strength. Opinion polls indicate growing popularity, but converting this into seats is challenging against the BJP’s resources and RJD’s caste-based support.
A 60% seat share is improbable without a massive shift in voter sentiment, akin to AAP’s 2015 Delhi sweep, which Kishor himself distinguishes due to Bihar’s rural, caste-driven context. If he achieves even a partial success (e.g., 50–70 seats), Jan Suraaj could become a kingmaker, forcing national parties to engage with him. The BJP, while pragmatic, is unlikely to pursue an alliance unless Kishor moderates his anti-BJP stance, given their past friction and his appeal to anti-establishment voters.
Nationally, a Jan Suraaj victory would signal a decline in Modi’s invincibility, especially if it reduces BJP’s influence in Bihar’s 40 Lok Sabha seats. This could embolden opposition parties ahead of the 2029 general elections, though fragmentation risks diluting their collective strength. Kishor’s focus on governance could push parties to prioritize development, but his success hinges on overcoming Bihar’s structural barriers, which even he acknowledges are formidable.
Conclusion
Prashant Kishor’s work in Bihar since 2022 reflects a bold attempt to disrupt a rigid political landscape through grassroots engagement and governance-focused promises, contrasting with his earlier data-driven, branding-heavy strategies for leaders like Modi and Nitish Kumar. His chances of sweeping the 2025 Bihar elections with a thumping majority are slim due to caste dynamics, organizational weaknesses, and strong competition, though securing a significant vote share is plausible. He is not currently a Chief Minister candidate, with figures like Ram Chandra Prasad Singh as potential alternatives. A 60% seat victory would reshape Bihar’s politics, challenge the BJP’s dominance, and inspire new regional movements, but an alliance with the BJP seems unlikely given Kishor’s firm rejection. His impact on national politics will depend on his ability to translate his strategist’s acumen into electoral success as a leader.

at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Can Meritocracy and Multiparty Democracy Coexist? Rethinking Elections for a Data-Driven Era

The Meritocratic Governance Party (MGP)
China: Meritocracy? Autocracy?



Can Meritocracy and Multiparty Democracy Coexist? Rethinking Elections for a Data-Driven Era

For those who seek smarter governance, the idea of a meritocracy—where leaders rise through performance, integrity, and competence—holds immense appeal. Yet the global default remains multiparty electoral democracy, where leadership is determined not by qualifications or results, but by popularity, narrative control, and financial muscle. These two models have often seemed at odds.

But do they have to be?

In this blog post, we explore whether it's possible to design a meritocratic multiparty democracy—a political system that retains the legitimacy and accountability of elections while preserving the rigor and results-orientation of a meritocratic structure. The answer, we argue, is yes—but only with radical redesign of how parties, elections, and political careers function.

Why Meritocracy Breaks Down in Traditional Multiparty Systems

The default multiparty system suffers from well-known flaws:

  • Short-termism: Leaders chase votes with slogans, not long-term plans.

  • Populism over competence: Charisma beats qualification.

  • Corruption and capture: Moneyed interests fund campaigns for influence.

  • Lack of institutional memory: Every new government resets policy priorities.

In such a system, meritocracy struggles to survive. Elections become popularity contests. Parties become tribal. Governance becomes erratic.

Can This Be Fixed? Yes—If We Rethink the Foundations

Imagine a system that preserves competitive elections and voter choice, but radically reforms the rules of the game to prioritize:

✅ Competence
✅ Transparency
✅ Accountability
✅ Data-driven results

This leads us to the concept of a Meritocratic Multiparty Democracy—a system where elections are embedded in a framework of rigorous regulation, transparent financing, and performance-based governance.

Here’s how it might work.

🗳️ What Periodic Elections Could Look Like in a Meritocratic System

1. Every Five Years, Performance-Based Elections

Elections are held every 5 years—but not simply to choose the loudest or most charismatic leader. Instead:

  • Parties submit 5-year policy roadmaps, including clear targets (e.g., GDP growth, CO₂ reduction, education outcomes).

  • Voters are shown verified performance dashboards of the incumbent party vs opposition proposals.

  • Public debates are moderated by neutral policy institutions, not media personalities.

  • Citizen AI assistants help voters analyze complex policies.

This is an election of competence, not emotion.

2. Parties Must Be Registered, Regulated, and Transparent

To run in elections, political parties must meet strict criteria:

  • Meritocratic internal structure: Candidates must pass standardized leadership exams and show civic contributions.

  • Transparency in party finances: Real-time disclosure of all donations, spending, and lobbying.

  • Civic audit trails: Parties must show where they train leaders, source data, and craft policy.

  • Diversity and inclusion: Minimum thresholds for gender, region, and youth representation in leadership.

Parties that fail these benchmarks are disqualified—not by rivals, but by a nonpartisan electoral oversight body.

3. Public Financing of Politics

Money is one of the greatest enemies of meritocracy in multiparty systems. The solution?

  • Abolish private political donations altogether.

  • Every party receives equal state funding based on number of members or verified supporters.

  • Campaign resources—airtime, public venues, ads—are distributed equally.

  • Parties receive bonus funds for hitting governance goals while in power (a “merit bonus”).

This levels the playing field and ends oligarchic capture.

4. Universal Civic Exams for Political Eligibility

No one can run for public office—local or national—without passing a civic merit exam, testing:

  • Constitutional knowledge

  • Economic and ecological literacy

  • Ethical reasoning and leadership judgment

This ensures every candidate has a baseline of competence. Voters still choose—but from a field of qualified options.

5. Institutional Memory, Not Reset Politics

Meritocratic parties would share core institutional platforms. For instance:

  • A National Data Commons shared by all parties

  • A Civil Service Academy training public administrators regardless of party

  • Cross-party audit boards to track policy outcomes over decades

So even when power changes hands, the governance infrastructure remains stable and forward-moving.

6. Citizen Feedback Embedded in Governance

Between elections, parties are evaluated by:

  • Continuous digital polling on key performance indicators

  • Town hall debates moderated by AI-driven fact-checking tools

  • Real-time citizen feedback platforms that help update party programs

This ensures accountability doesn’t wait five years—it is built into the loop.

Would This Break the Meritocracy?

Some purists might say that introducing elections—even in a reformed way—compromises the technocratic clarity of a true meritocracy. But that’s a narrow view.

In reality, meritocracy without consent becomes technocracy, and technocracy without feedback becomes stagnation.

If voters choose among pre-qualified, high-performing parties who operate under equal conditions and institutional constraints, then elections enhance legitimacy without diluting quality.

In this model:

  • Elections don’t choose who is popular—they choose which competent team has the best plan.

  • Politics isn’t theater—it’s policy debate with evidence.

Conclusion: The Democratic Meritocracy Is Possible

The world does not need to choose between the chaos of populist democracies and the rigidity of one-party states. A meritocratic multiparty system offers a middle path—one where elections serve as mechanisms for selecting the best from the best, not the loudest from the rest.

It requires bold structural reform: state-funded parties, strict candidate criteria, universal transparency, performance-based evaluations, and deep civic education. But if we want a future of stable, intelligent, people-centered governance, this is the path worth taking.

It’s not about left or right. It’s about moving forward—together, competently.



The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

Velocity Money: Crypto, Karma, and the End of Traditional Economics
The Next Decade of Biotech: Convergence, Innovation, and Transformation
Beyond Motion: How Robots Will Redefine The Art Of Movement
ChatGPT For Business: A Workbook
Becoming an AI-First Organization
Quantum Computing: Applications And Implications
Challenges In AI Safety
AI-Era Social Network: Reimagined for Truth, Trust & Transformation

Remote Work Productivity Hacks
How to Make Money with AI Tools
AI for Beginners

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

The Meritocratic Governance Party (MGP)

China: Meritocracy? Autocracy?

 


Designing a new, data-driven, post-ideological, one-party meritocracy is a bold political experiment—but one that draws on the evolution of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) while correcting for its authoritarian excesses. If we were to start from scratch in a new country with this goal, the resulting party—let’s call it The Meritocratic Governance Party (MGP)—would blend:

  • Deep institutional competence

  • Evidence-based policymaking

  • Technological and social feedback loops

  • Democratic responsiveness without multiparty electoral chaos

  • Adaptability across economic models, from capitalism to post-capitalism

Here’s a vision of what The Meritocratic Governance Party might look like in structure, function, and philosophy:

1. Founding Philosophy: Adaptive Pragmatism

The MGP rejects rigid ideology. Its only "ism" is pragmatism, guided by a single core principle: what works best, as verified by real-world data and continuous evaluation, should be implemented. If capitalism works, use it. If platform cooperatives or universal basic services outperform, transition.

It is not left-wing, right-wing, or centrist. It is future-facing and feedback-driven.

2. Path to Power: An Open Ladder of Merit

Unlike populist democracies or closed-party elites, the MGP institutionalizes a transparent promotion ladder:

  • Entry Level: Citizens can join local governance bodies after passing civic knowledge exams and demonstrating community involvement.

  • Performance Metrics: Leaders are promoted based on quantitative KPIs (economic growth, literacy, life expectancy) and qualitative feedback (citizen satisfaction scores, peer evaluations).

  • Rotation & Testing: Officials rotate across regions and departments, proving themselves across diverse policy arenas.

No one enters the national leadership without having passed through a visible track record of results.

3. Digital Governance and Public Feedback

To avoid authoritarianism and ensure legitimacy, the MGP embeds continuous public consultation mechanisms:

  • AI-powered citizen polling platforms

  • Participatory budgeting apps

  • Deliberative citizen assemblies chosen by lottery (sortition) for major policy reviews

  • Real-time dashboards showing policy outcomes and accountability reports

Think of this as a democracy of results, not of elections. The people may not choose the leaders every 4 years, but they continuously influence decisions.

4. Policy Labs and Controlled Experimentation

Before scaling any major policy, it must pass through sandbox zones—cities, districts, or even virtual simulations that test different options in controlled settings.

This experimental governance model reduces risk and maximizes learning, akin to:

  • Shenzhen as a Special Economic Zone

  • Digital twins of cities used for predictive modeling

  • A/B testing at national scale

Policy decisions are evidence-validated—not opinion-driven.

5. Checks and Balances Without Gridlock

A one-party system need not mean unchecked power. The MGP institutes:

  • Independent Judiciary protected by constitutional firewall

  • Ombudsman Councils with investigatory powers, independent from the party hierarchy

  • Data Auditors General to verify that internal party metrics aren’t manipulated

Accountability exists—but is institutional rather than electoral.

6. Post-Capitalist Economic Flexibility

The MGP is not capitalist or communist—it is economically agnostic.

  • If UBI proves more effective than welfare bureaucracy, adopt it.

  • If cooperative ownership outperforms stock markets, transition.

  • If digital currencies reduce inequality and increase transparency, implement them.

  • If Gross Domestic Happiness proves a better indicator than GDP, shift the metric base.

The economy is treated as a living system—not a fixed doctrine.

7. Education and Leadership Cultivation

To ensure the meritocratic pipeline, MGP invests heavily in public education and leadership academies:

  • Top-performing civil servants mentor younger cohorts

  • National talent search for innovation, policy thinking, and ethics

  • Blended learning of philosophy, systems thinking, data science, and moral reasoning

Think of this as a hybrid between Confucian exams, MIT Media Lab, and Harvard Kennedy School—with local inclusivity.

8. Term Limits + Rotational Leadership

While it's a one-party system, the MGP enforces:

  • Term limits for top positions

  • Leadership councils that vote on successors based on peer review, public metrics, and simulated crisis decision-making

  • Mandated sabbaticals for top leaders to prevent burnout and echo chambers

No strongman politics. Leadership is rotated and distributed.

9. Information Integrity and Free Knowledge Ecosystem

While censorship is an authoritarian reflex, the MGP commits to radical transparency:

  • Declassified policy evaluations

  • Real-time public access to anonymized datasets

  • Citizen-led investigations of corruption

  • Open-source algorithms for government decision-making AI

Instead of suppressing information, the system uses trust through visibility.

10. A Global Orientation

The MGP views its own country as a node in a planetary system. It commits to:

  • Participating in international peer-review exchanges (policy benchmarking)

  • Leading in climate response, peace diplomacy, and equitable tech governance

  • Helping other countries adopt elements of meritocratic reform, while respecting cultural sovereignty

It’s not a nationalist one-party system. It’s planetary-minded and post-tribal.

Conclusion: Governance for the Future, Not the Past

The Meritocratic Governance Party is not utopian—but it is post-ideological, post-charismatic, and post-polarization. It acknowledges the strengths of the Chinese system (long-term planning, technocracy, performance metrics) while correcting its blind spots (lack of dissent, censorship, personality cults).

In a world beset by democratic dysfunction and authoritarian backlash, this model offers a third way: stable, smart, adaptive governance—built for complexity, powered by data, and always accountable to results.




Why the World Needs a Meritocratic Party: A Call to the Nations in Crisis

Across the globe, dozens of countries remain trapped in cycles of poverty, corruption, political instability, or authoritarianism. Many are failed or fragile democracies, others are autocratic regimes where elites maintain power while the majority languish. In some, civil war has gutted institutions. In others, systemic corruption or economic mismanagement has prevented progress for decades.

What these nations have in common is not just suffering—but unrealized potential. It’s time for a bold new political experiment: the formation of a Meritocratic Governance Party (MGP)—a party designed not around ideology, ethnicity, or electoral theatrics, but around competence, transparency, data, and outcomes.

Let’s begin by identifying the countries that would benefit most.

Countries That Should Consider a Meritocratic Governance Party

🛑 Authoritarian or Semi-Authoritarian Regimes

These nations lack meaningful democracy or are ruled by entrenched elites who suppress opposition:

  • North Korea – Totalitarian control, no economic flexibility

  • Eritrea – No elections since independence; military rule

  • Turkmenistan – Closed, dynastic dictatorship

  • Belarus – Longtime autocracy under Lukashenko

  • Syria – Assad regime presides over a broken state

  • Iran – Theocratic oligarchy, repressive towards dissent

  • Russia – One-man rule with hollowed democratic institutions

  • Myanmar – Military junta overthrew elected government

💸 Corrupt and Dysfunctional Democracies

These states hold elections but are crippled by institutionalized corruption and elite capture:

  • Lebanon – Collapsing economy, sectarian dysfunction

  • Nigeria – Massive resource wealth squandered by corruption

  • South Africa – Strong institutions eroded by graft and party cronyism

  • Haiti – Endless cycle of political instability and corruption

  • Iraq – Corruption and sectarian politics paralyze governance

  • Pakistan – Elite military-political complex, poor delivery of services

  • Peru – Frequent leadership crises, weak parties

  • Bangladesh – Single-party dominance with democratic façade

  • Kenya – Tribal patronage politics hinder reform

⚔️ War-Torn or Fragile States

In these countries, governance has broken down under the weight of civil war or insurgency:

  • Yemen – Ongoing civil war and humanitarian collapse

  • Libya – Competing governments, militia rule

  • Somalia – Weak central state, militant control

  • Sudan – Coup-prone and currently in civil war

  • DR Congo – State fails to control its own territory

  • Mali – Jihadist insurgency and repeated coups

  • Afghanistan – Taliban rule, lack of institutional governance

  • Central African Republic – Minimal functional state

  • South Sudan – Persistent ethnic conflict and economic ruin

🚧 Chronically Underperforming Economies

These are democracies or hybrid regimes with long-term stagnation and underdevelopment:

  • Nepal – Dysfunctional democracy, youth outmigration, elite capture

  • Zimbabwe – Once thriving, now economically shattered

  • Honduras – Poverty, gang violence, and elite dysfunction

  • Guatemala – Endemic poverty and corruption

  • Madagascar – Resource-rich but consistently mismanaged

  • Laos – Low growth, poor governance despite Chinese investment

  • Chad – Military rule, extreme poverty, weak civil institutions

Why These Countries Should Consider a Meritocratic Party

✅ 1. Beyond Elections: Competence First

Many of these countries have elections—but no real governance. A meritocratic party shifts the focus from winning votes to delivering results. It recruits capable leaders, trains them, and holds them accountable using data—not dynasties, tribes, or slogans.

✅ 2. Neutralizing Corruption with Transparency

The MGP would create a publicly auditable performance dashboard for every official. It embeds anti-corruption not as a campaign slogan but into institutional DNA: audit trails, citizen monitoring apps, open budgets, and promotion only by results.

✅ 3. Ending the Cycle of Foreign Dependence

Countries that constantly depend on IMF bailouts, foreign aid, or remittance economies need systems change, not just funding. A meritocratic government uses capital more wisely, invests in education and infrastructure, and reorients toward long-term sovereignty.

✅ 4. Building States that Survive Conflict

Where civil war has eroded trust, a neutral, performance-based party can depoliticize the state. It offers a technocratic middle path—where competence trumps ethnicity, religion, or factional loyalty.

✅ 5. Post-Capitalist, Post-Ideological Future

Most of these countries don’t need to choose between capitalism or socialism—they need functioning delivery systems. MGP is economically agnostic: if platform cooperatives work better than oligopolies, so be it. If digital land registries prevent corruption, implement them. Ideology is secondary to empirical success.

A Political Framework for Fragile States

Key Features of the Meritocratic Governance Party:

  • Open recruitment from the public, not families or elites

  • Performance-based promotions with public KPIs

  • AI and citizen panels to review public satisfaction

  • Data-driven policymaking with local experimentation zones

  • Hybrid governance: one-party control + participatory mechanisms

  • Mandatory leadership training and ethical education

  • Rotation of officials to prevent entrenched local power

Conclusion: The Time Is Now

The countries listed here are not doomed. They are simply trapped in old political systems that no longer serve their people. Democracy alone does not guarantee good governance. Elections without results breed cynicism. Autocracy without accountability breeds decay.

A Meritocratic Governance Party offers an alternative—one that combines the discipline of technocracy with the wisdom of public input, and the flexibility to evolve beyond ideology.

This is not a fantasy. It is already partially visible in China’s rise, Rwanda’s technocratic state-building, Singapore’s long-term planning, and Estonia’s digital governance. The challenge is to democratize that excellence—without falling into the traps of electoral populism or centralized authoritarianism.

Let the next great political experiment be one of competence, transparency, and moral seriousness—led by those who serve not themselves, but the future.



The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

Velocity Money: Crypto, Karma, and the End of Traditional Economics
The Next Decade of Biotech: Convergence, Innovation, and Transformation
Beyond Motion: How Robots Will Redefine The Art Of Movement
ChatGPT For Business: A Workbook
Becoming an AI-First Organization
Quantum Computing: Applications And Implications
Challenges In AI Safety
AI-Era Social Network: Reimagined for Truth, Trust & Transformation

Remote Work Productivity Hacks
How to Make Money with AI Tools
AI for Beginners

at No comments:
Labels: , ,

China: Meritocracy? Autocracy?

 


Is the Chinese Political System a Meritocracy? A Case for the Argument

When people think of political meritocracy, China might not be the first country that comes to mind. It’s often described as authoritarian, opaque, or top-down. But peel back the layers, and one finds a complex, hierarchical political structure that prizes competence, long-term performance, and technocratic skill—arguably more so than many electoral democracies. In this blog post, we’ll explore the case for why China’s political system can be considered a meritocracy.

1. The Cadre Promotion System: Climbing the Ladder Through Performance

At the heart of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) system is a bureaucracy where advancement is based on track record, not popularity. Party members begin at local levels and must work their way up through township, county, provincial, and eventually national levels. Promotions are tied to the ability to deliver economic growth, maintain social stability, and meet central policy targets.

Unlike in many democracies, where a single charismatic campaign or media surge can propel someone to the highest office, Chinese officials often spend decades moving up the ranks. Xi Jinping himself spent years governing rural provinces like Hebei and Fujian before reaching the top. The system is structured to reward not only loyalty but also proven administrative capability.

2. Technocratic Governance: Engineers Over Ideologues

China has been governed for decades by technocrats—leaders with backgrounds in science, engineering, and economics. The majority of senior CCP leaders have advanced degrees and extensive administrative experience. In fact, China has one of the highest concentrations of PhDs among top government officials.

This technocratic orientation is reflected in long-term planning documents like the Five-Year Plans and in the implementation of ambitious infrastructure and technological goals. Whether one agrees with their policies or not, Chinese leaders are rarely political novices. They are seasoned administrators and planners, groomed over years to think in systemic, data-driven terms.

3. Policy Continuity and Strategic Vision

Democracies often suffer from electoral short-termism—what's popular for the next election, not what’s right for the next decade. China’s political system, insulated from election cycles, enables leaders to pursue long-range policies with consistency. Programs like the Belt and Road Initiative or the Made in China 2025 plan are multi-decade efforts with clear metrics and phased implementation. Such sustained policy execution is difficult without a trained and competent bureaucracy.

Meritocracy here doesn’t mean infallibility, but it does mean that policy is designed and implemented by people with subject-matter expertise, not just political capital.

4. Anti-Corruption and Internal Evaluation

Since coming to power, Xi Jinping has waged a sweeping anti-corruption campaign that has disciplined or removed over 1.5 million officials. While some critics see this as a political purge, many observers agree it has also raised the bar for administrative integrity. Internal CCP evaluations are intense, with data audits, peer reviews, and local satisfaction surveys contributing to promotion decisions.

An official who fails to meet local development goals or is found incompetent is unlikely to advance. Internal feedback mechanisms, although opaque to outsiders, are very real and rigorous within the system.

5. Public Input Without Direct Elections

Contrary to common belief, China’s political system does include mechanisms for citizen feedback. The central government conducts nationwide surveys, collects big data on public sentiment via digital platforms, and tests policy in pilot cities before scaling. This blend of experimentation, feedback, and adaptation allows Chinese leaders to be responsive even without direct electoral accountability.

It’s a different form of legitimacy—performance-based rather than vote-based. And when performance metrics are met, especially in areas like poverty reduction, infrastructure delivery, or technological innovation, the system’s legitimacy is reinforced.

Conclusion: A Different Kind of Meritocracy

China’s political meritocracy is not without flaws—lack of transparency, limited public dissent, and censorship are real and valid concerns. But dismissing the entire system as merely authoritarian overlooks a crucial reality: the Chinese state is run by an elite that, for the most part, has proven its competence over time and risen through a structured merit-based system.

In contrast to systems that prioritize popularity, fundraising, or ideology, China’s model puts a premium on institutional experience, technocratic ability, and delivery of results. Whether one supports or opposes this model, it deserves recognition as an alternative mode of governance—one that claims legitimacy not through ballots, but through outcomes.

Further Reading

  • Daniel A. Bell’s The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy

  • Cheng Li’s work at Brookings on leadership transitions in China

  • Reports on CCP’s cadre evaluation system by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace





China: A Modern Autocracy Disguised in Bureaucratic Rigor

Since the founding of the People's Republic in 1949, China has operated under the absolute control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). While some describe the system as meritocratic, the undeniable truth remains: China is, and has always been, an autocracy—one where power is centralized, dissent is suppressed, and political pluralism is absent. In this blog post, we’ll outline why China’s political system remains fundamentally autocratic, regardless of its administrative complexity or economic performance.

1. Single-Party Rule: No Competition, No Choice

At the core of any democracy is political competition. China, by design, eliminates this entirely. The CCP has maintained an unbroken monopoly on political power since 1949. There are no meaningful elections for national leadership. Citizens cannot vote out the ruling party, criticize it openly, or form independent opposition parties. All seven members of the Politburo Standing Committee—the country’s highest decision-making body—are selected behind closed doors, not by voters.

The absence of political pluralism is the defining trait of an autocracy. In China, power flows from one party and one party alone.

2. Lack of Press Freedom and Civil Liberties

China routinely ranks near the bottom in global press freedom indices. Independent journalism is heavily censored, foreign reporters face increasing restrictions, and Chinese citizens who post dissenting views online are routinely surveilled, detained, or imprisoned.

Freedom of speech, association, and assembly—pillars of any open society—are denied. The 2015 "709 crackdown" on human rights lawyers, the detention of journalists during the COVID-19 outbreak, and the disappearance of whistleblowers all reveal a system that views freedom as a threat, not a right.

Autocracies don’t allow space for public dissent. China’s tight control of information confirms its autocratic nature.

3. A Cult of Leadership, Not Institutional Democracy

China has a long history of strongman politics—first under Mao Zedong, then briefly tempered under Deng Xiaoping’s more collective leadership model. But in recent years, President Xi Jinping has consolidated power to an extent unseen since Mao.

In 2018, China abolished presidential term limits, allowing Xi to rule indefinitely. His name and political ideology—Xi Jinping Thought—have been enshrined in the constitution, studied in schools, and invoked in every major policy speech. This personalization of power is textbook autocracy.

Rather than a rule of law, China practices rule by leader.

4. Opaque Governance and Lack of Accountability

China’s decision-making process is shrouded in secrecy. The CCP's top bodies deliberate in private, without public oversight, transparency, or media access. Citizens have no way to hold leaders accountable through judicial review, legislative inquiry, or the ballot box.

Autocracies rely on centralized, opaque authority—and China exemplifies this with a governance structure that demands loyalty, not accountability.

Even when policies fail (as seen in the early mishandling of COVID-19 or harsh zero-COVID lockdowns), there are no public reckonings. Internal party loyalty takes precedence over public responsibility.

5. Repression in the Name of “Stability”

From the crackdown in Tiananmen Square in 1989 to the internment of over a million Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, the Chinese state has repeatedly used mass repression to maintain its grip on power.

In Hong Kong, the promise of “One Country, Two Systems” was gutted by the National Security Law of 2020, which criminalized dissent and led to the closure of newspapers, the arrest of pro-democracy activists, and the silencing of civil society.

An autocracy isn’t just defined by how leaders are chosen—it’s defined by how power is preserved. In China, repression is a feature, not a bug.

6. No Real Checks and Balances

There is no independent judiciary in China. Courts serve the party. The military answers to the CCP, not to the state or people. Legislatures, like the National People’s Congress, act as rubber stamps rather than deliberative bodies.

A system without institutional checks is not just undemocratic—it is autocratic. All power in China ultimately flows upward to a single apex: the CCP leadership.

Conclusion: Administrative Efficiency Doesn’t Equal Political Freedom

While China’s government is often described as efficient, technocratic, or even meritocratic, these traits do not negate its autocratic nature. A competent bureaucracy does not make a regime democratic. The absence of political competition, civil liberties, and public accountability is conclusive.

China today is not transitioning toward democracy; it is deepening its authoritarian model. The fusion of surveillance technology, censorship, and centralized leadership is creating a 21st-century autocracy—smarter, faster, and more data-driven, but no less repressive.

To mistake this for meritocracy is to confuse method with morality. What China has built is not a meritocracy—it is an autocracy with performance metrics.

Further Reading

  • Freedom House’s Annual Reports on China’s Freedom Score

  • Human Rights Watch reports on repression in Xinjiang and Hong Kong

  • The Party: The Secret World of China’s Communist Rulers by Richard McGregor




China's Political System: Between Meritocracy and Autocracy — The Case for Reform

China’s political system defies easy labels. It has elements of both meritocracy and autocracy, blending technocratic governance with strict one-party control. The Communist Party of China (CCP) governs over 1.4 billion people with a model that has delivered remarkable economic results and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty—yet it has also drawn widespread criticism for repressing dissent, lacking transparency, and concentrating power in a closed elite.

In this synthesis, we examine both sides of the debate—China as a meritocracy and China as an autocracy—and explore what meaningful political reform could look like in a uniquely Chinese context. We argue that reform is not only possible without dismantling one-party rule, but may be necessary to maintain long-term stability and global legitimacy.

The Case for Meritocracy

  1. Bureaucratic Skill Over Popularity
    China’s officials must climb through years of service, often starting at the local level. Their promotions are based on performance in metrics like GDP growth, infrastructure delivery, and policy execution. In this sense, China’s political class is trained, vetted, and evaluated—unlike many democracies where electoral charisma can sometimes outweigh competence.

  2. Technocratic Governance
    Engineers, economists, and policy wonks dominate the leadership ranks. China’s government plans decades ahead and executes mega-projects like high-speed rail, urbanization, and green energy at breakneck speed. Data-driven feedback loops and digital experimentation zones (like Shenzhen) add to this technocratic strength.

  3. Poverty Reduction and Economic Planning
    China's centralized system enabled an unprecedented, state-led campaign to eradicate extreme poverty. The success of this effort underscores the potential of a meritocratic apparatus when aligned with national goals.

The Case for Autocracy

  1. No Electoral Legitimacy or Political Competition
    The CCP allows no alternative parties or competitive national elections. Political power is concentrated at the top, and the general public has no formal say in leadership transitions or national policy direction.

  2. Censorship and Control
    Freedom of speech, media, and assembly are heavily restricted. Social credit systems, mass surveillance, and repression in regions like Xinjiang and Hong Kong are hallmarks of an authoritarian state.

  3. Personality Cult and Lifetime Leadership
    The removal of term limits for Xi Jinping in 2018 marked a regression in institutionalization. China has tilted from collective leadership back toward strongman politics, a trend that increases the risks of internal stagnation and public discontent.

A Balanced View: Dynamic but Rigid

China’s political system is effective but brittle. It produces competent administrators, but limits public feedback and constrains innovation in civil society. It executes policy with precision, but often without consent. This mix of strengths and weaknesses means that while China has outperformed many peers economically, its system faces internal pressures that could make future reform essential.

Why Reform Is Necessary—and Possible

  1. Performance Legitimacy Isn’t Forever
    The CCP’s legitimacy currently rests on its performance—growth, jobs, national pride. But what happens when growth slows, inequality rises, or global crises emerge? Without channels for grievance and adaptation, discontent can fester beneath the surface.

  2. Capitalism Has Already Altered the Foundation
    China today is not a communist economy in any traditional sense. Markets, private property, entrepreneurship, and billionaires are pillars of the system. The ideological core has already shifted. Political reforms wouldn’t be the first major transformation—economic reforms were.

  3. The CCP Has Considered Reform Before
    In the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping’s reforms included internal debate over separating Party and state, rotating leadership, and institutionalizing checks to prevent Mao-style excess. Although these efforts largely stalled post-Tiananmen, they show that reform has long been part of the CCP’s internal discourse.

What Political Reform Might Look Like (Within One-Party Rule)

  1. Intra-Party Democracy
    Open up CCP internal elections to greater competition and transparency. Allow multiple candidates for Party leadership roles, encourage debates, and let rank-and-file members have a voice.

  2. Independent Judiciary
    A judiciary that is loyal to the Constitution, not just the Party, would offer rule of law protections while maintaining Party rule at the top.

  3. Decentralized Governance
    Empower local governments with greater autonomy to experiment with policies, thus creating a laboratory of democracy without national-level pluralism.

  4. Public Feedback Mechanisms
    Formalize channels for public petitions, deliberative councils, and citizen juries on key issues. This is already happening in limited forms—scale it up.

  5. Media Freedoms Within Boundaries
    Allow a professional, independent press to report on corruption, pollution, and mismanagement. This would strengthen the system by exposing flaws early.

  6. Reinstitute Term Limits
    Re-establishing leadership turnover rules would reduce the risk of power monopolies and signal a return to institutional governance.

Political Reform as Evolution, Not Revolution

Reform does not have to mean Western-style liberal democracy. In fact, the most sustainable path for China may be gradual evolution within the framework of one-party rule. China can modernize politically just as it did economically—pragmatically, cautiously, and in its own way.

If reforms focus on governance quality, rights protection, and institutional resilience rather than on importing foreign models, they may even strengthen the CCP’s legitimacy. The goal need not be to abandon one-party rule, but to improve the Party’s responsiveness, adaptability, and moral authority.

Conclusion: The Reform Imperative

China’s political system is a paradox of efficiency and repression, of talent and control. The CCP's strength has always been its ability to adapt. That adaptability now demands political reform. Without it, the risks of stagnation, resistance, and legitimacy crisis grow.

The tools are already in China’s hands: data, talent, economic dynamism, and a long tradition of statecraft. Reform is not a concession to the West; it’s an investment in China’s own future. A more open, resilient, and participatory system would not weaken China—it would unleash its full potential.

Further Reading

  • The China Model by Daniel A. Bell

  • From Deng to Xi: Economic Reform and the Limits of Authoritarian Adaptation by Barry Naughton

  • Brookings Institution papers on intra-party reform and governance innovation in China




The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

Velocity Money: Crypto, Karma, and the End of Traditional Economics
The Next Decade of Biotech: Convergence, Innovation, and Transformation
Beyond Motion: How Robots Will Redefine The Art Of Movement
ChatGPT For Business: A Workbook
Becoming an AI-First Organization
Quantum Computing: Applications And Implications
Challenges In AI Safety
AI-Era Social Network: Reimagined for Truth, Trust & Transformation

Remote Work Productivity Hacks
How to Make Money with AI Tools
AI for Beginners

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

3: Russia

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)