The dance of paradigms
The government regulations over the economic and social frameworks have occupied a significant chunk of policy-making and intrigue countless. The discourse of public autonomy and privately run organisations is indefinite and two heads of a sword. While the government stipend ensures a traceable fall-back mechanism, a private entity brings more fluidity and independence in authority. In a classic debate between capitalism and socialism, a set pattern of governance rarely puts the wheels in motion to determine or undermine what makes an economy.
A far-reaching but similar question that arises is the international community’s interference in some particular national affairs. The constant provocations that certain politically heated countries regularly face due to their vulnerable turf have resulted in their deterioration and has rendered them helpless on an international pedestal. Rather recent examples of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, and Syria signify how constant dependency upon international favours and subsidies can sometimes bereft nations of their individuality, leave them paralysed for decades altogether. Something more questionable and shady is the crafty manipulation of a few nations that strong hand such gullible economies. Their ulterior motives that drive these countries to delusion include commodities in both cash and kind.
Interference in public policy by private bystanders holds the same vitality in general debate and deliberation. Constant apprehension of providing these stakeholders with an inlet in decision-making is nonetheless, justified. As per statistics in the Indian context, a staggering 85% of the derailed PPP ventures fall back on the government’s laps alone, since reprivatising them doesn’t find the appropriate takers. More often than not, when any entity begins to step inside the spartan public arena, there is expected to be a more holistic approach in their dealings and perhaps a more inclusive outlook that calls for immense intent and character in business models. On the other hand, it is a no-brainer that the private shareholders’ cash inflows compared to those procured by public undertakings are insurmountable. With a better and more focused sense in marketing and building a crucial brand image for their own good, a private inclusion calls for an innate and inherent revamp in business maxims.
Moving back to the dilemma faced by certain nations; interference in national politics do not necessarily have to be an intrusion of intervention in physical forms. The curious case of Iraq and the United States in the early 2000s lays down serious questions about the international community’s authority to a handful of member nations. Sheer suspicion and doubt over the possession of WMDs paved the way for the convulsion of a nation into an endless timelapse of tyranny and calls for serious retrospection. When internal participants do not shy away from raising questions related to their interior politics, a tunnel is dug for external onlookers to fulfil their underlying commitments. Therefore, it is a matter of prime gravitas when the issues pertaining to the four walls of a parliament are deemed to be raised on international platforms.
In essence, whether or not to channelize internal affairs in the hands of a third party is a dogma that calls for serious introspection and foreboding. At times, the only reason such inclusion may bear fruit is perhaps the rudimentary benefits which these parties may have of their own. However, this does not mean that private/international partnerships do not rise out of general goodwill. As a constant demarcation between the reclusive nature of public standing and the benefits that come with another player in power is made, it is only wise to be analysing and weighing the stakes involved as there is no positioned formula for a healthy and flourishing organisation.
