The Triumphant Politics of Joyful Change

Introduction

Indian politicians and political parties have been mimicking their US counterparts for the past decade or so. 

For example, they have learnt that astutely devised narratives built on great research help. Mr. Modi is supposedly to have hired an international PR agency – APCO, and this was later denied by APCO, to build a narrative and an image that glossed over some of his questionable past. O&M and Soho Square came up with quite brilliant lines as slogans including ‘ab ki baar Modi sarkar’ (this time around, a Modi government), and ‘Chalo chale Modi ke saath’ (Let’s go with Modi). Now, we have the ruling party questioning the birth certificate of its opposition leader – quite similar to tactics deployed by Trump against Obama. 

Politics in India has become increasingly fractious, fragmenting, and really quite depressing as one witnesses both sides of the aisle indulging in taunts, insults, and gimmicks – the August 15^th speech by Modi Ji was as infantile as some of the actions of the opposition in the parliament.

However, there seems to be a new trend in US politics that should be and ought to be mimicked by our political honchos as well – and that of the politics of ‘Joy’ where Kamala Harris and Tim Walz pair up for the DNC and speak with the American middle class (and not speak down to). While the wave of Joy is quite surreal and some commentators say that it has plateaued – the sheer energy brought in Harris and Walz is quite palpable.

Is the wave of Joy being strategically deployed for the first time – will it augur well for a divided nation such as USA? Will it bring Change? These questions are not merely political but are crucial to anyone who is looking at change in organizations and systems. 

In this blog, let me take you back in history, when a man from Midwest (like Tim Walz) strived to bring in a politics of joyousness, never reticent when it came to talking about politics and about religion (two things avoided in most corporations today, and avoided as hell) – a man who reached the office of the Vice President – a flawed man and a flawed politician but who still made an impact in similarly fractious times and not so long ago.

Part 1

An Ode to the ‘Happy Warrior’

The politics of Hubert H Humphrey Jr.

Hubert Humphrey Jr. served as the Vice President (like Kamala Harris) between 1965 and 1969 – he sought to win a ticket for presidency in earlier years and was beaten each time (including by JFK) and in his final battle as the Democrat nominee in 1968 – he lost the presidential elections to Richard Nixon.

In his book – ‘The Politics of Joy’, the author Charles Garrettson III, refers to Humphrey as an idealist, who sought to integrate the two personas within – that of the Saint – who may dream and construct his ideal world, and the Political Man – who wields power, and must live in the pit of reality, doing his very best and yet reconcile to the limited and to the partial. If there was ever an inherent tension between the idealistic saint / philosopher and the powerful real world of the politician, Humphrey would claim to have strived for inner balance and the consequent fatigue and inner dilemmas.

Like many families, the depression wreaked havoc in Humphrey’s early years – he spoke of his father weeping for the first time, as they had to lose their two-storeyed house – he was just 16 years old himself, and saw his jolly vigorous father break down. But this sorrow was shortlived, as “his father showed no discernible ounce of acrimony, or defeatism after this humiliation – his father right till his death, had an undiminished appetite for life, and in accepting the bitter with the sweet.”  It was this and many other personal lessons by watching his father that defined his politics. He spoke of two stories that emphasise on these – 

“One day, a friend of mine and I went into the drugstore. I said, “Dad, Jonathan here does not have any shoes, and his feet are so cold, they are blue.” My father took one look, pushed the No Sales key on the register, took out some money, and walked Jonathan down the street to buy him woollen socks and a pair of sturdy shoes.”

My father did that kind of thing in a way that was not an act of charity – simply a matter of elemental justice and fairness. Years later, during the depression, when he cancelled thirteen thousand dollars’ worth of debts at our drugstore – money we needed sorely to pay our own bills – he shrugged it off with the same humane attitude. He coupled it with business rationalization: “Hubert, if they owe money, they can’t pay, they will be too embarrassed to come into the store. This way at least they feel easier about coming in”.

Three tenets – a humanistic stance, doing one’s part, and egalitarianism that founded the politics of Joy for Humphrey – lessons that he learnt in early life. By doing one’s part – Humphrey referred to the need to actfor the community. The three tenets enabled Humphrey to build a dream.

Humphrey’s greatest achievement was of his role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where he fought the Southern Democrats and their ‘way of life’ (they formed the Dixiecrat party within Democrats) and spoke avidly and tirelessly for the minority plank. He is said to have said – “To those who say, my friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years too late … and that the democratic party should walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.” It was Humphrey who proved that the Democratic party could win presidential elections (Truman won) without the ‘Solid South’. Another significant contribution – often credited to Kennedy was Humphrey’s role in creating the Peace Corps, as well his work on Medicare.

For all his achievements, it was Humphrey’s silence (and complete loyalty to President Lyndon Johnson) on the Vietnam War that brought out his flaws and exposed his deep desire to win presidency at the cost of his expressed values. He refused to condemn Johnson’s policies and paid a price in terms of losing his identity as the Happy Warrior and his dream. 

Nonetheless, his meteoric rise from South Dakota, and some of his great achievements are noteworthy and so is his refusal to become cankerous, divisive, and judgmental.

The 1968 Democrat Conference is remembered for ugliness and fragmentation – when his name was proposed after much outrage as Lyndon Johnson did not even make it to the summit after his first four years. At least Joe Biden was given tearful and much deserved farewell, having resurrected the economy after Trump and Coronavirus.

Part 2

CHANGE and the notion of ‘Joyful Change’

The politics of Change in Organizational Systems

While like many of us who still believe in democracy, and are avidly watching the outcome of US Presidential elections on November 6^th, and hoping to see Kamala Harris and Tim Walz win, it is useful to explore the politics of Change in organizations. One also hopes that Indian politicians also refer to the energy that joy can provide as opposed to demagoguery and manufactured narratives that only create more rage.

It is often said (and quite cliched) that Change is ‘painful’ and the oft repeated line – no pain, no gain – gets quite cacophonic in my head, I was wondering about what it means when we speak of ‘joyous change’. The other day Commodore Mahapatra wrote a poem highlighting levels of consciousness inspired by Indian philosophy– from that of a reactive consumer, to that of wisdom, and finally the acme of blissful existence, joyful change has me quite spurred.

As a consultant working with my clients on Change, I do emphasize on the Dream and how the dream can guide dissatisfaction with the current context and energize us to overcome inner and systemic resistance.

But In Organizational Change – the ‘dream’ becomes imbued with wealth and market demands if not overwhelmed. The dream loses its humanistic, fair, and inclusive dimensions and sounds more like a business goal. Joyful living, sustainability, and environmental concerns rarely get integrated into strategic visions and goals.

I am currently working on an assignment working with a global firm that is aspiring to co-hold the idealism and the pragmatics of survival – and as a consultant, often ask myself – what is my philosophy of change? Is it joyful or is it contextually challenging and energised through paranoia, anxiety, and vigilance.

It is quite a tightrope that we all walk on when it comes to change – should change be evocative or spurred by provocation? 

Part 3

EUM Lens to ‘Joyful Change’

For those of us who love the EUM framework

Ashok Malhotra, the creator the EUM framework (www.eumlens.in), refers to an inherent complexity within living systems where Change and consequent politics of change are impacted by multiple concurrent and sometimes unconsciously subscribed to ideologies within.

Very often the dream is regressive – a romanticization of the past when the leader is bereft of new ideas and evocation – and the universe of Clan holds the system as a captive, as captivated are its employees obstinately holding on to the strands of protection and continuity the past promises.

There are many who are energized by the Arena thread – bringing in passion, excitement, and narratives imbued with courageous warlike stances – but these narratives often create consequent paranoia and imbue the change agent as an omnipotent egoistic superman… arenas create fearful change and fearful resistances.

Networks in the EUM construct refer to the purposive but extremely transactional strands of the dream within – change is seen as something entirely construed on innovation, perfection, ambition, and purposive. Perhaps the tang-ping movement speaks of the resistance to this well-subscribed philosophy of change.

Lastly joyful change perhaps gets resonance from the Ecology strand – it can lose its impact if romantic idealism overwhelms what Humphrey speaks of – living in the pit of the organization and sometimes even willing to accept partial movement and partial impact.

What I love about the framework is the structure and the narratives around each of the five strands that make up the organizational identity and how the deconstruction and work with each strand makes Change as a process more dialogic and inclusive. Joyful change perhaps can be a reality, if one works on all five strands.