Change, Change, Change
May 21st, 2008
Granted i am writing about why Maoists won in Nepal, is not particularly a business and entrepreneural blog, I am non the less writing.
Business and innovation is affected by the external environment and that environment needs to be studied carefully and bet made on the directions it is leading.
When the situation of “hope” becomes so dry, and strained, people run for the last breath. and I feel in this breath are the words “Change, Change” Change”. At any cost !
Thats what people of Nepal voted for, when after 16 years of supposedly democratic Nepal faltered again and again. with more than 1 prime minister for every year that passed (on average), who didn’t want change !
Young and old (mostly young) are fed up with the status quo. They are willing to embrace change, even though it might lead to a treacherous path. They have not much to lose (so the people seem to feel).
Who represents change here. Only the Maoists. Every other party in the equation seems to be rooted (or rotten) in “status quo”.
while radical change brings new uncertainities, people of Nepal are willing to experiment one more time.
their hope for change is maybe change will get them “economic prosperity”. Till now its all promises, they are willing to give their support to any voice that shouts for change! that desperate the situation is.
“My village has only old women and young children. All others have gone outside to work in Arab countries. such that in one case, one young drunk and bully scares the whole village of 100 families and there are none to oppose him.
Why wouldn’t they want something different than this”
Fear, Fear, Fear:
May 15th, 2008
“Fear” “Fear” “Fear”
Maoists used the concept of “fear” in their marketing. (( has worked in republican campaigns in the past 8 years in US.. you get the idea from george bush election wins).. effectively….
If the Republicans in USA could win the US elections using “fear” as one of their main campaign tools, Maoist have learnt a lot from them.
Fear-mongering is an effective elections tool, specially in the midst of vulnerable ones. And Nepalis are vulnerable. Poor, marginalized, helpless in most cases, you respond to marketeers of fear, the fastest, i suppose.
They used it with one simple marketing logic, one: “If we don’t win, the country is back in chaos.”
which for most people meant:
” Maoists will ask for forced donations of food and other materials that directly affect the village people and poor”
“Maoists will target us instead of the “physically stronger” government”
which led to the “better them than us” logic which translates into “better loot the crappy government in Kathmandu than us”.
Also the another logic of fear is that Maoists are here to clean a society that is decaying fast. The fear of being on the decayed side prompted many young people to vote for them. People were fearful of being in “status quo”.
Ujw
which leads to a 3rd factor which many young and old people wanted:
“Change, Change, Change at any cost since we are all nearly broke anyway.”
background: I went back and stayed at my remote village in syangja for 21 days, mostly spending time between hundreds of old men and women and village youths, children and local polititicians. ( Most young men and middle aged men have gone abroad to earn money -mostly to the Middle east – Arab – countries to work as laborers). Here is my analysis
My opinions:
concept 1:
-
Youth, Youth, Youth
When overwhelming majority of people in Nepal are youth, you market to them. these are your customers. on a volume based market, you selectively go for the strategy to suit the largest section of the pie. Not the old, not the rich, not professionals (they are a tiny minority).
Maoists marketed to Youth, strongly, blatently, fiercely and unashamedly
others marketed to …….zzzzzzz (unclear)
Nepali congress / UML used “status quo” and “brand image” .. bad marketing when your brand value is near zero.
They said “trust us” by acting as wise old men. The forgot young people have stopped believing in the old wise man. That is so, one generation old !!!
p.s Marketeers have to serve, not try to rule. How rude !
Maoists became “inclusive”. (i.e you can get us votes, we will make you a candidate) ( Maoists have a huge number of youths elected now)
other parties became “exclusive”. (if you are not my nephew, don’t bother or if you aren’t this close or that close to certain leaders, forget it, we don’t want you, or if you are not old enough in the party, don’t bother)
the brilliant utilization of youth in every sector of the campaign, legally or illegally doesn’t matter, for our question, made Maoists win, while others lose.
If the other parties can’t get cue from this, they will get lesser votes next elections around. Maoists are youth centric party, they will only get better in the coming days as far as vote gathering goes.
watch that!
more analysis on later blogs..
“Fear” “Fear” “Fear”
Maoists used the concept of “fear” in their marketing. (( has worked in republican campaigns in the past 8 years in US.. you get the idea from george bush election wins).. effectively…
to be continued…
