What Motivates a Political Leader to Lead Amid Crisis?

An implicit incentive for achievement is related to business performance, particularly in entrepreneurial or sales positions. However, an incentive for accomplishment is not correlated with political success; tacit motivation for power also predicts political success. Loss of control could be a crucial contrast between business and politics. But then, what motivates a political leader to lead amid a crisis?

In politics, success appears to be predicted by the desire for power rather than the incentive for achievement. In the US, the enticement scores for presidential strength are strongly linked to historians’ ratings of presidential grandeur and the making of great decisions. Presidential charisma is also favourably correlated with the desire for influence and negatively related to motivation for accomplishment. Achievement-motivated presidents are slightly weaker in terms of political ability and emotional intelligence. Besides, presidents inspired by motivation should not lack vision and determination. There exists an active-negative trend in which the president aggressively tries to do something, but gets dissatisfied, dislikes the task, and ends up defeating himself.

Continue reading “What Motivates a Political Leader to Lead Amid Crisis?”

International Day of Non-Violence 2020: Say No to Violence

The International Day of Non-Violence is observed on 2 October, the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the Indian independence movement and pioneer of the philosophy and strategy of non-violence.

According to General Assembly resolution A/RES/61/271 of 15 June 2007, which established the commemoration, the International Day is an occasion to “disseminate the message of non-violence, including through education and public awareness”. The resolution reaffirms “the universal relevance of the principle of non-violence” and the desire “to secure a culture of peace, tolerance, understanding and non-violence”.

Continue reading “International Day of Non-Violence 2020: Say No to Violence”

Parti Malin’s One-Man Show: A Political Entertainment, Diversion, or the Making of a Sweet Forbidden Fruit?

Look at most well-known politicians and you’re bound to see some kind of reason behind their entry into politics. They were passionate about bringing change, they felt they could correct the injustice facing their fellow countrymen or they felt they could make a difference.

I say ‘most’ because there are still those politicians out there whose entries into the world of politics are or were fuelled purely by some or other self-serving reason.

Continue reading “Parti Malin’s One-Man Show: A Political Entertainment, Diversion, or the Making of a Sweet Forbidden Fruit?”

Animal Welfare & Rights: Mauritius Youth Parliament, Session 1

This house believes that animals have rights.

The claim that animals have ‘rights’ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. Often the same organisations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal welfare might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right.

This session of the Mauritius Youth Parliament (MYP) is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details.

Since the notion of rights was developed, society has slowly moved to include more and more groups under the protection of those rights. It seems absurd now to suggest that women, the poor, and people who are not Caucasian should not have rights. Some argue that it is equally absurd to exclude animals. Will we someday regard the status quo as equally unethical as the time of slavery and female oppression? Or do rights only extend as far as the human race? Can we treat animals in a more ethical fashion without giving them rights? What would change if we did give animals rights?

A note on strategy

Many harms can be identified by the proposition in this debate session. We frequently harm animals when we eat meat, wear leather or fur, engage in battery/factory farming, engage in horse-racing, scientific testing, hunting, trapping, and culling or keep animals in zoos and circuses. We even harm our own pets when we put them down, refuse to provide expensive medical treatment, over or under feed them, neglect to pay them attention, keep them in small enclosures, keep them in our handbags or cars or force them to perform in shows, wear clothes etc.

We need to protect animals with rights. The proposition will have to make some decisions as to which of these activities they want to protect animals against. They need also to decide which rights they will grant animals. Will it be all rights that human beings have? Will it be only the right to life?

YUVA argues that the only right animals need is the right not to be considered property.

The opposition does not have to argue that we can do whatever we want to animals. They may argue that we have only indirect duties to animals or that we should still avoid cruelty to animals but should not give them rights.


YUVA invites the public at large to attend the first session of the Mauritius Youth Parliament (MYP) to discuss Animal Welfare, on Friday 25 September 2015 at 9:00hr, Council Room of Municipality of Port Louis.


Download Facebook cover design here.