strategy - YUVA

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.

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”.

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.

NO to Corporate Social Responsibility, YES to Personal Social Responsibility: YUVA New Strategy

In its first session of the Central Committee meeting on 11 October 2015 at YUVA Head Office, YUVA has decided to adopt and implement the Personal Social Responsibility spirit in the organisation.

One of the key areas of interest of YUVA has always been how YUVANs as individuals and groups can improve Mauritius and the world. To YUVA, it is all about addressing how we live our lives and the impact we have on everything and everyone around us, both locally and globally.

The time has come when we cannot just rely on others – each one of us has to do our bit. Increasingly companies, or better said corporate social responsibility grants, are becoming more political and business-driven in Mauritius. It is now time for people to be more and more aware about their Personal Social Responsibility (PSR).

YUVA firmly believe that PSR is an idea whose time has come.

YUVA President Krishna Athal says, “As we marked the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi (2 October) this month, bear in mind his oft repeated quote “Be the Change you wish to see in the world”. From the being, comes the doing and ultimately the having. So we now have the message “Do the change you wish to see in the world”. Taking this as the foundation of our though process, YUVA is pleased to announce the adoption of the Personal Social Responsibility spirit in its operation at all levels.”

PSR is all about doing to others what you would like others do to you. It is about recognising how your behaviour affects others, and holding yourself accountable for your actions.

Definition of Personal Social Responsibility

From his acclaimed book entitled “Personal Social Responsibility,” author Arvind Devalia defines this concept in terms of the golden rule as well as “recognising how your behaviour affects others, and holding yourself accountable for your actions.” He goes on to say that the key question we must ask ourselves if we are going to have personal social responsibility is whether or not our actions will improve the lives of others.

Pay It Forward

A key element of personal social responsibility is endeavouring to have a positive impact on other people and the environment. When individuals strive to make positive contributions, they are acting in a personally responsible way to society. By recognising that our every action and utterance impacts those around us, we become more conscious of our words and actions and therefore are more likely to act in a socially responsible way. For example, being kind to a stranger increases the likelihood that the stranger will be kind to someone else, creating a chain reaction of kindness whereby people are being treated well and paying it forward.

Personal Social Responsibility Overcomes Corporate Social Responsibility

YUVA has decided to not apply for any CSR grant in Mauritius. Instead, a new scheme is being put forward: every YUVAN or non-YUVAN who believes in the vision and work of YUVA would contribute an amount of Rs 50/- every month to the organisation. This would increase transparency since this money would be directly transferred from two bank accounts through standing order (banking), and also create a sense of belonging between the contributor and YUVA.

What happens, at the end of the day, is that every individual would opt for PSR rather than waiting for a company to contribute in bringing change in their life.

If you wish to be a contributor, click here.

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.

Invitation

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.